Draft 0.2 By Hamza Tzortzis
When I picked up “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, I was expecting to encounter new reasons put forward to form a positive case for the Atheist worldview, but I have to say that I was disappointed. What I read were rehashed, incoherent arguments that made me realize that Richard Dawkins is not very well read in philosophy. In light of this I thought it would be useful to respond to his main arguments in the following way:
1. Respond to what Dawkins considers his central argument;
2. Respond to what Philosophers consider his best argument.
Responding to what Dawkins considers his central argument
On pages 157-158 of “The God Delusion,” Dawkins summarises what he calls “the central argument of my book”:
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinism evolution by natural selection and we don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.
5. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
God almost certainly does not exist.
Preliminary Note
Before I go into Dawkins’ main points, I would like to address his conclusion “God almost certainly does not exist.” My main issue is – how does he conclude that God doesn’t exist from the above statements? It seems to me that his conclusion just jumps out of thin air, to infer that God does not exist just shows how invalid his argument is. It seems to me that the only delusion is Dawkins’ conviction that his argument is “a very serious argument against God’s existence.”
If we could conclude anything from Dawkins’ argument it would be that we should not infer that God exists based on the design of the universe. However, even if that is true, it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist; we can believe in God’s existence from other arguments, which include:
• The argument from morality;
• The miracle of the Qur’an;
• The cosmological argument;
• The argument from personal experience;
• The argument from consciousness.
If we were to accept all of Dawkins’ statements, it would not be enough to reject the idea that God exists, and it certainly does not provide a case for Atheism. However, many of his statements are false. Let us take his statements and respond accordingly.
Statement #1: One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
I believe that it is only a challenge if you wish to take God out of the picture. It is indeed a challenge if you presume atheism to be true. However for someone who is reflective and thinks deeply about things, I think the simplest and the best explanation - with the greatest explanatory power - is that there is a supernatural designer. The next point will address why God makes sense of the design in the universe.
Statement #2: The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
When I picked up “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, I was expecting to encounter new reasons put forward to form a positive case for the Atheist worldview, but I have to say that I was disappointed. What I read were rehashed, incoherent arguments that made me realize that Richard Dawkins is not very well read in philosophy. In light of this I thought it would be useful to respond to his main arguments in the following way:
1. Respond to what Dawkins considers his central argument;
2. Respond to what Philosophers consider his best argument.
Responding to what Dawkins considers his central argument
On pages 157-158 of “The God Delusion,” Dawkins summarises what he calls “the central argument of my book”:
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinism evolution by natural selection and we don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.
5. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
God almost certainly does not exist.
Preliminary Note
Before I go into Dawkins’ main points, I would like to address his conclusion “God almost certainly does not exist.” My main issue is – how does he conclude that God doesn’t exist from the above statements? It seems to me that his conclusion just jumps out of thin air, to infer that God does not exist just shows how invalid his argument is. It seems to me that the only delusion is Dawkins’ conviction that his argument is “a very serious argument against God’s existence.”
If we could conclude anything from Dawkins’ argument it would be that we should not infer that God exists based on the design of the universe. However, even if that is true, it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist; we can believe in God’s existence from other arguments, which include:
• The argument from morality;
• The miracle of the Qur’an;
• The cosmological argument;
• The argument from personal experience;
• The argument from consciousness.
If we were to accept all of Dawkins’ statements, it would not be enough to reject the idea that God exists, and it certainly does not provide a case for Atheism. However, many of his statements are false. Let us take his statements and respond accordingly.
Statement #1: One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
I believe that it is only a challenge if you wish to take God out of the picture. It is indeed a challenge if you presume atheism to be true. However for someone who is reflective and thinks deeply about things, I think the simplest and the best explanation - with the greatest explanatory power - is that there is a supernatural designer. The next point will address why God makes sense of the design in the universe.
Statement #2: The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
This is not only a natural temptation but a rational conclusion brought to light based upon the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe. Let me start off by presenting the premises of this argument:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe to permit life is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
Explaining Premise One
The existence of a life permitting universe is due to conditions that must have been fined-tuned to a degree that is literally incalculable. Take the following examples:
• The Strength of Gravity & the Atomic Weak Force: Physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life permitting universe.
• Big Bang’s Low Entropy Condition: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010 (123). Penrose comments, "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."
• Volume of the phase space of possible universes: Roger Penrose of Oxford University states “In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes” Now, how tiny is this volume? According to Penrose the volume of the phase space would be 1/10 to the power of X which is 10123. This is smaller than the ratio of a Proton! This precision is much, much greater than the precision that would be required to hit an individual proton if the entire universe were a dartboard!There are only three possible explanations for the presence of the above fine tuning of the universe:
1. Physical necessity;
2. Chance;
3. Design.
Why it cannot be Physical Necessity
The first alternative seems extraordinarily implausible. There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies states:“Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique…the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions…there is nothing in present ideas about 'laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it…it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.”
Additionally if anyone was to take the view that the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life is due to physical necessity that would mean that it would be impossible to have a universe not fit for life! However as can be seen by the examples above, a slight change of any of the values or constants would mean the universe could not permit life.
Why it cannot be Chance
1. The fine-tuning of the universe to permit life is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
Explaining Premise One
The existence of a life permitting universe is due to conditions that must have been fined-tuned to a degree that is literally incalculable. Take the following examples:
• The Strength of Gravity & the Atomic Weak Force: Physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life permitting universe.
• Big Bang’s Low Entropy Condition: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010 (123). Penrose comments, "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."
• Volume of the phase space of possible universes: Roger Penrose of Oxford University states “In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes” Now, how tiny is this volume? According to Penrose the volume of the phase space would be 1/10 to the power of X which is 10123. This is smaller than the ratio of a Proton! This precision is much, much greater than the precision that would be required to hit an individual proton if the entire universe were a dartboard!There are only three possible explanations for the presence of the above fine tuning of the universe:
1. Physical necessity;
2. Chance;
3. Design.
Why it cannot be Physical Necessity
The first alternative seems extraordinarily implausible. There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies states:“Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique…the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions…there is nothing in present ideas about 'laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it…it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.”
Additionally if anyone was to take the view that the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life is due to physical necessity that would mean that it would be impossible to have a universe not fit for life! However as can be seen by the examples above, a slight change of any of the values or constants would mean the universe could not permit life.
Why it cannot be Chance
Some people who do not understand the impossibility of the universe coming into being by chance exclaim, "It could have happened by chance!" However would they say chance explains how an elephant was sleeping in their garage overnight? Or how a 747 ended up parked in their garden?
Even after their irrational perspective is highlighted, they still hold on to the theory that the universe can exist due to chance. In response to this I would argue that it is not just about chance but something the theorists call “specified probability.” Specified probability is a probability that also conforms to an independent pattern. To illustrate this, imagine you have a monkey in a room for twenty-four hours, typing a way on your laptop. In the morning you enter the room and you see, “O Romeo, O Romeo, where art thou O Romeo? Deny thy father and deny thy name…” The monkey has miraculously written out a Shakespearian sonnet! What you may have expected is random words such as “house,” “car,” and “apple.” However, in this case not only have you seen the improbability of typing intelligible English words – but they also conform to the independent pattern of English grammar! This is the same case with accepting that the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life was just by chance.
