An inevitable clash between belief and science - virgin birth of Jesus

You might be surprised to know that the Quran refers to the virgin birth of Jesus.  In fact, it is a requirement of the Islamic faith to believe in this.

So how to reconcile a virgin birth with science? I don't think you can.  You can talk of assexual reproduction but do we have any scientific examples of this in humans? This is an issue that you either believe or you do not. There is no scientific basis (as we know to today) to explain this. So how come some people believe and others do not? This issue is dealt with in the Quran itself.

Quran - Surah Maryam 19:16 - 34

The Quran reveals that Mary was visited by the Angel Gabriel and she conceived a son.  Mary says

"How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste" [19:20].

When Mary is experiencing the pains of childbirth she says

"Would that I died before this and had been forgotten and out of sight" [19:23].

Why is Mary saying this? She recognises the embarrassment of her situation - she is chaste - untouched by man but yet she is pregnant. What will her family think? What will the community think? We can easily imagine her predicament even in our relatively liberal times.  Note that Mary wishes she was dead. Indeed, when Mary returns to her people with the new born Jesus they say

"O sister of Aaron (Harun), your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman" [19:28].

What are her people saying to Mary? What is the inference? If we imagine any young girl in this position today what would you think? So you can see the question of believing the virgin birth was at the very beginning, at the time of Jesus' birth. No need for a scientific perspective, the inference is clear.

For a moment, imagine the event replayed today with someone you know, someone who you believe (or believed) was chaste. Would you believe them?  Would you think I believe that the young girl believes her story but maybe something happened that she didn't recollect?  What a test?

I believe Mary. Why do I believe Mary? I believe the Quran is God (Allah) inspired and it contains no errors. I also believe that this event (or story if you disbelieve) would not have been recorded in history if it didn't have other corroborating factors. Indeed, how many teenage pregnancies have occurred throughout the ages?  Why did this event (or story) stick? Why are we talking about it today? Well, it just so happened that the child born to Mary did turn out to be a very special man - I don't think there is much doubt or at least any evidence to show that Mary was not the mother of Jesus. Isn't it a coincidence that the boy born of virgin birth came to be a significant figure in our history (not to mention the three main monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Doesn't this mean something? Isn't it a bit more than a coincidence?

Have you any experience of speaking to an innocent person charged with a crime but they cannot prove they didn't do it? Usually, there will be additional data points to point to the truth. Is the person usually honest? Science cannot in all circumstances determine the truth of a particular event.

What I find amazing about the mentioning of the virgin birth of Jesus in the Quran is that it (to my mind) succinctly describes Mary's predicament. Imagine, Mary, the mother of a prophet, visited by the Angel Gabriel, wishing she was dead because of her virgin pregnancy. The Quran shows that this was a difficult matter to explain. Look at the reaction of Mary's people.

"O sister of Aaron (Harun), your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman" [19:28].

What are Mary's people saying? We can imagine.

So, do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus? Science will not help you believe. All we have to go on is that Mary was reported to be a young girl of unblemished character, a pious young lady. We have her word (assuming you don't doubt that she claimed this). We have the fact that the child born of the event was a remarkable figure. A coincidence? And for Muslims, we have this recorded in the Quran which we believe to be the infallible word of God (Allah).

I would be interested to know if Christians believe in the virgin birth? Do they really believe? Notwithstanding the fact that to believe is to fly in the face of our scientific understanding today. For those who do not believe what are they saying? What is the evidence not to believe Mary?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After posting this post I received a good deal of feedback as to why some people do believe Mary and the virgin birth of Jesus. Let's look at how such people believe?

Well, let's look at the facts.  That's right, FACTS.  The fact is that Mary gave birth to a significant person in history. Putting aside whether Jesus was a prophet (as believed by Muslims) or son of God (as believed by Christians), Jesus is an amazing historical figure. How many of us know of Jesus? How many other historical figures do we know?  What are the chances of a claim of virgin birth AND the child who is born of such birth being such a remarkable figure?  When we say remarkable, how remarkable? Well, a person who has a religion based on him - that religion is the largest in the World - plus Jesus is honoured in the second largest religion in the World. So when we say a significant historical figure - perhaps one of the most significant historical figures.

Is all of this a coincidence? It would be such a remarkable coincidence that you have to say that a coincidence is unlikely.  Surely, more than coincidence?  So if not coincidence?

