Chp 4 – The God Delusion – Why there almost certainly is no God – my initial thoughts

Chp 4 – The God Delusion – Why there almost certainly is no God – my initial thoughts

A very interesting chapter in which Professor Dawkins puts the case why there almost certainly is no God. What I find amusing is the element of doubt in the chapter title – “almost certainly” – so not completely certain?

Professor Dawkins notes the complexity and improbability of life and the universe itself and states that it is tempting to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. As I understand it, Professor Dawkins’ rejection of God in this context is that to assume God created life and the universe is to actually pose a bigger question in the sense that surely God must be more complicated than life and the universe and therefore it logically follows that God is more complex and therefore more improbable.

The argument of who made God is certainly an old one and was mentioned by Prophet Muhammed – peace and blessings upon him.  It maybe that this is a question mankind may never be able to answer but let’s see how Professor Dawkins handles this….

Professor Dawkins refers to Darwinian evolution by natural selection and states that this shows how living creatures with their statistical improbability and appearance of design have evolved (very) slowly from simple beginnings. Note that Professor Dawkins’ refers to the illusion of design. By this I sense an appreciation (of sorts) of how people can believe in design and indeed Professor Dawkins accepts this as a more acceptable belief before Darwin.  Indeed, Professor Dawkins acknowledges that you can almost be forgiven for not accepting evolution by natural selection unless you are steeped in it. From this I would say that anyone who hasn’t studied evolution so thoroughly should not then be labeled as delusional for believing in God. Indeed, if the illusion is so powerful and if we can be tricked into believing the illusions of entertainers such as Penn & Teller (whom Dawkins refers to) isn’t it understandable that we can believe in the illusion of design? So let’s see where evolution by natural selection gets us….

Professor Dawkins essentially says that evolution by natural selection shatters the illusion of design as this shows how complex life has evolved gradually over time – how a cumulative process breaks down the problem of improbability into small pieces. At this point, I do have a question. How can evolution by natural selection not be a random process itself IF it occurs by random mutation? Perhaps my understanding of evolution isn’t good enough to fully follow Professor Dawkins’ thinking here. Also, how did life and therefore the evolution process start? I couldn’t find a clear answer to this.   

I am still not clear on the supposed overwhelming evidence that life evolved by natural selection.  It seems that the scientific method cannot prove this because of the incredibly slow rate of evolution and the inadequacy of the fossil record. So how can we be sure this is correct?  How can an eye or the ability to fly evolve? As Professor Dawkins puts it, these evolve very gradually (by random mutation) and by natural selection the relevant ability improves. There are arguments against this (which Professor Dawkins dismisses) one of which is the bacterial flagellar motor which was argued by Behe as incapable of gradually evolving and must simply have come into being.

Professor Dawkins applies the logic of evolution to the creation of the universe and acknowledges that physics does not have a Darwinian like theory to explain how the universe came about but refers to the anthropic principle which allows us to imagine greater chances of life appearing when we consider the vastness of the universe (or perhaps universes) so if there are billions and billions and billions of planets, a portion of which could sustain life (such as the Earth). But, I find this very unsatisfying and it doesn’t allow me to discount God. Therefore we cannot be certain that there is no God and it seems the science (at the moment) provides no such certainty.

After pondering on what I have read so far, I do feel that belief in God isn’t an academic exercise. It isn’t based on what text books you read or how well you understand biology.  Indeed, some see the wonders of nature as evidence of an all powerful creator whereas some who feel they understand some of the aspects of creation feel this is a mechanical process devoid of God and that one day all processes will be explained scientifically. So how come some of us believe and others don’t? Is it like Islam says that the life we are leading is a test and our belief comes from ourselves i.e. “good” people will be inclined to believe and “bad” ones will not? What do we mean by “good” and “bad”? All interesting points that I will cover in future.

When I think of why do I believe I must resort to the Quran. From my reading of the Quran I have found this book to be incapable of being disproved and also personally satisfying when I read it.  The trouble is though how to impart my feeling of belief onto others? Certainly, I will attempt to do this in the course of this blog. My intention is not to convert but at least to show why I (and many others) believe and to show that we should not be considered delusional for such belief, at least when there seems to be no science to disprove such belief.

At this point I would like to introduce to the reader to one reference in the Quran on this topic:

Quran – Surah 35 (Fatir – The Originator) – Ayat 3

“O mankind, remember the favor of Allah upon you. Is there any creator other than Allah who provides for you from the heaven and earth? There is no deity except Him, so how are you deluded?”

I like the reference to deluded but will need to examine the translation further as to its accuracy.

I will discuss in another post the integrity of the Quran as a evidential document as to how and when it was compiled but what I find extremely interesting is just how relevant it is today – even in a discussion about the creation of man and the universe.