It must be Design
Since premises one and two are true, it follows that supernatural design is the most reasonable explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life.
Statement #3: The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
The above statement, which is a contention to the design argument is flawed for two main reasons. First, anyone with a basic understanding of the philosophy of science will conclude that in the inference to the best explanation, the best explanation does not require an explanation! The following example illustrates this point.Imagine 500 years from now, a group of archaeologists start digging in London’s Hyde Park only to find parts of a car and a bus. They would be completely justified in inferring that these finds were not the result of sedimentation and metamorphosis but products of an unknown civilization. However if some skeptics were to argue that we cannot make such inferences because we do not know anything about this civilization, how they lived and who created them, would that make the archaeologists conclusions untrue? Of course not!
Second, if we take this contention seriously it could undermine the very foundations of science and philosophy themselves. If we require an explanation for the basic assumptions of science, for example that the external world exists, where do you think our level of scientific progress would be?
Additionally if we were to apply this type of question to every attempt at explaining the explanation, we would end up with an infinite regression of explanations. And an infinite regression of explanations would defeat the whole purpose of science in the first place – which is to provide an explanation!
A Note on Rejecting the Supernatural
Even after their irrational perspective is highlighted, they still hold on to the theory that the universe can exist due to chance. In response to this I would argue that it is not just about chance but something the theorists call “specified probability.” Specified probability is a probability that also conforms to an independent pattern. To illustrate this, imagine you have a monkey in a room for twenty-four hours, typing a way on your laptop. In the morning you enter the room and you see, “O Romeo, O Romeo, where art thou O Romeo? Deny thy father and deny thy name…” The monkey has miraculously written out a Shakespearian sonnet! What you may have expected is random words such as “house,” “car,” and “apple.” However, in this case not only have you seen the improbability of typing intelligible English words – but they also conform to the independent pattern of English grammar! This is the same case with accepting that the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life was just by chance.
It must be Design
Since premises one and two are true, it follows that supernatural design is the most reasonable explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life.
Statement #3: The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
The above statement, which is a contention to the design argument is flawed for two main reasons. First, anyone with a basic understanding of the philosophy of science will conclude that in the inference to the best explanation, the best explanation does not require an explanation! The following example illustrates this point.Imagine 500 years from now, a group of archaeologists start digging in London’s Hyde Park only to find parts of a car and a bus. They would be completely justified in inferring that these finds were not the result of sedimentation and metamorphosis but products of an unknown civilization. However if some skeptics were to argue that we cannot make such inferences because we do not know anything about this civilization, how they lived and who created them, would that make the archaeologists conclusions untrue? Of course not!
Second, if we take this contention seriously it could undermine the very foundations of science and philosophy themselves. If we require an explanation for the basic assumptions of science, for example that the external world exists, where do you think our level of scientific progress would be?
Additionally if we were to apply this type of question to every attempt at explaining the explanation, we would end up with an infinite regression of explanations. And an infinite regression of explanations would defeat the whole purpose of science in the first place – which is to provide an explanation!
A Note on Rejecting the Supernatural
Dawkins’ also rejects a supernatural designer because he thinks, as an explanation, it lack explanatory power; in other words, no advance is made. He raises this objection because he feels that a supernatural designer is just as complex as design. However Dawkins’ objection is problematic as he assumes that a supernatural designer is as complex as the universe. But a supernatural designer, in other words God, is one of the simplest concepts understood by all. This opinion is expressed by many Philosophers including the famous atheist turned theist Professor Anthony Flew.
Dawkins’ other assumption is that God is made of many parts; however, God is immaterial, transcendent and one. Just because God can do complex things does not make him complex, it seems to me that Dawkins confuses ability with nature. In other words, just because God can do complex things (such as creating the universe) it does not make His nature complex.
So it stands to reason that God is the simplest, and therefore the best, explanation.
Statement #4: The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinism evolution by natural selection and and we don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.
This statement is irrelevant due to the following reasons:
1. Evolution does not have its foot in the door;
2. Evolution is based upon incalculable probabilities;
3. Evolution is impossible because we have not spent enough time on Earth yet.
Let me expand upon these points.
1. Evolution does not have its foot in the door
With regards to the existence of God, evolution does not even have its foot in the door; it’s about nine billion years away if we use the fine-tuning argument mentioned above. Simply put, evolution has no say.
2. Evolution is based upon incalculable probabilities
The odds against assembling the human genome spontaneously are incalculable. The probability of assembling the genome is between 4-180 to 4-110,000 and 4-360 to 4-110,000. These numbers give some feel for the unlikelihood of the species Homo sapiens. And if anyone were to accept evolution by chance, they would have to believe in a miracle as these numbers are so high! Therefore evolution itself would prove the existence of God!
3. Evolution is impossible because we have not had enough time on Earth yet
Dawkins’ other assumption is that God is made of many parts; however, God is immaterial, transcendent and one. Just because God can do complex things does not make him complex, it seems to me that Dawkins confuses ability with nature. In other words, just because God can do complex things (such as creating the universe) it does not make His nature complex.
So it stands to reason that God is the simplest, and therefore the best, explanation.
Statement #4: The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinism evolution by natural selection and and we don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.
This statement is irrelevant due to the following reasons:
1. Evolution does not have its foot in the door;
2. Evolution is based upon incalculable probabilities;
3. Evolution is impossible because we have not spent enough time on Earth yet.
Let me expand upon these points.
1. Evolution does not have its foot in the door
With regards to the existence of God, evolution does not even have its foot in the door; it’s about nine billion years away if we use the fine-tuning argument mentioned above. Simply put, evolution has no say.
2. Evolution is based upon incalculable probabilities
The odds against assembling the human genome spontaneously are incalculable. The probability of assembling the genome is between 4-180 to 4-110,000 and 4-360 to 4-110,000. These numbers give some feel for the unlikelihood of the species Homo sapiens. And if anyone were to accept evolution by chance, they would have to believe in a miracle as these numbers are so high! Therefore evolution itself would prove the existence of God!
3. Evolution is impossible because we have not had enough time on Earth yet
According to John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, the calculated odds of assembling a single gene are between and 4-180 to 4-360. The implications of this are that there simply has not been sufficient time since the formation of the earth to try a number of nucleotide base combinations that can even remotely compare to these numbers!
Statement #5: We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
Dawkins basically says that since there is a naturalistic explanation for the apparent design in species and we do not have a similar explanation for physics, we should just wait. Does this not sound like blind faith to you? The statement presumes scientific naturalism to be the only way of establishing facts or sound conclusions. Why else would he want to wait for a naturalistic explanation?Dawkins’ presumption that scientific naturalism is the only way to establish facts is not true because scientific naturalism cannot prove:
1. Logical truths such as mathematics - in actuality, logical truths are required to prove scientific naturalism. To argue the other way round would be tantamount to arguing in a circle.
2. Aesthetic truths such as beauty.
3. Moral truths such as right and wrong.
Finally, scientific naturalism is self-defeating as the statement “scientific naturalism is the only method to use to establish facts” cannot be proven using scientific naturalism!
It can be seen from the above that Dawkins’ central argument fails and is an embarrassment to the scientific community, as atheist Philosopher Michael Ruse explains, “…unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery.”