Who wrote the bible?

It seems to me that the science proves religion wrong debate is based largely on finding scientific errors in the Bible and then using this to show that the Bible cannot be divine and therefore dismissing the entire notion that a "creator" was responsible for creating the universe, the Earth and mankind. This led me to thinking who wrote the Bible? Is the Bible the word of God? Is it God inspired? Is it correct in every aspect?

The book "Who Wrote The Bible?" by Richard Elliott Friedman provides a scholarly analysis of who wrote the Bible and, based on evidence, shows that for the first five books of the old testament that there is a strong case to show that a number of different authors wrote the Bible. Indeed, Mr Friedman shows how different authors wrote/compiled the first 5 books of the Bible in accordance with their own social and political perspectives. This isn't cheap shot at dismissing the authenticity of the Bible, it is a scholarly study based on evidence.

If we take the evidence presented by Mr Friedman as authentic (and I have no reason to doubt this) it is clear that the Bible, or at least the first 5 books, were not written by a prophet of God, certainly it appears they were not written by the prophet Moses.

Indeed, Mr Friedman's conclusions are mentioned in the Quran: 2:79

Sahih International: So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

Pickthall: Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

Yusuf Ali: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

Shakir: Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

Muhammad Sarwar: Woe to those who write the Book themselves and say, "This is from God," so that they may sell it for a small price! Woe unto them for what they have done and for what they have gained!

Mohsin Khan: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby. 

Arberry: So woe to those who write the Book with their hands, then say, 'This is from God,' that they may sell it for a little price; so woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for their earnings.

This is not to belittle the Bible or to cheaply say that the Quran is better than the Bible. It is agreed amongst the biblical scholars that no one knows who wrote the Bible. This is an important fact when considering whether it contains a divine message.  Whilst one could say that the Bible is "God inspired" and leave it at that - it seems absurd to do this when the historical evidence appears to show that editing and refinement took place - by whom we do not know - for what purpose - we can only guess at.  

If we therefore have doubts over the divinity of the Bible we therefore cannot simply say that scientific errors in the Bible mean there isn't a creator.  The scientific errors in the Bible would, if anything, suggest that the Bible isn't divine. Finding the Bible to be error strewn isn't proof that the universe wasn't created by an intelligent designer. 

The Quran in comparison has a much clearer history with less doubt as to its authorship.  I would also say that I am unaware of any clear contradictions in the Quran to scientific facts.  Indeed, Islam has never had the aversion to science that Christianity has had.  If anything, we can see from the historical record that after the revelation of the Quran there was a burst of scientific knowledge. Did you know that the names of stars have Arabic origins? 

Does the finding of an extinct human like species really mean that there isn't a creator?

The Independent ran an article today with the heading "Sorry creationists, but scientists have found an entirely new species of human" (see the above screen shot).

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/sorry-creationists-but-scientists-have-found-an-entirely-new-species-of-human--ZJG6L_Gk8e?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100

This led me to ask myself - is this really the case? Does the finding of an extinct species mean there is no creator? Well, I don't think this is the case. From a scientific perspective, there is no "science" to prove that there is no creator. At best, the case is inferential, the inference being that humans gradually evolved from pre-human species. Again, what is the scientific evidence for this? I think it is fair to say that this isn't conclusive.

The fossil record hasn't really shown the gradual evolution - the fossil record seems to show long periods of stasis (no change) with species appearing fully formed and then departing into extinction. Defenders of the view that there is no creator (based on the inferences of evolution) say that we are lucky to have the fossils that we have and that it would be foolish to think we will ever have a complete record to show the gradual evolution of one species into another. However, such a view of itself isn't "scientific".

From an Islamic perspective it is clear that Allah created man.  Does this mean Allah created man by the process of evolution and natural selection? Was man placed on the Earth fully formed? These are questions I will explore and hopefully proffer an answer. Certainly, for now, I don't think we can say that the finding of extinct human like species means that there isn't a creator.

The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and its scientific pretensions - David Berlinski

A great read - an erudite and witty examination of a variety of arguments that science proves there is no God. David Berlinski shows from a scientific and philosophical perspective the case against God isn't anywhere near as conclusive as other "scientists" would have us believe.

It amazes me how the atheist scientists don't seem to address the weaknesses in their own arguments and from this they lose credibility.