Why haven't I answered the question is there life after death?

I have been asked a few time why haven't I answered the question is there life after death? My plan is to answer this question, however, I propose to do this by examining the various arguments for and against life after death and once I have done that I will then provide an answer. Hope the readers of this blog enjoy this journey.

Chp 3 The God Delusion - Arguments for God's Existence - My initial thoughts

Was a little disappointed with the chapter on "Arguments for God's Existence" however I should have expected that a book entitled "The God Delusion" would be light when it comes to arguments for God. Indeed, the arguments given for God's existence appear or at least are depicted as weak.

Professor Dawkins examines the "Thomas Aquinas Proofs", "Ontological Arguments", "Argument from Beauty", "Argument from Personal Experience", "Argument from Scripture", "Argument from Admired Religious Scientists" and "Bayesian Arguments".

I found the "Argument from Scripture" the  most interesting especially Professor Dawkins' remarks:

(1) "The fact that something is written down is persuasive to people not used to asking questions like: "Who wrote it and when?" "How did they know what to write?"....

(2) "Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world."

(3) "Do these people never open the book that they believe is the literal truth? Why don't they notice those glaring contradictions?"

I had the same thoughts when I read the bible. I would have liked to see Professor Dawkins' similar type of analysis of the Quran. My plan is to try and do this for myself (and the readers of this blog) as I think it will be interesting to see that the above remarks when applied to the Quran provides interesting reading.

The point that "more highly educated people are less likely to be religious" is interesting but this is more telling of the thinking of our society at this moment in time rather than offering proof of there not being God. I note again the partial respect given for clever people believing in an Einsteinian God.

I totally agree with the analysis of Pascal's Wager - if there is a God who is all knowing then you could not feign belief and benefit from that. Indeed, I think this section of the chapter touches on an important point that belief has to be "honest" and I don't think you can make yourself believe. Belief isn't an academic exercise that you can work on like studying for an exam. It seems you either have it or you don't. This is a very interesting topic that needs further analysis.

Am ready to start the next chapter of the God Delusion - "Why there almost certainly is no God" - this chapter title made me smile - if believing in God is delusion why isn't this chapter entitled "Why there certainly is no God" - why include "almost"?

Chapter 2 - The God Delusion - The God Hypothesis - My initial thoughts

Chapter 2 of the God Delusion by Professor Richard Dawkins - The God Hypothesis.

In this chapter Professor Dawkins poses that the "God Hypothesis" is a scientific hypothesis about the  universe which should be analysed as sceptically as any other.  Again, the chapter is more centred on  Christianity and science and essentially how the two don't mix and uses the acronym NOMA to convey this. NOMA meaning "non-overlapping magisteria" whereby science deals with empirical matters such as what the universe is made of and how it works whereas religion deals with the why and addresses questions such as meaning and morals.

My immediate observation is that from a Muslim perspective, we do not have (or certainly not to the same degree) the division between religion and science that there is with Christianity. It is often noted that following the advent of Islam there followed a period of scientific enlightenment. Certainly I propose to look into Islam and science in much further detail but as a general comment I see no conflict between science and Islam.  Where I do see a conflict is where we depart from science (in the sense of a conclusion following the scientific method) and make assumptions.  I don't agree with Professor Dawkins that the Abrahamic faiths are indistinguishable as he puts it and plan to dedicate some time in the near future looking into this.

Professor Dawkins states the God Hypothesis as a superhuman, super intelligence who designed and created the universe and advocates an alternative view that any such intelligence should be the end product of a process of evolution.  This is where I am intrigued to see Professor Dawkins' case/evidence.  Chapter 2 doesn't really address this point but I expect to read more of this in later chapters.  What I do feel I detect from Professor Dawkins is that as much as he describes himself as an atheist, again, he seems to accept the possibility of a supreme entity that created the universe (in the sense of the physicist "God" in chapter 1) as he places himself as a 6 leaning towards 7 on his own scale of belief (7 being knowing there is no God). Professor Dawkins (I think) tries to use humour to suggest his belief in a God is like his belief in fairies but I think this isn't probably true.  Certainly, Professor Dawkins seems to appreciate that there is a possibility that a God of sorts could exist (although he thinks unlikely) but I would imagine he has slightly less belief in fairies than a Einsteinian God.  Professor Dawkins goes on to describe the deist God as a physicist to end all of physics, the alpha and omega of mathematicians. In contrast, the Muslim God (Allah) is believed by Muslims to be more than this - to be without beginning or end. I mention this as what I notice in Islam is that God (Allah) is truly all powerful without limits whereas the deist God has limits.  My sense is that this comes from a Western/Christian perspective of God - who in human form did not give the appearance or sense of a creator of the universe and all that is in it. Again, this is another area for further research and review.