Responding to what Philosophers consider his best argument
According to Philosopher and lecturer at Yale University, Gregory E. Granssle, Dawkins’ strongest argument can be found on page 55: “A universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without.”
Dawkins’ argument can be summarised in the following way:
1. A universe created by God would be different than the one created by nature;
2. The universe we live in fits better to a universe created by nature;
3. Therefore the universe we live in is most likely to have been created by nature.
I would argue that Dawkins’ argument couldn’t be any further away from the truth; this is because the universe that we live in actually makes more sense being created by God for the following reasons.
1. The universe is ordered and open to rational anaylsis
If God did not exist, the universe would not display the order it does, and it would not be finely-tuned to permit our existence. Professor Roger Penrose states, "There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance...I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe.”
Additionally, the very fact that we can observe and perform rational analysis on the patterns we perceive in the universe makes more sense if God did exist, because in a naturalistic universe things would be expected to be more chaotic. This does not mean a universe without a God could not be ordered; however it is more likely that God would create an ordered universe, and since the universe we live in is ordered it makes sense that God’s existence fits well with our universe
Statement #5: We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
Dawkins basically says that since there is a naturalistic explanation for the apparent design in species and we do not have a similar explanation for physics, we should just wait. Does this not sound like blind faith to you? The statement presumes scientific naturalism to be the only way of establishing facts or sound conclusions. Why else would he want to wait for a naturalistic explanation?Dawkins’ presumption that scientific naturalism is the only way to establish facts is not true because scientific naturalism cannot prove:
1. Logical truths such as mathematics - in actuality, logical truths are required to prove scientific naturalism. To argue the other way round would be tantamount to arguing in a circle.
2. Aesthetic truths such as beauty.
3. Moral truths such as right and wrong.
Finally, scientific naturalism is self-defeating as the statement “scientific naturalism is the only method to use to establish facts” cannot be proven using scientific naturalism!
It can be seen from the above that Dawkins’ central argument fails and is an embarrassment to the scientific community, as atheist Philosopher Michael Ruse explains, “…unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery.”
Responding to what Philosophers consider his best argument
According to Philosopher and lecturer at Yale University, Gregory E. Granssle, Dawkins’ strongest argument can be found on page 55: “A universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without.”
Dawkins’ argument can be summarised in the following way:
1. A universe created by God would be different than the one created by nature;
2. The universe we live in fits better to a universe created by nature;
3. Therefore the universe we live in is most likely to have been created by nature.
I would argue that Dawkins’ argument couldn’t be any further away from the truth; this is because the universe that we live in actually makes more sense being created by God for the following reasons.
1. The universe is ordered and open to rational anaylsis
If God did not exist, the universe would not display the order it does, and it would not be finely-tuned to permit our existence. Professor Roger Penrose states, "There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance...I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe.”
Additionally, the very fact that we can observe and perform rational analysis on the patterns we perceive in the universe makes more sense if God did exist, because in a naturalistic universe things would be expected to be more chaotic. This does not mean a universe without a God could not be ordered; however it is more likely that God would create an ordered universe, and since the universe we live in is ordered it makes sense that God’s existence fits well with our universe
2. The universe contains conscious and aware beings
A universe that contains consciousness and awareness makes sense with the existence of God. A universe without a God would be very different to the one we are living in.
Explanation
Human beings experience things all the time. This article you are reading is an experience; even talking about your experience is an experience. However the ultimate reality that we know from any experience is the one who experiences it – in other words ourselves. When we realise that there is a first-person, an “I”, “me” or “mine,” we come to face a profound mystery. The Philosopher Roy Abraham Varghese puts it nicely when he wrote, “To reverse Descartes, ‘I am, therefore I think...’ Who is this ‘I’? ‘Where’ is it? How did it come to be? Your self is not just something physical.”
The self is not a physical thing; it is not contained in any cell or biological structure. The most unchallenged and intuitive reality is that we are all aware, but we cannot describe or explain what this awareness is. One thing that we can be sure of is that the self cannot be explained biologically or chemically. The main reason for this is that science does not discover the self; it is actually the other way round. For science to try and explain the truth of the self would be tantamount to arguing in a circle! Even scientists recognise this; the physicist Gerald Schroeder points out that there is no real difference between a heap of sand and the brain of an Einstein. The advocates of a physical explanation for the self end up in a muddle as they require answers to even bigger questions, such as “How can certain bits of matter suddenly create a new reality that has no resemblance to matter?”
So if the self cannot be explained physically then the next question must be asked: “How did it come to be?” The history of the universe indicates that consciousness spontaneously arose, and language emerged without any evolutionary forerunner. So where did it come from? Even the neo-atheists have failed to come to terms with the nature of the self and its source, because no physical explanation is coherent enough to be convincing. Even Richard Dawkins almost admits defeat concerning the self and consciousness; he states, “We don’t know. We don’t understand it.”
The best explanation for the nature and source of the self is that it came from a source that is thinking, aware and conscious. How else can the self, which is an entity with a capacity to reflect and experience, manifest itself? It cannot have come from unconscious matter incapable to experience and ponder. Simply put, matter cannot produce concepts and perceptions, therefore we can conclude that the self cannot have a material basis but must have come from a living source that transcends the material world; and this is best explained by God. No other answer provides an adequate explanation for this phenomenon.
3. The universe contains objective morality
Explanation
Human beings experience things all the time. This article you are reading is an experience; even talking about your experience is an experience. However the ultimate reality that we know from any experience is the one who experiences it – in other words ourselves. When we realise that there is a first-person, an “I”, “me” or “mine,” we come to face a profound mystery. The Philosopher Roy Abraham Varghese puts it nicely when he wrote, “To reverse Descartes, ‘I am, therefore I think...’ Who is this ‘I’? ‘Where’ is it? How did it come to be? Your self is not just something physical.”
The self is not a physical thing; it is not contained in any cell or biological structure. The most unchallenged and intuitive reality is that we are all aware, but we cannot describe or explain what this awareness is. One thing that we can be sure of is that the self cannot be explained biologically or chemically. The main reason for this is that science does not discover the self; it is actually the other way round. For science to try and explain the truth of the self would be tantamount to arguing in a circle! Even scientists recognise this; the physicist Gerald Schroeder points out that there is no real difference between a heap of sand and the brain of an Einstein. The advocates of a physical explanation for the self end up in a muddle as they require answers to even bigger questions, such as “How can certain bits of matter suddenly create a new reality that has no resemblance to matter?”
So if the self cannot be explained physically then the next question must be asked: “How did it come to be?” The history of the universe indicates that consciousness spontaneously arose, and language emerged without any evolutionary forerunner. So where did it come from? Even the neo-atheists have failed to come to terms with the nature of the self and its source, because no physical explanation is coherent enough to be convincing. Even Richard Dawkins almost admits defeat concerning the self and consciousness; he states, “We don’t know. We don’t understand it.”
The best explanation for the nature and source of the self is that it came from a source that is thinking, aware and conscious. How else can the self, which is an entity with a capacity to reflect and experience, manifest itself? It cannot have come from unconscious matter incapable to experience and ponder. Simply put, matter cannot produce concepts and perceptions, therefore we can conclude that the self cannot have a material basis but must have come from a living source that transcends the material world; and this is best explained by God. No other answer provides an adequate explanation for this phenomenon.