David Berlinski makes the point (very neatly) that it is difficult to call our recent history "enlightened" when we consider the human suffering and misery of (amongst others) the first and second World Wars (70 million dead).

While there is debate as to whether Hitler was a believer (there seems no doubt that Stalin wasn't), David Berlinski makes the striking point that for those who carry out atrocities, it is unlikely that they "believe" that "God is watching".  If God isn't watching it means that there is no higher authority, therefore, no moral pause before you act. David Berlinski describes this as the "meaning" of a secular society.

What I like about David Berlinski's style is that he doesn't try to guilt you into believing what he believes or what he argues. Professor Dawkins in the Greatest Show on Earth compares people who do not believe in evolution as "history deniers" not dissimilar to Holocaust deniers. If Professor Dawkins has such a strong case for evolution why try to guilt people into believing?

Chapter 10 - The God Delusion Richard Dawkins - A Much Needed Gap

In the final chapter of the book Professor Richard Dawkins makes the point that the idea of God fills a gap in our lives in the same way that an imaginary friend fills a gap in the life of a child. Again, no scientific evidence for this - more of a thought and certainly not persuasive in putting across the view that belief in God is delusional.

Professor Dawkins then refers to the burka (a form of Islamic dress for women) and makes the point that while such form of dress covers the body except for a small slit for the eyes then this image can be used to show the similarity of a mind which excludes science. A bizarre analogy to me as it presupposes that Muslims have no belief in science (not true). Again, no science to support this point and again no real argument to support the title of the book whether a belief in a God is a delusional belief.

Professor Dawkins has a shot at the burka saying it is an instrument of oppression. Again, no evidence given for this. What clothing would be suitable or appropriate Professor Dawkins does not say. If a burka covers most of the body and therefore is a symbol or restricting the mind is a bikini a symbol of great learning and enlightenment? What about people in cold countries don't they need to cover up to keep warm? Are they also uneducated because of covering up?

A disappointing end to an interesting book.  Certainly, I am not convinced that a belief in a God (any God for that matter) is delusional per se. In fact, Professor Dawkin's acknowledgement of a possible existence of a God who made the laws of physics tells me that it is clear there isn't proof to say there is no God and it therefore follows that you cannot say that belief in God is delusional.  

Chapter 9 - The God Delusion - Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion

Professor Richard Dawkins starts this chapter with a story about a girl set in the 1850s who was taken from her Jewish parents because she had been baptised by a maid and the result was that she was not allowed to be brought up by her parents - in turn Professor Dawkins expresses dismay about how the parents would't renounce their faith and become Catholic at least just for the sake to be reunited with their daughter - the conclusion - religion is bad and I guess it follows there is no God.  No science in this - a bit disappointing.

Professor Dawkins continues to question the practice of parents bringing up their children a particular religion and suggests that this is akin to child abuse.  He also seems to play down sexual abuse generally and in particular child abuse by Catholic priests and suggests that teaching about hell is perhaps a greater form of abuse.  Indeed, Professor Dawkins refers to the abuse he suffered and notes he has long forgiven the abuser.

In summary, I didn't find any science in this chapter to suggest that belief in God is delusional. With regard to Professor Dawkins' point that children should be taught to think for themselves and then decide for themselves - I think this is valid however you would have to expect that the parents/society will obviously tailor such education in what they think is in the best interests of the child. As a Muslim, I would certainly want my children to receive a broad education (obviously including science) but I would also want them to learn about my religion (Islam) as well as other religions. Certainly, Islam places on each individual the decision as to what they want to believe.

Chp 8 – The God Delusion – What’s wrong with religion? Why be hostile? – my initial thoughts

Chp 8 – The God Delusion – What’s wrong with religion? Why be hostile? – my initial thoughts

In this chapter Professor Dawkins explains why religion is not good for the World and gives a variety examples of where religion, in particular, fundamentalism and literal belief in holy books, has resulted in horrible acts. Professor Dawkins laments over the otherwise smart scientist who gives up a potentially successful life as a scientist because he believed the Old and New Testatments over scientific fact. Professor Dawkins also refers to terrorists acts such as 9/11 and the London bombings.

