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?

The End of Faith by Sam Harris

I was planning on doing a full review of Sam Harris' book "The End of Faith" but after reading the first few chapters I felt that the book didn't deserve my time for a full review given its poor analysis. I did finish the book but have limited my review just to chapter 4 - The Problem with Islam - so as to give an idea of the inaccurate conclusions the book has.

Certainly as the book is from an atheist perspective I can expect some criticism of religion but what I found astonishing was the criticism, certainly with regards to Islam, was more prejudicial rather than an intelligent critique. Here is why I think that....

"...the Muslim world has no shortage of educated and prosperous men and women, suffering little more than their infatuation with Koranic eschatology, who are eager to murder infidels for God's sake."

Is this really true? What is this observation based on? I can say that I am a Muslim, have lived in the Middle East for about 15 years - I haven't come across educated and prosperous people who are "eager to murder infidels". In fact, just the opposite. I have met Muslims who are part of "dawah" (meaning invitation) organisations who invite people to Islam.

I found this statement shocking and really cannot think of another way to describe it than bigoted and prejudicial.

"We are at war with Islam"

Not sure who Sam is referring to when he says "We" are at war with Islam but it is ironic that he is essentially trying to portray Islam as an aggressive and violent religion and then he goes and declares that "We" are at war with Islam.  Bizarre.

"...war against infidels and apostates is a central feature of faith.."

Sam what have you been reading? How on Earth did you come to this conclusion about the religion of Islam? Really this is so far off the mark. Rather than me provide evidence to the contrary I would love to invite you to live as a Muslim for a week or a month so you can at least better see how Muslims see their own religion.

"...almost any act of violence against infidels can now be plausibly construed as an action in defence of the faith..."

Again, just not true.

"..the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates..."

Again, not true. Does Sam think everyone in the Middle East is Muslim? Have all expats in the Middle East converted? How many apostates are there? How many are executed by the state?  Are Muslims really required to kill unbelievers? If you are an unbeliever and you are reading this do you know of a Muslim who tried or is trying to kill you?  This is very Fox News style bigotry and very poor in terms of the quality of analysis. Sam, couldn't you have looked a bit more at how Muslims consider their religion? Not saying you have to accept what they say but at least a little balance?

"Within the House of Islam, the penalty for learning too much about the World - so as to call the tenets of the faith into question - is death"

Come on Sam how on Earth can you say this? What did you base this comment on?  Really, in the Muslim world you can die for learning too much about the World? Who has died? In what circumstances? Actually this blog is proof against what you are saying. I am learning about the World and am currently learning about what atheists think.  I must say this quote was the one that turned me off from completing a full review of the other chapters of the book. If Sam cannot provide evidence for this outlandish comment why should I waste my time reviewing other such silly comments.

"If you believe anything like what the Koran says you must believe in order to escape the fires of hell, you will, at the very least, be sympathetic with the actions of Osama bin Laden..."

Goodness me! Imagine. I believe in everything that the Quran says! So what does that make me in Sam's eyes? Bloody hell. What utter nonsense. Please Sam, please live as a Muslim for a week or so. You will honestly get a better idea of how we think and then you will realise that we don't support terrorism.

"..the people who died on September 11 were nothing more than fuel for the eternal fires of God's justice..."

What can I say? Sam what do you base these ridiculous comments on?

Sam then recites a good number of sentences from the Quran - all out of context and with no explanation. Not even of the standard a school kid attending high school  would review a book for an English literature essay. Sam, have you heard of "tafseer"? It is the explanation and interpretation of the Quran to provide a proper and deeper understanding of the text.

"On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers."

Again, not true!

The Quran essentially explains to humankind to believe in God (Allah), don't ascribe partners to him, to enjoin good and forbid evil, fast in Ramadan, don't tell lies, give charity and be kind to people. God (Allah) describes himself as the most merciful....certainly more merciful than any human including Sam Harris.

Quran Surah Zumar 39:53

Sahih International

Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah . Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful."

So where is Sam going with all this? Why put the case that Islam is deadly, violent and aggressive?

"Muslims might then come to see the wisdom of moderating their thinking on a wide variety of subjects . Otherwise, we will be obliged to protect our interests in the world with force -..."

How ironic, so Sam is saying to the Muslims, your religion is far too violent and aggressive so you need to moderate yourselves or else we will  "protect our interests...with force". So the peaceful one (Sam) is threatening the use of force. I wonder if Sam sees the irony of this - accuse a community of being aggressive (and therefore by implication the accuser is obviously peaceful) but then threaten the supposed aggressive community with violence.

Quran Surah Baqarah 2:11

"now when it is said to them do not do mischief on the Earth they say on the contrary it is we who are the peacemakers."

Sam doesn't sound like a peacemaker to me.

By the end of chapter 4 I decided to continue reading "The End of Faith" but not waste my time doing a review.  There is so much to point out as wrong in Chapter 4 that I would simply conclude that Sam does not understand how Muslims view their own religion. I say this as a Muslim, living with Muslims in the Middle East. My best suggestion for Sam is to live with Muslims for a week or so - I think from this he would get a better understanding of Islam and how Muslims view their religion.

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.

How to enjoy your life and your job - Dale Carnegie

Whilst the subject of this blog is an examination of whether there is life after death I would certainly suggest that we also learn how to better enjoy our life and our jobs.  As an interlude to my review of The God Delusion by Professor Richard Dawkins I would like to recommend to readers of this blog the book "How to enjoy your life and your job" by Dale Carnegie. Easy to read and jam packed full of great ideas as to how you can live a happier life.  Whilst you might find that many suggestions are common sense there is no harm being reminded of these. I am sure that most readers will adopt at least a few suggestions and immediately better enjoy their life and job. I would definitely recommend this book and would suggest that it would make a good gift for anyone who needs cheering up.

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.