3. The universe contains objective morality
We all believe that killing 6 million Jews during World War II was morally wrong, however not only do we believe it was morally wrong we believe it was objectively morally wrong. What I mean by objective is that if the Nazis had successfully taken over Europe and brainwashed us to believe that it was ok to commit genocide, it would still be objectively morally wrong regardless of human experience. However since our universe contains objective morality then it can only make sense with God’s existence, because God is required as rational basis for objective morality. Without God morality is subjective, because God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity. So the universe with objective morality makes no sense without God. In this light the Muslim or theist may argue:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist;
2. The universe with objective moral values does exist;
3. Therefore, God exists.
Explaining the key premise
The question about objective good or bad, in other words objective morality, has been discussed by many theists and non-theists alike. Many have concluded that there is no objective morality without God. Humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz aptly puts it as,“The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”
Paul Kurtz is right; God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity, so without God there is no rational basis for objective morality. To explain this further let us discuss alternative conceptual foundations for morality.
In God’s absence, there are only two alternative conceptual foundations
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist;
2. The universe with objective moral values does exist;
3. Therefore, God exists.
Explaining the key premise
The question about objective good or bad, in other words objective morality, has been discussed by many theists and non-theists alike. Many have concluded that there is no objective morality without God. Humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz aptly puts it as,“The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”
Paul Kurtz is right; God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity, so without God there is no rational basis for objective morality. To explain this further let us discuss alternative conceptual foundations for morality.
In God’s absence, there are only two alternative conceptual foundations
1. Social pressure
2. Evolution
Both social pressures and evolution provide no objective basis for morality as they both claim that our morality is contingent on changes: biological and social. Therefore morality cannot be binding – true regardless of who believes in them. Therefore without God, there is no objective basis for morality. God as a concept is not subjective, therefore having God as the basis for morality makes them binding and objective, because God transcends human subjectivity. The following statement by Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, correctly concludes,
“Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.”
Since the universe contains objective morality, and Gods existence is necessary as a conceptual foundation for objective morals, then the universe we live in makes sense with the existence of God.
Both social pressures and evolution provide no objective basis for morality as they both claim that our morality is contingent on changes: biological and social. Therefore morality cannot be binding – true regardless of who believes in them. Therefore without God, there is no objective basis for morality. God as a concept is not subjective, therefore having God as the basis for morality makes them binding and objective, because God transcends human subjectivity. The following statement by Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, correctly concludes,
“Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.”
Since the universe contains objective morality, and Gods existence is necessary as a conceptual foundation for objective morals, then the universe we live in makes sense with the existence of God.
A Quick Note on Religious “Evils”
Before I conclude I would like to highlight that a response to Dawkins’ other contentions with the concept of God and religious life. Dawkins seems to attribute all the negative and evil things to religion. However there is a strong argument that these things are not unique to religion itself, but the common conceptual dominator is humanity. This is summarised well by Keith Ward, the former Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, he writes, ‘“It is very difficult to think of any organised human activity that could not be corrupted…The lesson is that anti-religious corruptions and religious corruptions are both possible. There is no magic system or belief, not even belief in liberal democracy, which can be guaranteed to prevent it.”
To illustrate this let me use the outdated cliché of “religions are the cause war and conflict” and show how war and conflict are not unique to religions. In the relatively short history of secularism the following massacres have committed in the name of non-religious ideologies such a communism and social-Darwinism:
• 70,000,000 under chairman Mao
• 20,000,000 under Stalin
• 2,000,000 no longer exist because of Pol Pot
• 700,000 innocent Iraqi’s in the current occupation
• 500,000 Iraqi children in the 10 year sanctions
So it can be clearly seen above that war and conflict are not religious monopolies, rather they are human phenomena and not unique to religion.
Conclusion
Before I conclude I would like to highlight that a response to Dawkins’ other contentions with the concept of God and religious life. Dawkins seems to attribute all the negative and evil things to religion. However there is a strong argument that these things are not unique to religion itself, but the common conceptual dominator is humanity. This is summarised well by Keith Ward, the former Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, he writes, ‘“It is very difficult to think of any organised human activity that could not be corrupted…The lesson is that anti-religious corruptions and religious corruptions are both possible. There is no magic system or belief, not even belief in liberal democracy, which can be guaranteed to prevent it.”
To illustrate this let me use the outdated cliché of “religions are the cause war and conflict” and show how war and conflict are not unique to religions. In the relatively short history of secularism the following massacres have committed in the name of non-religious ideologies such a communism and social-Darwinism:
• 70,000,000 under chairman Mao
• 20,000,000 under Stalin
• 2,000,000 no longer exist because of Pol Pot
• 700,000 innocent Iraqi’s in the current occupation
• 500,000 Iraqi children in the 10 year sanctions
So it can be clearly seen above that war and conflict are not religious monopolies, rather they are human phenomena and not unique to religion.
Conclusion
This article attempted to respond to Richard Dawkins’ best-seller “The God Delusion” by responding to his central argument and the argument that Philosophers consider to be his best. However, intellectual gymnastics - no matter how truthful - seldom convinces others, so I thought it would best to allow the expression of God – the Qur’an – to have the final say. In the wonderful eloquence and sublime style God says,
In the creation of the heavens and Earth, and the alternation of the night and day, and the ships which sail the seas to people's benefit, and the water which God sends down from the sky – by which He brings the Earth to life when it was dead and scatters about in it creatures of every kind – and the varying direction of the winds, and the clouds subservient between heaven and Earth, there are signs for people who use their intellect. Qur'an, 2:164
In the creation of the heavens and Earth, and the alternation of the night and day, and the ships which sail the seas to people's benefit, and the water which God sends down from the sky – by which He brings the Earth to life when it was dead and scatters about in it creatures of every kind – and the varying direction of the winds, and the clouds subservient between heaven and Earth, there are signs for people who use their intellect. Qur'an, 2:164
Posts
53 comments:
Mashallah a very good response. Keep the good work up
Excellent piece, mashAllah keep up the good work.
wow, this is a masterpiece. i hope to see this one day in the new york times. Inshaa Allah, it will come to pass. well done bro
Masha Allah, great counter arguments... Other comments re: "who designed the designer" or "who created the creator" are meaningless statetments/questions perhaps even an oxymoron. It is not possible for the creator to also be the created: it's a contradiction in terms!
As regards causation,it is for those bound by space & time. The "creator" of this law cannot be subject to it!
Following the chain of causality, every state of physical existence owes itself to another state of physical existence & that state owes its existence to another. However, you cannot go back physical states of existences at infinitum.. there must have been an uncaused cause (a primum mobile)& this has to be a NON physical state.(Aristotle)
Also, if science is the study of "observable phenomena" & "human intellect" (n.b science isn't able to adequately explain how the human brain actually functions!) attempts to unravel some of the mysteries of the universe, how logical is it to add in a THIRD unknown factor (chance/evolution or "the missing physics explanation")into this equation??
Immanuel Kant realised in his critique of pure reason that the mind cannot comprehend infinte realities & is by nature fitted only to apprehend particulars. God is known by conscience not necessarily reason. Just as our thirst for water, is a proof that it exists, our yearning for justice is proof that a just being exists. (Taken from Dr Mostafa Mahmoud; Dialogue with an Atheist)
Assalamu alaykum!