Professor Dawkins refers to the “dark side of absolutism” ….most dangerously so in the Muslim world”.  I was disappointed that the reference to the “Muslim world” isn’t supported with credible evidence other than references to the Taliban (Afghanistan), 9/11 and the London bombings. Certainly not a scientific approach but I would also add that I really do not think you can judge the Islamic faith by simply referring to a handful of terrorist acts and the failed state of Afghanistan that has been war torn for much of my life and has been the subject of proxy wars by other more powerful countries. Was Islam fine before 9/11, the Taliban and the London bombings?

Professor Dawkins concludes from the examples that he gives that “religion can be a force for evil in the world”. I don’t disagree but also it can be a force for good. Again, I was disappointed that there was insufficient evidence to support such conclusions. 

As I am writing my thoughts on this book and posting them to my blog one person who commented on my comments said that the God Delusion is like a “Turkey shoot” where you try to find logical and factual errors. I thought this was a harsh comment at the time but after reading chapter 8 I felt this comment had some validity to it. There are several incorrect (plainly wrong) and misleading references to Islam as follows –

1.     Prophet Muhammed did not invent Islam at the age of 40. Islam means submission to the will of God (Allah). Prophet Muhammed was a messenger following the long line of prophets who came to deliver the message to believe in God (Allah). This is what Muslims believe. It is incorrect to say that Islam was invented by Prophet Muhammed. Professor Dawkins is free to say this is what he thinks but this is not what Muslims think. A basic factual error.

2.     Professor Dawkins refers to the case in Pakistan where a man was questioned as to his motives to be a Muslim.  There is no validity to such questioning – it is known in Islam that no one knows the sincerity of another.

3.     Professor Dawkins likes assessing Islam by the seemingly outrageous law that apostates must be killed. As I understand it the death penalty for apostates is more akin to treason i.e. the disbelief has to be public and an overall threat to society and such punishment can only be sanctioned by the head of state. If someone disbelieves internally and privately no one would know. From my experience of living in the Middle East, I think there are lots of people who do not practice the religion, lots who don’t believe but nothing happens to them. There is no Islamic duty to kill apostates. This is another factual error. If someone kills someone else it is murder – simple as that.  Just like in the UK if a murderer tells us that God told him to kill, we don’t accept that as a basis to criticize religion – it shows the killer is a murderer and possibly insane.

4.     How does Professor Dawkins know that the Taliban takes the Quran literally? Why are the Taliban poster boys for the Islamic religion? In the Middle East we take no guidance or direction from the Taliban. Who are the Taliban anyway? How would Professor Dawkins analyse Islam before the Taliban?

5.     What Islamic fascist state is ardently sought? Most of my Muslim friends in the Middle East enjoying living and holidaying in the UK, Europe, the USA.

6.     Professor Dawkins refers to militant Muslims living in Britain who consider themselves bound by Islamic law and not the laws of the UK. Islamically, you are obliged to follow the laws of the land where you live.

7.     Referring to Sam Harris and how Sam Harris says the 19 bombers on the 9/11 planes believed the literal truth of the Koran – how does Sam Harris know this? Comical and certainly no evidence of there not being a God. Where has the scientific analysis gone?

8.     Again Sam Harris, and Sam’s interview with a failed suicide bomber – my understanding is that there are a variety of reasons for suicide bombing – mainly born out of fear, frustration, oppression and certainly this is not prescribed in Islam – of course no reference in the Quran to suicide bombing.

9.     Where are the contradictions in the Quran referred to by Sookdeo? Where in the Quran does it say any Muslim who denies terror is part of Islam is a disbeliever? Utter nonsense.

Overall, I was disappointed with this chapter. I certainly do not mind a critique of the Islamic religion but please a more well thought out critique based on an analysis of the texts and not just references to the Taliban, 9/11 and the London bombings. Also, to get back to the central theme of the book, where is the connection between instances of evil and the existence of a God? I don’t think any of the faiths/believers in a God ever suggested that a hallmark of God’s existence is an absence of evil. Isn’t the presence of evil part of the test God has set for us in this World? Anyhow, disappointed with this chapter for its lack of intellectual rigor. These are the types of arguments you would face from anyone.

Chp 7 – The God Delusion – The “Good” book and the changing moral zeitgeist – my initial thoughts

A wonderful chapter with lots of thought provoking points. 

