iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Mehdi Hasan

GET UPDATES FROM Mehdi Hasan
 

Dawkins Is Wrong - Religion Is Rational

Posted: 24/12/2012 10:33

"You believe that Muhammad went to heaven on a winged horse?" That was the question posed to me by none other than Richard Dawkins a few weeks ago, in front of a 400-strong audience at the Oxford Union. I was supposed to be interviewing him for al-Jazeera but the world's best-known atheist decided to turn the tables on me.

So what did I do? I confessed. Yes, I believe in prophets and miracles. Oh, and I believe in God, too. Shame on me, eh? Faith, in the disdainful eyes of the atheist, is irredeemably irrational; to have faith, as Dawkins put it to me, is to have "belief in something without evidence". This, however, is sheer nonsense. Are we seriously expected to believe that the likes of Descartes, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Rousseau, Leibniz and Locke were all unthinking or irrational idiots?

In trying to disparage 'faith', Dawkins and his allies constantly confuse 'evidence' with 'proof'; those of us who believe in God do so without proof but not without evidence. As the Oxford theologian (and biophysicist) Alister McGrath has observed: "Our beliefs may be shown to be justifiable, without thereby demonstrating that they are proven."

The science bit

Those atheists who harangue us theists for our supposed lack of evidence should consider three things. First, it may be a tired cliché but it is nonetheless correct: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I can't prove God but you can't disprove him. The only non-faith-based position is that of the agnostic.

Second, there are plenty of things that cannot be scientifically tested or proven but that we believe to be true, reasonable, obvious even. Which of these four pretty uncontroversial statements is scientifically testable? 1) Your spouse loves you. 2) The Taj Mahal is beautiful. 3) There are conscious minds other than your own. 4) The Nazis were evil.

This isn't just about metaphysics, aesthetics or ethics: science itself is permeated with unproven (and unprovable) theories. Take the so-called multiverse hypothesis. "It says there are billions and billions of universes, all of which have different settings of their fundamental constants," Dawkins explained to a member of the audience in Oxford. "A tiny minority of those billions and billions of universes have their constants set in such a way as to give rise to a universe that lasts long enough to give rise to galaxies, stars, planets, chemistry and hence the process of evolution... "

Hmm. A nice idea, but where's your evidence, Richard? How do we 'prove' that these 'billions and billions' of universes exist? "The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language," the cosmologist Paul Davies has admitted, "but in essence it requires the same leap of faith [as God]."

Third, there are plenty of good, rational and evidence-based arguments for God. You don't have to agree with them, but it is intellectually dishonest to claim that they, too, like God, don't exist.

Take the Kalam cosmological argument - first outlined by the medieval Muslim theologian al-Ghazali, and nowadays formulated by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig as follows:

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is a valid deductive argument, a genuine appeal to reason and logic.

Or how about the argument that says the universe, in Davies's words, 'is "in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life"? Remember, the late Antony Flew, the atheist philosopher who embraced God in 2004, did so after coming to the conclusion that 'there had to be "an intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical universe".' To pretend that Flew, of all people, arrived at such a belief blindly, without thinking it through, 'without evidence', is plain silly.

For Muslims such as me, faith (iman) and reason (aql) go hand in hand. The Quran stresses the importance of using science, logic and reason as tools for discovering God. "Will you not then use your reason?" it asks, again and again. But hasn't the theory of evolution undermined Islam? asks the atheist. A few years ago, Dawkins accused British Muslims of "importing creationism into this country". He has a point. These days, the vast majority of my coreligionists see Darwin as the devil.

Yet this is a new phenomenon. Many of Islamic history's greatest scholars and thinkers were evolutionists; the 19th Century scientist John William Draper, a contemporary of Darwin, referred to the latter's views as "the Muhammadan theory of evolution". As I pointed out on these pages back in January, "one of the earliest theories of natural selection was developed by the 9th Century Iraqi zoologist (and Islamic theologian) al-Jahiz, 1,000 years before Charles Darwin". And almost 500 years before the publication of On the Origin of Species, the acclaimed Arab philosopher Ibn Khaldun wrote his Muqaddimah, in which he documented how "the animal world then widens, its species become numerous... the higher stage of man is reached from the world of the monkeys..."