Mashallah, top class article brother Hamza - May Allaah increase your knowledge and scales of good deeds immensely.
Since the Haiti disaster, people and media have brought forth the 'PROBLEM OF EVIL' and 'WHY DOES GOD ALLOW NATURAL DISASTERS?' hue and cry to the fore. I wrote a response on the BBC website using your arguments, but shame on them, they did not publish it.
Here is the comments page...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8467755.stm
Maybe you can hold some of your talks using the current crisis and use that as a platform to explain the Islamic stance.
a very well thought out article
Fantastic work, Jazaak Allaah Khayr.
Keep it up, brother.
a-Maze.
MashAllah excellent article but i should be able to share this !
1. A universe created by God would be different than the one created by nature;
2. The universe we live in fits better to a universe created by nature;
3. Therefore the universe we live in is most likely to have been created by nature.
Simple answers to the above:
1 - How does anyone know that a universe created by God would be different to the current one? The statement assumes Dawkins knows and understands the mind of God which enables him to say this.
If anyone knows the mind of God, then God must be a reality.
2 - What is nature? He talks of nature as a different kind of creator - therefore, he is implying, that whatever name you call it, there is an external creator that created the universe and everything in it.
A very interesting article.
I like your style of analysis.
May Allah protect you and help you giving dawah.
Subhallah, I myself wanted to do a responce to his book...but that just did it for me.
Dawkin has plagiarised most of his ideas from others. I personally didn't come across any new arguments or any arguments that were 'bettered' in any way. He does however put them across in a way for everyone to understand.
The ummah is in dire need of muslim intellects like yourself to project the 'god theory' to evangelical atheists like Dawkins. Masha'allah
Assalamualaikum Hamza!
Great Job indeed, MashAllah!
I pray Allah to keep you steadfast.
Long before I had chat with many atheists on yahoo online. I presented them "The God Arises" book written by Maulana Waheeduddin Khan saheb.
Now, I can present this article of yours.
I want to join you in your work but don't know how.
Please let me know.
JazakAllahu Khairan
Massalam!
Never have I seen more canards fitted into so few words. It's readily apparent that you are preaching to the choir and probably won't even publish comments that don't tow the line... but I'm afraid you seem to have missed the point by rather a large degree. Positive claims require positive evidence. Until positive evidence is supplied to corroborate the validity of a postulate, it is only sane to suspend belief in the postulate until said substantive evidence is provided supporting its existence. Atheists don't need to do anything - we've been waiting millenia for you theists to get round to providing a shred of evidence for your various stripes, flavours and designs of cosmic pixie.
Dear Anonymous,
Do you not think you have pressumed scientific naturalism to be true?
And, what do you mean by positive evidence?
Regards.
Assalamualaykum brother Hamza,
I thought that this writing was great, masha'Allah.
In regards to what Anonymous mentioned about 'positive evidence', I found the following definition:
Direct proof of the fact or point in issue, as distinguished from circumstantial proof; proof that if believed, establishes the truth or falsity of a fact in issue and does not arise from a presumption.
From http://law.jrank.org/pages/9284/Positive-Evidence.html
I hope that helps. May Allah bless you in your work!
Salam,
With regards to Anonymous' comment above: there's been this huge debate between atheists and theists on Youtube about whether 'the absence of evidence is evidence of absence' when it comes to God [SWT]. A trio of theists (a Muslim and two Christians) teamed up and named their project "The Presumption of Atheism" which argues against what atheists (atleast on Youtube) have been preaching: that atheism is the default position.
I assume this is the same line of thinking that Anonymous is going on.. The argument is that, just as you shouldn't believe in fairies and pixies until there is evidence, the same goes for believing in God.
JazakAllah khair for your work.
Dear Anonymous,
If you saw human footprints in the sand you wouldn't say lets get more proof to prove it was an actual human that walked through and not an alien being that we haven't discovered yet. As rational human beings we act upon what 'we know' and not on what we 'might know' we act on 'what is' and not on 'what might be'. You wouldn't let a doctor operate on you saying "we don't really have any need for a particular part of the brain it's just that science hasn't proven it yet" and neither would we allow a doctor to operate on us who says he's receiving revelation about how to conduct the operation ( a nightmare scenario which athiests seem to dream up whenever they talk to people like us) What we do know is that we can't 'sense' a supernatural being but we know that matter i.e. the universe is not eternal and cannot bring itself into existence. If the universe was born out of 'lucky' events then these 'lucky' events would have to continue in order for the universe to continue to exist. What are the chances of that happening again and again? ;)
Whether you accept it or not you have faith in an irrational belief that one day you will have irrefutable proof that there is no god in that respect you are no different to the idolaters who believe that one day the idol will start talking back to them to prove they're right. Your priests are hawking, dawkins and anyone else who dreams up a sci-fi fantasy with multiverses and stargates which you readily lap up just as long as they don't mention god. Science only explains the 'how' and not the 'why'. Saying 'chance caused it' is no different to saying 'god caused it' because both answers assume that an explanation is not needed.
I think athiests have more of a problem with religion and not with god especially when christians try to use their confused morality (which varies from person to person) to interfere in scientific progress, stem cells etc but in Islam we don't have such problems. I pray that Allah(swt) opens your heart to the deen, Thanks
Dear Anonymous (the atheist),
You said : "Atheists don't need to do anything - we've been waiting millenia for you theists to get round to providing a shred of evidence for your various stripes, flavours and designs of cosmic pixie."
Also you said: "Positive claims require positive evidence."
So let me help you…
How about this let’s try something much easier to wait for… we will provide you with various stripes, flavours and designs of the dismantled and jumbled up flags of the world of a jigsaw puzzle…. then let’s all wait another millennia to see, if all of these pieces of the jigsaw get re-assembled back together again, into the complete and correct jigsaw. Will this re-construction occur through:-
1)Nothing OR
2)Randomness/chance/coincidence i.e. mathematical probability OR
3)Nature (since nature has order/pattern, it will self regulate and correct this flaw) OR
4)Will power (meaning an entity (any entity) with consciousness and intelligence that chooses to re-construct it)
If you accept the flags of the world cannot be re-constructed via 1), 2) or 3), then how on earth (pun intended), through sane and rational thinking, can you accept that 1), 2) or 3) can occur for the astounding jigsaw, that is the whole universe, which culminated into intricate planets, sublime living things and non-living things?
Have you been watching Super-Ted ? I used to love that cartoon show as a kid – in fact, believing in the Spotty Man has more weight of evidence than 1), 2) or 3) as we have material evidence that Spotty Man can give life to an inanimate teddy, which became Super Ted. Spotty Man falls into 4). We have no evidence from history, and to this day, that 1), 2) or 3) can bring something into existence. I have made a positive claim for 4) with a positive and irrefutable evidence.
Point 4) can only occur via a miracle, which can only be attributed to the super-natural. Theists have called this super-natural entity, the creator, God (or whatever it is in their lingo). Interestingly, in Islaam, one of the names of the creator is called al-Khaaliq, The Creator, in ‘Arabic, means someone who creates out of nothing!