In this chapter Professor Dawkins makes the very strong case that “we do not, as a matter of fact, derive our morals from scripture.” As for “scripture” Professor Dawkins is referring to the Old Testament and the New Testament. Professor Dawkins provides ample examples of references in the Bible which simply cannot be taken literally otherwise to do so would in today’s thinking be absurd and even if we are to assume such passages are not to be taken literally it is unclear what the moral/lesson of such passages are.  Professor Dawkins makes the point that believers in scripture pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow and sums up his point by saying “Do those people who hold up the Bible as an inspiration to moral rectitude have the slightest notion of what is actually written in it?”

I noted with interest that Professor Dawkins does not refer to the Quran and I would certainly like him to do a similar analysis of the Quran as he has done of the Bible.  Indeed, I think Professor Dawkins would find that the Quran has a better pedigree and authenticity (compared to the Bible) as there is certainly much less debate about the authenticity of the Quran. Moreover, he will not find the same amount of parables open to question. I think this will come as a genuine surprise to Professor Dawkins. Indeed, I must admit before I knew anything about Islam I simply assumed it must be “hocus pocus” and full of nonsense. My first (and sincere) reading of the Quran dispelled this view at once.

Professor Dawkins expresses concern at the chief concern of the “scripture” God being other gods to rival him. Certainly, in Islam, this is the same insofar as the worship of gods other than Allah (known as shirk) is the worst sin. Professor Dawkins considers this petty but I can understand this insomuch as if we think of ourselves doing something for others and then such others thank another person for our good deeds we wouldn’t be happy! Also, again, if we were to assume that there is a God, he would be more offended I guess by actions against him compared to actions against others because God is able to make good our misdeeds between ourselves but what of when we offend God?  If you indulge me and assume there is a God, that he made the Earth a habitable place for us, he made the laws of physics, chemistry, made our bodies, provided us with food etc. shouldn’t we be grateful? If you did this for someone wouldn’t you be upset if that someone showed no thanks?

I was not impressed that the only references to Islam were three references to the Taliban and two to Saudi Arabia. With regard to the Taliban, this label is really not what Islam is about and I would imagine it was thrown in as it evokes images of savagery and ignorance which really isn’t what Islam is about. As for the reference to Saudi Arabia, there was never an idea to bulldoze Mecca, certainly, there is ongoing construction to accommodate ever growing numbers of pilgrims. With regard to the Saudi attitude to women, again, there is a fuller discussion to be had about women’s rights in Islam that goes beyond a casual reference to Saudi Arabia.

Returning to Professor Dawkins’ main theme in this chapter, that we shouldn’t and in fact do not get morals from the Old Testament and the New Testament, I think he is dead right about this.  Professor Dawkins mentions the harshness of Jesus supposedly advising his disciples to abandon their families (this is opposite to Islamic values) and the absurdity of “original sin” (again, totally contrary to Islamic values whereby each person is only responsible for his own actions). In Islam we consider these aspects a corruption to the original teachings (indeed Professor Dawkins earlier in his book notes the lack of pedigree of today’s Bible as an accurate record of the teachings of Jesus).

I very much liked Professor Dawkins’ observation that there is a consensus as to what we consider right and wrong. In Islam this is explained by the term “fitrah” which essentially means that we are all pre-programmed to believe and have a sense of right and wrong. 

I also thought that Professor Dawkins comments about the shifting zeitgeist (spirit of times) were well made, interesting and thought provoking.  Certainly, I have witnessed in my time a shift in what we think of as good and bad. In this regard, I would also add the shifting in views of “Islam” and how the religion of Islam seems to be persistently defined without reference to the Quran or the vast majority of sincerely practicing Muslims. Indeed, I find it odd that a religion I see is based on peace and being gentle, charitable and considerate to others is continuously defined in the media by the actions of thugs who I doubt are sincere believers. 

I also liked Professor Dawkins’ comment that religious labels are often used in conflicts however the true underlying reason for such conflict isn’t necessarily religion (i.e. Northern Ireland).  I honestly don’t believe that religion is the cause of wars and conflicts – I would say that humans have a tendency for conflict and will find any area of difference to start conflict. We don’t only have religious, national and regional rivalries we also have local ones that can even pit town against town, village against village and even street against street.