Stages of man

There is, indeed, nothing in the Quran that prevents Muslims from embracing evolution. In his recent book Reading the Quran, the Muslim commentator Ziauddin Sardar notes how creation is presented "as a dynamic, ongoing phenomenon that is constantly evolving and changing". Sardar points to verse 14 of chapter 71, where we are specifically asked to reflect on the fact that "He has created you stage by stage".

Yet the theory of evolution, whether Muslims accept it or not, doesn't explain the origins of the universe, the laws of science or our objective moral values. In short, most of us who believe in God do so not because we are irrational, incurious or immature but because He is the best answer to the question posed by Leibniz more than 300 years ago: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Mehdi Hasan is political director of The Huffington Post UK and a contributing writer for the New Statesman. His interview with Richard Dawkins for al-Jazeera English can be seen here. This article is crossposted with the New Statesman here

 

Follow Mehdi Hasan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mehdirhasan

FOLLOW RELIGION
 
 
  • Comments
  • 810
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (18 total)
11:01 AM on 02/22/2013
Wow, it's like you've combined every bad, thoroughly debunked theistic argument and combined them into one horribly misguided article. Well done sir, few fail as bad as this on such a prominent scale.
04:25 AM on 02/22/2013
Science is about making pragmatic assumptions based on empirical evidence.

I don't know if my spouse loves me, but it's a safe assumption based on the following pieces of evidence:
1) My spouse tells me he/she loves me.
2) My spouse is as physically affectionate to me as I am to him/her, and I love my spouse.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
amajamus
Occupy James ! ! !
03:15 AM on 02/22/2013
I am a Catholic and I believe in science . . . especially evolution. I like listening to atheists (except Sam Harris . . .) because they make you think and question your faith. I like Hitchens the best . . .he really makes you think and laugh. But Dawkins always comes off as a pissed-off, old man . . . who is always angry. He really needs to lighten up when argues.
As for Sam . . . he's really into TM yet he disregards religion and spirituality . . . talk about narrow-minded. TM is almost as bad as Scientology. But I do like him when he talks politics.
01:37 AM on 02/22/2013
I don't trust a word this guy says ... for an educated bloke, he scores very low on critical thinking.

There is no god.
Miracles do not happen.

But the questions I want to ask - if the universe has a cause, and you believe that cause is god - what caused god? What did god do for all those trillion trillion trillion years before he started the universe? Why did he wait billions of years to create man? Why did he wait billions of years before he produced earth? Why don't observable supernatural miracles occur today? Why did the three abrahamic religions start in the middle-east [only] with illiterate farmers and fishermen, and not in the already-very -literate China?
11:04 PM on 02/21/2013
My dear, deluded Mr Hasan,

1. Atheism is a lack of belief. Your lack of belief in...say, Zeus...is as much a faith-based position as atheism.

2. All four of your questions can, or soon will, be answered by neuroscience. And even if it were impossible to answer those questions scientifically, religion does not win by default.

3. Scientific theories are based on observations, not all-nighters and too much coffee.

4. Existence requires the presence of time. Since time "began" with the universe, the universe has, scientifically, always existed.

5. Really? An argument from authority that really isn't even an argument. So what if Flew and Davies thought what they did? Nash's economic brilliance had nothing to do with his schizophrenia.

6. You can choose to twist words to mean whatever you want them to mean, but I don't think your Allah would approve, and nor would the scholars.

7. The theory of gravity doesn't explain universal origins, scientific laws or morals either. Maybe we should throw that one out too?
09:04 PM on 02/21/2013
You, Mr. Mehdi Hasan are a first grade ..(well, what's the word?) . You don't seem to understand what you're saying yourself.. From the "arguments" you've made in this article, it's clear you don't understand any of the topics you're touching. I suggest you read some books about rationality and making rational arguments. By doing this publicly, you're only making a fool out of yourself.. I wouldn't write much given that all of this thoughtless blabber is thoroughly taken care of by quite many here already. You're only projecting yourself as an Islam apologist and nothing less than that. Hope you learn better before blabbering random stuff around. :D
06:37 PM on 02/21/2013
"Third, there are plenty of good, rational and evidence-based arguments for God...take the Kalam cosmological argument.."