I leave you with this thought and rational evidence from the Quran…
“ Is not He, Who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the like of them? Yes, indeed! He is the All-Knowing Supreme Creator. (81) Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, "Be!" and it is! (82) So glorified is He and Exalted above all that they associate with Him, and in Whose Hands is the dominion of all things: and to Him you shall be returned. (83)”
[Surah Yasin] Quranic Meanings
As a computer programmer myself – I can testify to this verse – I can with a click of a button create a virtual world using my programming skills, in a second - surely the creator of the universe can do better – He merely wills it – and it happens – no computer, no buttons, not even triggers required, in fact from nothing – that my friends, is ultimate programming skills! I bow down in reverence and utter humility!
Richard Dawkins's premises are:
1. A universe created by God would be different than the one created by nature;
2. The universe we live in fits better to a universe created by nature;
3. Therefore the universe we live in is most likely to have been created by nature.
To accept these premsies, one must assume, Dawkins must have communicated with (or researched both entities) :-
1) God and looked at His blueprint for the universe
2) Nature and looked at its blueprint for the universe
3) Concluded 2) over 1) based on x,y or z
Can a sane A-Level student of philosophy or academia write such premises?... and this man claims to be a scholar??
"The Dawkins Delusion" does not need a book - just a postcard to destroy his fairytale fantasies that is disguised as science! This man is a fool in scholars' clothing!
Negative claims also require evidence.
Atheists also have to answer.
What has been for ever? What is the Atheist's Response?
What is the Atheist's proof that there is no God. On what basis do Atheists claim such thing. What does the Atheist have... Limited senses beyond which he/she cannot go. Limited visible spectrum, limited hearing range, limited touch sensation and so on...Even scientific tools are limited. So how can he claim that he has to percieve something with his limited senses and tools. Can you see the top of a sky scraper from the ground? why because your range is too low.
Then the big bang... the expansion of the universe. the complexity from the subatomic level to the universe level, you keep on making more powerful microscopes and keep finding out that the creation of God is even more complex and perfect than you previously imagined.
Where are the intermediate fossils?
Fossil evidence is missing for evolution and fossil evidence is there for creation. If 1 converted to 2 via evolution, then 1.01, 10.2, 1.03...1.97, 1.98, 1.99 where are the fossils for the intermediate species. if you have many fosils for 1 and 2 then where are the fossils for the many stages between them? There are none.
In short Atheists have to answer:
1. What has been for ever. SomeOne must have been for ever otherwise nothing would be here today.
2. Evolution is the key for atheists and there is no proof for evolution. One of the tests is fossils and fossil evidence presented by creationalists like www.harunyahya.com is overwhelming in comparison to some isolated fossils presented by some atheists. Fossils of same species existing millions of years ago and still existing today is a proof that there is no evolution but intelligent design.
3. You can't claim that you have to verify everything with your senses because they are limited.
4. To claim all this complex creation came out of nothing by chance, then leave some metal scrap and paint on the floor and wait till it becomes the most complex car by chance and evolution??? Is it baseless , then the creation is much more complex than this. the cell, the atom, the human, the universe. So complex that claiming everything is by evolution and chance is baseless.
What positive evidence means is evidence that would actually support the hypothesis of a god scientifically, rather than just simply assuming his existence on faith.
There is absolutely no evidence that any god exists, and until there is, there is no reason to believe in one at all.
God probably does not exist because complex, structured intelligences do not just suddenly spring out of thin air, rather, it is a process of billions of years of biological evolution. Therefore, it must be said that whatever intelligence arises in the universe can not be responsible for creating it.
The Qu'ran is a book of fairy tales, nothing more.
Hello Anonymous,
Your statements are an indication that you have not read the article or that you have not understood it.
Your requirement for scientific evidence pressumes scientific naturalism to be true, i.e. that it is the only method to reach sound conclusions. I have already explained in the article that this is a false notion based on the fact that scientific naturalism cannot prove logical truths, mathematical truths, moral truths etc. Also scientific naturalism is self-defeating.
As for evolution, it doesnt have a foot in the door, its about 9 billion years away as the argument from design uses modern phisics as evidence for fine tuning. And as I mentioned even Dawkins agrees and acknowledges that we do not have an evolution type explanation for the universe.
You must realise that from the natural world there are sign posts to trancendence and one of these signs is the fine tuning of the cosmos to permit life.
I pray this helps.
Regards.
Anonymous,
There is no such thing as positive evidence for 1 of 2 possibilities. You claim that positive evidence must be provided for option 1 i.e. God Exists and all the evidence presented by us is ignored by you (despite you having limited senses and immature scientific tools and what you are trying to percieve via tools and senses is too High and Beyond the reach of such small senses and tools but evidences for HIS Existence are everywhere)
and for possibility 2 instead of presenting any evidences in support of it you assume that by default it holds??? You claim that there is no God. What is your alleged evidence to support this claim and what is your evidence???
There is absolutely no evidence that God does not exist. You are simply using dogma and thinking your assumptions are true without any evidence.
Again you are using evolution card and that is all atheists have. But it is theory of evolution, never scientifically proven, nor can be scientifically proven. Fossils are one of the criteria and Harun Yahya has published Atlas of Creation series filled with fossil evidence in support of intelligent creation. Where is your fossil evidence?
And although evolution is a baseless theory, for the sake of argument if you claim it is true, then you have to admit something or Some One must have been for ever. Is it more wise to believe some thing dead has been for ever which can't even help itself or change itself and intelligent design is too much for it, or Some One has been for ever WHO is Beyond Creation and Time and WHO created all the Creation.
If I say I left some metal scrap and threw paint on the floor and within few years it bacame the most advanced car, what wil you say, I need a Mental doctor. Then Atheists claim much more complex creation came into being by even more baseless arguments. What do they need???
Where are the fossils for intermediate species???
What is DNA programming, i.e. WHO programmed that a cell will grow into a complex human being with different cells and structures.
Darwin claimed bear converted to whale. Is it not a fairy tale?
And Qur'an is full of Miracles and all scientific claims made by it have proven to be true.
I you can't percieve something with your limited senses, does it become fairy tale?
Anonymous, The Atheist said:
"God probably does not exist because complex, structured intelligences do not just suddenly spring out of thin air, rather, it is a process of billions of years of biological evolution."
I agree the universe and the intelligent beings do not just pop out from thing air.
The instigation of the universe and all existence (I am deliberately avoiding the word 'creation' to give an unbiased argument here) can be attributed to only these 3 following possibilities:-
1. Nothing instigated it
2. Itself instigated it
3. Something instigated it
Atheists and Theists unanimously will agree on 3. In fact any sane and rational person has to go for 3.
WHAT IS THIS SOMETHING?
----------------------
ATHEISTS
--------
1. All modern day atheists conclude this "something", the instigator, to be "UNKNOWN" and skip to how life started and conclude it was "EVOLUTION"
They base EVOLUTION SOLELY on visual data methodology, i.e. sense data, as means to arrive at a sound and conclusive proof.
3. This theory was proposed by JUST ONE MAN in history - Mr Charles Darwin, a biologist, just over 100years ago!
4.The logical question is who or what is this "evolution" and what essence and qualities must it possess to bring about such wonderment we call existence - what is the atheists' answer?
5. To verify their conclusion it was EVOLUTION - Have they seen evolution (i.e, this entity called evolution)? NO! Have communicated with evolution? NO!