I have one further thought from the previous chapter. Professor Dawkins examined whether people are good because of religion. From my experience of living and working in the Middle East, I would say that from my experience, the place where I have lived in the Middle East has stronger family values, stronger moral values than in my home country of the UK. I would put this down to belief in Islam. To give a sense of this – you can safely walk in a park in my home in the Middle East with very very little fear of attack. I would not say the same is true of the UK. Also, in the UK, the older generations can talk of a time when you could go outside and leave your house unlocked with little fear of being burgled. Again, the place where I live in the Middle East is more like that and I would put that down to the religion of Islam. A final example, alcohol. Obviously, in the West, it isn’t immoral to drink alcohol but it is immoral in Islamic countries. Which is right? I remember in my early days as a lawyer conducting work experience in a magistrates court in the UK – to my horror I discovered that most of the criminal cases heard on Mondays related to drink related offences occurring during the previous weekend. How many of the accident and emergency cases in hospitals on a Friday night are drink related? Ever noticed that menacing gang of youths hanging out around off licences? I never saw any of this where I live in the Middle East. I will leave it to the reader to decide for themselves which is good and bad.

Chp 6 – The God Delusion – The roots of morality – why are we good? - My initial thoughts

Chp 6 – The God Delusion – The roots of morality  – why are we good? - My initial thoughts

Professor Dawkins begins this chapter referring to hate mail he received from people who make some reference to being religious. It is obviously paradoxical and hypocritical that religious people (or at least people who profess to be religious) show non-religious traits but I don’t think that this is a scientific proof for the non-existence of God. The logic is almost like saying that the UK’s most prolific serial killer was a medical doctor (Dr Harold Shipman) therefore this says something negative about the medical profession. Not really.

I certainly would agree that it seems that a lot of people who profess to be religious are anything but.

Professor Dawkins refers to the ideas of the selfish gene and reciprocal altruism as the main Darwinian pillars of thought when it comes to what appears to translate into good and bad behavior. Whilst the gene is selfish insofar as it is a unit of life which is essentially in a battle of survival against other genes there are instances where selfish behaviour isn’t the only way to achieve such survival and Professor Dawkins provides 4 possible examples where altruistic behavior could perhaps assist in gene survival - (1) altruism where there is a genetic kinship – in the sense this is furthering your genes by assisting the genes of kin which carry genes similar to your own; (2) reciprocity – where an altruistic act invites one in return; (3) Darwinian benefit for acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness; and (4) conspicuous generosity as a show of strength.

Certainly I find this very interesting but I am not convinced of the scientific basis of this.

From the section of the chapter entitled “A case study in the roots of morality” the point that seems to be made is that it isn’t religion that drives our morals but instead we (humans) seem to have an inbuilt moral compass.  From this Professor Dawkins makes the point we don’t need God to be good or evil. As a Muslim, I would look at this differently. In Islam, we have the idea of “fitrah” that we are all born, pre-programmed if you like, to believe in God and also to know the difference between good and bad.  I think that the references Professor Dawkins provides does support the idea that we seem to be born with the capacity to believe in God and we seem to have a moral sense (albeit that professor Dawkins would say that these traits have evolved over time and there is no pre-programming). I for one feel that I have a moral sense and certainly when I speak to those around me it seems to me that they also have a moral sense. Professor Dawkins seems to acknowledge this - where we differ is how we got this moral sense. 

I do find the idea of morals as very interesting and I wonder why we have this. As I mentioned above I am not convinced of the Darwinian explanation here which I am sure Professor Dawkins will agree isn't concrete. I would also say that having a moral sense and behaving morally are two different things and in Islam this is essentially the test (combined of course with belief in God). It therefore comes as no surprise to me that whilst we all have a sense of morality, both religious and non religious people can act morally/immorally. In Islam, the key consideration is why you act morally. If your act of kindness is to win a favour in return or to appease an aggressor then you cannot expect any reward from God (Allah) for such an act unless also you are in  a state of belief and that your act is part of your overall life in servitude to God (Allah).

Whilst I do enjoy reading Professor Dawkins I do sense his bias to conclude there is no God. For example, he “suspects” there are few atheists in prisons.  As a man of science there should be some evidence to support such a comment. You cannot write a book saying people who believe in God are deluded and then throw in a loose remark that you suspect there are few atheists in prisons. This is very much misleading in my opinion. On this issue I would like to see some evidence – also, what number of prisoners become religious inside prison? In any event, what is the correlation between the beliefs of prisoners and the existence of God? I do find it amusing when Professor Dawkins accuses religious people of being unscientific and not using evidence to support their beliefs. Pot, kettle….