You and the scientific world are not in agreement on what constitutes "evidence". I'm sorry.
06:33 PM on 02/21/2013
It seems even the Huffiington Post journalists aren't beyond the straw man fallacy.

No atheist within the new movement is attempting to prove the non-existence of a god.

You've been caught. You are a desperate and pathetic fool. This isn't going to work.
06:32 PM on 02/21/2013
I thought HP were a credible, albeit mildly biased leftwards, news source? Oh well, one more news source to toss irredeemably on the "useless" pile.
06:18 PM on 02/21/2013
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I guess you didn't pay attention in those high school stats classes...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
farmerlady
Blonde, Democratic socialist, and unwilling expat
05:45 PM on 02/21/2013
Religion does not make any sense and I can see that the other posters have already given you a good dressing down. I have nothing to add, so good luck on your journey and I hope you'll continue to grow in your understanding. We are all at different stages, and of course nobody knows everything.
05:38 PM on 02/21/2013
"I can't prove God but you can't disprove him." Seriously? Every theist seems to have this flimsy and invalid argument. It is up to you to prove your claim, where is your evidence? I may just start saying that Mohammed is actually a three legged deer with a fish tail for a head. That's what I believe, I have no proof but I say it's true. Where is my proof? Who knows, who cares, I am right, you are wrong...see what I am getting at here? Your belief and rationale is nonsensical.

Years ago people didn't understand the world, but now since our advances the theists scrabble to make their scripture fit; most likely because they are offended by this new understanding of the real world which doesnot uncover or support the evidence for any sort of god. Evolution is not the be all and end all of a disbelief in the supernatural and I laugh when theist try to cling onto it to try and make their ancient texts valid. Working backwards is not an ideal method. There is many parts of religious sacred text which clearly do not add up. When science cannot add things up ideas are disregarded and advanced. When has religion ever re-written itself?

Maybe you should stick to politics? However, if you have the same illogical thoughts about religion then politics is probably the last thing you should be commenting about.
05:34 PM on 02/21/2013
Your evidence doesn't prove God exists. It just proves there is more science to be discovered. And we will discover it despite the drag of religious response to the unknown of "god did it" which halts further investigation by those beholders of such a mythology.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Avak
I think, therefore I am liberal
04:52 PM on 02/21/2013
5) Why is there something rather than nothing?

Simply put, that's the way it worked out. Why do you need some supernatural explanation for it?

If I roll 5 dice, and the numbers come out as 2, 3, 5, 1, 2, the odds of that exact match are astronomically high. But should I spend time wondering about the supernatural phenomenon of why they didn't come up 2, 3, 5, 1, 1 instead?

The odds that the sperm and egg that made me meeting up were also astronomical. But if I hadn't been me, some other sperm would have met some other egg, and someone else would have happened instead.

The point? The world just is. Something is here because it is here, and if it wasn't something else equally as improbable would have occurred instead. We don't understand the origins of everything around us yet, but there is absolutely no need to rely on supernatural claims just because there is "something."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Avak
I think, therefore I am liberal
04:46 PM on 02/21/2013
4) The Kalam argument has huge flaws. First and foremost, you are allowing a huge exception for your god not having to have had a "cause." That is a logical fallacy called special pleading. To get around it, you must give your god special features, such as him not needing a cause simply because he's god. With all due respect, when you venture outside the rules of logic and commit these fallacies for something that has no verifiable evidence, it only sounds like you're making stuff up (because, really, you are).

Further, you are assuming that "everything that began to exist had a cause" and that "the universe began to exist." In terms of "having a cause" and "beginning to exist," we know no such thing about the start of the universe. You are applying terms used on our limited understanding of the world to a universe that we don't actually know much about. In fact, scientists believe that once we understand more about the universe, and understand more about abiogenesis and the origins of the universe, it will change our very perceptions about time and space. And so the correct answer here is not "God did it," but rather, "we don't currently know."

That is all for now.