6. They conclude it was EVOLUTION because of 'the effects of evolution' based on the visual evolutionary data it left behind. This conclusion is not unanimous because past atheists kept changing their theory of what caused them to exist. Was it time? nature? nothing? chance? well anything but an intelligent being or entity would be their answer! WHY???
THEISTS
-------
1. All theists from the beginning of mankind, concluded this "something", the instigator, to be "GOD".
2.They base God by using NUMEROUS methodology of arriving at a 'sound conclusion' to name the most powerful:-
a. Deductive/logical reasoning
b. Mathematical reasoning (it cannot be chance)
c. Philosophical proofs
(Teleological/Ontological/Cosmological)
d. Objective morality
e. Proof from instinct
3. The theory of GOD was proposed by at least HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, throughout history from day one, to present and will not syop 'til mankind's demise- from diverse backgrounds and education as - MEN OF SCIENCE, MEN OF KNOWLEDGE, THINKERS, PHILOSOPHERS, and ultimately PROPHETS - too many to names to name here!
4.The logical question is who or what is this "GOD" and what essence and qualities must it possess to bring about such wonderment we call existence - what is the theists' answer? ETERNAL, INDEPENDENT, INTELLIGENT, EVER-LIVING to name a few - all theists are unanimous on this
5. To verify their conclusion it was GOD - Have they seen GOD? NO! Have communicated with GOD? YES!
6. They conclude it was GOD because of too many things have added up to irrefutably and overwhelmingly conclude point 4. based on all the enumerated sound conclusions that were highlighted in point 2.
CONCLUSION
---------
Now you are the judge, jury and executioner, after reading the arguments and evidences for both sides- being an unbiased and fair-minded person, which one would you like to be, an ATHEIST or a THEIST?
Since our Atheist friend said "God PROBABLY does not exist", it shows they are open to be swayed with sound reasoning. Does he/she now feel the evidences and sound conclusion points to that "God MOST LIKELY exists" and even "God DOES exist 100%"
Assalumun alaikum Brothers and Sisters,
I have just read a brilliant book by Stephen C Meyer which i strongly recommend titled 'Signature In The Cell' DNA and the evidence for intelligent design. (2009)
This book clearly,decisevely and conclusively makes the case for Intelligent Design by the information and digital code in DNA which cannot be by chance or self-organizational processes i.e reduction to physical or chemical neccessity.
So even if 'macro-evolution' (one species into another over time) were true and the absence of transitional fossils in the record actually disprove this ,particularly the 'Cambrian Explosion' (which took place at the beginning of biological life), chance and natural processes can be ruled out.
So the officialised and man-made myth that Religion and science cannot co-exist is only an institutionalised deception at the hands of materialists and atheists who have controlled the scientific establishment, academia, media etc for the last 150 years is clearly exposed and understood by those who want to see.
So Intelligent Design IS SCIENCE and it points to design and therefore a Designer. Who that Designer is not for science to establish. That is the role that Religion fulfills by saying it is God via Revelation.
His final revelation is the Glorious Qu'ran which is the only scripture that totally agrees with modern ESTABLISHED scientific findings and anticipates them by... 1400 years!
Kind regards and Salaams
Yusuf Salahuhdin Morreale
Dear brother Hamza, brothers, sisters and friends,
What is it with these Richards who are Atheists?? They seem to be avowed adversaries of religion, thus the Deen.
We have Richard Dawkins (richarddawkins.net/) and now this irate Richard James (http://nocaliphatefortheuk.wordpress.com/) who is slandering you on his blog.
I have an idea... let's all make du'a that one of the Richards embraces the Deen of Truth!
This will be similar to Final Messenger's (pbuh) du'a ...
He (pbuh) made a dua asking Allah to make either of the two Umars a Muslim. The two Umars that the Prophet was talking about were: Umar ibn al-Khattaab and Umar ibn al-Hisham. Allaah chose Umar ibn al-Khattaab. Umar ibn al-Hisham was none other than, Abu Jahl, ‘the father of ignorance’ - the kuniya that The Final Messenger (pbuh) entitled him with. One will be the light of Islaam, whilst the other will be the light that fuels jahannum!
History can repeat itself for the Richards - Inshallah!
I hope we get the big fish - Richard Dawkins - by the permission of Almighty Allaah!
Seriously - when was the last time we made du'a that an avowed adversary becomes an intimate friend??
I am currently reading an amazing book by the Israeli biophysicist Dr. Lee Speter called "Not by Chance - Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution." This book shows how Information Theory , Modern Biogenetics and Statistical Mathematics dump the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution(NDT) into a terrible abyss. A must read for for those who have a basic background of Biology and/or biogentics.
Abu Maryam ,
Mashallah , That's a very good point. We more often direct our criticism at the high priests of evolution and atheism such as Dawkins and his uncritical disciples. Sure , making Dua'a to ALlah asking make them one of us is good but Allah guides whom he pleases and He leads astray whom He pleases.
Jazakallah Khair
I appreciate for you in allowing me to provide a few insights into the comment of " Positive claims require positive evidence". Let us assume that you take a week long summer vacation, I know I need one lol. And after returning home, you find that all your furnitures are gone, your house is completely empty. All your walls are painted with messages telling you to "BEWARE!" with red lettering. Now does your rationale tell you that someone broke into your home and did all this or it happened by chance?
Salam Hamza,
When are you going to come out with a book. Or do you already have one?
If you don't, please do.
Thanks and salam
In the 'natural universe' as opposed to a universe originated by a divine will; would there be sentient life in such a 'natural universe'?
Furthermore why are human beings (as sentient life) so consciously and subconsciously asking questions about an Originator? Even Atheists ask questions about existence of God. Would this be a ‘natural universe’ and human beings (including their deep thoughts and identity) down to chance this would see rather strange being preoccupied with questions about a God (as in a universe created by God)?
Great article. Its high time that the myth and fairy tale of scientism is eradicated. I am a Muslim alhamdullilah, however the best website for demolishing the myth of evolution is http://www.trueorigin.org. Its by scientists who use science itself to demolish the lies and pseudo-scientific garbage propagated by the likes of Dawkins and Hawking etc. They are christian scientists but ignore that element because you are not going to find "evolution is false because the bible says so". It is one of the best websites dealing with the subject of evolution and deals with this subject in a very honest and easy to understand manner. I have found this site to be even more scientific and erudite then Harun Yahya's web site. Again ignore that they are "christian scientists", truth is truth wherever it may come from.
I've been watching Richard Iblis Dawkins videos on the youtube and he says some pretty messed up things about Islam; all he says is that Islam is violent and he always talks about apostasy. And the people watch his videos and comment them believing what he says abou Islam, as if it was a pagan religion exclusively dedicated to preach war and killing apostates.
I really really believe that a qualified, knowledgeable Muslim like Hamza, well versed in philosophy and atheism and its arguments, should debate with this prophet of the Shaytan.
Don't you think so, brothers and sisters?
I've been watching Richard Iblis Dawkins videos on the youtube and he says some pretty messed up things about Islam; all he says is that Islam is violent and he always talks about apostasy. And the people watch his videos and comment them believing what he says abou Islam, as if it was a pagan religion exclusively dedicated to preach war and killing apostates.
I really really believe that a qualified, knowledgeable Muslim like Hamza, well versed in philosophy and atheism and its arguments, should debate with this prophet of the Shaytan.