The chapter discusses secularism, the founding fathers and the religion of America and agnosticism - to me this didn't advance Professor Dawkins' advocacy of his alternative view to a super intelligent designer.

I found the comment about examining the probability of God's existence very interesting and look forward to seeing what Professor Dawkins has to say about this in later chapters.

After reading the preface and first two chapters I am still to see how holding a belief in God is delusional.  Looking forward to reading more.

Chapter 1 - The God Delusion - My initial thoughts

I have read the preface and the first chapter of The God Delusion and here are my initial thoughts....

First of all, I find Professor's label of believers as "faith heads" unnecessarily disrespectful and rude. There is no need for this. It is a derogatory term and I would have thought that Professor Dawkins would have been more elegant in this regard. That said, I am happy to take up Professor Dawkins' challenge that I won't be immune to his arguments although I hope to be immune from any arguments that lack substance and credibility.

The immediate sense I also feel is that Professor Dawkins is aiming his book more at (or against) the Christian faith as many of his comments I sense are directed towards Christianity. The reference to Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot and the assumption that science appreciates a bigger, better and more elegant universe is I think more a criticism of Christianity as in Islam there is an appreciation of the vast magnitude of the universe. In Islam we don't consider God (Allah) as a small God - he is the most powerful. Indeed, the opening chapter of the Quran refers to Allah as the Lord of the Worlds [note the plural].

I am also intrigued as to how Professor Dawkins defines "God". He refers to an Einsteinian religion which he tries to describe as a one where there is a belief in a supernatural intelligence but such intelligence is confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe.  He labels a believer of such a "deist".  It seems that Professor Dawkins accepts (as per Carl Sagan's description) a God "if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe". He goes on to explain that such a "God" is not one that listens to prayers, punishes sins and that to confuse the God of the physicists with a theistic God is "intellectual high treason".  Well, I am looking forward to Professor Dawkins' elaboration on this point.  My immediate thoughts here are:

(1) If physicists are allowed to believe in a "God" who created the physical laws of the universe then perhaps people who believe in a similar "God" but who has extra powers (say for example - can hear and respond to prayers) are not so delusional as Professor Dawkins puts it;

(2) What is the scientific evidence to say that the "God" of the physicists does not have powers to hear and answer prayers? Isn't it at least conceivable that if an entity can create the universe or at least the laws of the universe isn't it possible that such entity also has the power to hear and respond to prayers?

(3) I don't understand the "intellectual high treason" of confusing deism with theism. Isn't there a certain logic that if you can accept a power that can put in place the laws of physics that such power might also be able to monitor and influence the actors in such a World? Certainly, the Muslim belief is that God (Allah) is all powerful and can do anything he wishes.

I do note Professor Dawkins' point that there is some sensitivity regarding the discussion of religion, but I think that this is also the same when discussing any topic which someone holds dear. If Professor Dawkins' truly feels that believers are deluded then approaching the subject with tact and sensitivity is perhaps better than using humour? I would also like to add that debate and discussion about religion isn't new and it isn't a taboo. Each religion records a long history of debate and discussion and certainly amongst Muslims such a discussion is not a taboo.

I note the comment that "The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification".  My hope is to be able to put together such rational justification or at least an explanation as to why people believe - at least using myself as an example. Indeed, in this regard, I don't consider myself indoctrinated. I am a Muslim, I do believe and I would like to document the basis as to how I came to this belief. Indeed, I am prepared, with an open mind, to consider my own belief in light of Professor Dawkins' book and see whether I am "deluded" as he puts it.

I didn't like the comment "...Danes just live in a country with a free press, something that people in many Islamic countries might have a hard time understanding".  As suggested by Professor Dawkins on page 65, what if we replace the words "people in many Islamic countries" with another group of people? Sounded prejudiced to me especially as there seems to be no scientific evidence or any evidence for that matter to back this statement up. Indeed, I would like to know what evidence Professor Dawkins has to support this statement.  Why would people in Islamic countries have a hard time understanding freedom of the press? Is it a complicated idea?

I certainly enjoyed the first chapter of The God Delusion and am looking forward to the rest of the book but so far I haven't read anything that dismisses the notion of "God" indeed it seems that there is an acceptance of a "God" of sorts.....

I have started reading a few books written by Professor Richard Dawkins to see the validity of his argument that science proves there is no God. Will let you know how I get on!

Why are we here?

I have decided to start a blog to record my own analysis to answer the question 'Is there life after death?" As a Muslim, I believe that the answer to this question is "yes", however, I intend to examine the very many and various responses to this question and also how I came to the conclusion that I believe that Islam answers this question