Don't you think so, brothers and sisters?
In the debate Hamzah says the "10 to the power of 10, that is 10 with a 123 zeroes". Isn't 10 to the power of 10, 10 with 10 zeroes? Pls correct me if I've got it wrong.
Yes, it was a mistake! JazakAllahkhair.
That was a very good answer, Br.Hamza. I shared with my dawah team with credits to you. May God bless you, amen
If the Athiest says tht its nature who created the world we are living in , then I wud ask , who created the nature?
There is a creator for everything and the Ultimate creator is God Almighty, the Supreme, neither begets, bor begotten.
It is Allah.
from Sarah
I was reading this blog post, just going along to see if there is a real valid sense here against Dawkins or science for that matter.
I read and I read :"we can believe in God’s existence from other arguments, which include:
• The argument from morality;
• The miracle of the Qur’an;
• The cosmological argument;
• The argument from personal experience;
• The argument from consciousness."
Here is where I stopped reading. Give me a bloody break!! Morality??? Miracle of the Quran??? what miracle?? I studies the Quran and sharia in Mecca and Madina... I read a lot into History and many religions, I found nothing new in the Quran, nothing amazing!!.
This article is falsely posing to be debunking Dawkins but honestly it is not even standing on any ground. Claiming the Quran as a miracle shows ignorance and pure Islamic biased opinion.
I am fully confident that rationally and ethically the Quran, the life of Muhammed is in no way a ground to hold against any science whether it is in biology or geology... not even common sense.
I need to say no more.
TRUTH HAS NO BIAS.
When we say The Quran is miraculous, its not because 'we are muslims' so we say it, but because the QURAN proves itself. As Muslims we don't just recite the Quran but also learn its meanings. So when we say The QURAN IS MIRACULOUS its because we have the knowledge of the Quran. Thus when we testify about it, it is not out of blind faith but due to reasoning that strongly convinces that the Quran is Miraculous indeed.
But those who make statements refuting this claim without first investigating such notions breeding in their mind, the Quran OPENLY challenges them.
All they have to do is pick the book and try disapproving the claims of Quran instead of making mere statements.
As a matter of fact both theists and atheist will agree on one point i.e., wise men seek not blind faith just as blind faith seeketh not reason and is void of logic and rationality.
On the contrary the Quran encourages reasoning and repeatedly draws attention of men of understanding to reflect and ponder upon the signs spread in the universe.
We will show them Our Signs on the horizon and within themselves until it is clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not enough for your Lord that He is a witness of everything? (Qur'an, 41:53)
When we learn about Muhammad peace be upon him, he appears a perfect role model for mankind today and for all ages to come. Atheists & anti-Islam propagandists have since centuries tried to malign his noble reputation in their attack on Islam due to the many prejudices they harbored.
Nonetheless, History is witness to this man's greatness of purpose and his efforts in achieving it, how he stood firm in his mission of cleansing mankind of its pagan beliefs & polytheism and conveying the message of Oneness of God(monotheism) in an age and place surrounded by idols and superstition. He was best to his neighbors and family. He repelled evil with good. He best treated his wives,he remained steadfast throughout his mission which required great patience, perseverance,and courage. He led his followers in both peace and struggle for the sake of justice. He set an example by granting general amnesty to a city that exiled him & his staunchest enemies who not just persecuted him for his mission but even tried to kill him.
He forgave them.
His wives were given such honour and status even today they are called mother of believers out of respect for them.
His wife Ayesha (anti Islamists try endlessly to portray this marriage badly ignoring that she dearly loved the noble prophet as he made his wives feel best and most honourable when he was with them, sharing and taking their opinion regularly)Ayesha (May God be pleased with her) not only cherished the marriage companionship but made every effort in learning the details of her great husband's life and meticulously conveyed great number of tradition (hadeeth) to others so much so that perhaps she can fairly be considered as one of the biggest source of hadeeth (prophetic tradition) an achievement that rightfully designates her as most famous woman scholar of Islamic world.
I can write ALL ALONG, but it is only fair THAT you take the initiative and INVESTIGATE through authentic sources to learn more about the life of prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.
Read Quran and learn about Muhammad (peace be upon him) - and this is no blind faith but a CALL for Reasoning, out of reasoning, naturally.
Be unbiased Be truthful.
Thank you for this thorough and insightful article.
MashAllah brother Hamza, and may Allah grand u paradise for your good works.
JazakAllah
Mashallah brother Hamza, great work. I really liked it. It makes me strong in my faith and will help me to debate with others about ISLAM. Thanks to all brother and sisters for there valuable input in the comment section.
Great explanatory article, brother Hamza.
Keep up the good work, May Allah help you!
Assalamou Alaykoum wa Rahmatoullah wa Barakatou (:
Zakaria
The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe is increasing but there are isolated processes which entropy is decreasing.The20th century German physicist Erwin Schrodinger looked at the role of entropy in the processes of life.He realized that living things produce order from disorder,like "islands of negative entropy",although they need an input of energy to do so.My question is:where did life get energy from to decrease entropy/produce order from disorder and also how is this energy has been continuously supplied to life for 4 billion years to produce ever more comlex life??I hope u can reply to this as soon as possible.
Masha Allah, brother Hamza. What an intellectual debunking of an atheist rambling. I have debated many so-called atheist trolls and every time, they would just run away. But your arguments and expositions would help me a lot in melting them away for good. One comment, though. I noticed the following to be incoherent to me. Speaking previously about "1. Physical necessity; 2. Chance; 3. Design." as premises, I guess there is a missing word in the following and I quote:
"It must be Design
Since premises one and two are true, it follows that supernatural design is the most reasonable explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life."
I think your statement "Since premises one and two are true" should be modified to "Since premises one and two are NOT true" or "Since premises one and two are false".
JazaakAllah khairaa.
This is the fundamental difference between belief and faith. Faith requires knowledge that a belief is true and correct without demanding evidence. Belief, on the other hand, may or may not be true.
However, perspective is everything, one man's belief is another man's faith.
Therefore it is more sensical to take away the need for evidence and consider Pascal's Wager as to whether god existed or not. The following premises were considered:
1. You have faith in god and god does exist.
2. You have faith in god and god does not exist.
3. You do not have faith in god and god exists
4. You do not have faith in god and god does not exist.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. you will be rewarded in heaven (Positive)
2. It does not matter (Neither)
3. you will not be rewarded and will likely be judged as a non-believer (Negative)
4. It does not matter (Neither)
and it is possible to see that probability alone states it is more sensical to believe in god than to not.
salaam alaikum,
masha Allah, great article.
Evolutionists like Dawkins say that evolution is not just dependant on pure chance, but on natural selection which they claim reduces the probabilities. This is a red herring: natural selection can only preserve a change without increasing the chance of changes taking place. The question for evolutionists who try to assert natural selection is, is there any quantifiable measure of the effect of natural selection ? Because surely by definition scientific assertions are based of observed and measured phenomena ?
Allah revealed the truth about scientific materialism and people like Dawkins in surah Anaam:
"Now if thou pay heed unto the majority of those [who live] on earth, they will but lead thee astray from the path of God: they follow but conjectures, and they themselves do nothing but guess."
Post a Comment