"The Root of All Evil?"
Question:-
In a Television Series entitled "The
root of all Evil?" (BBC 4 January 2006),
Professor Richard Dawkins was given the opportunity to broadcast his attack on
Religion in general. Is there an Islamic answer to this?
Comment:-
This feature presents us with a biased one
sided view of religion in that it presents us with an attack on religion by the
Atheist Biologist Professor Richard Dawson
without an adequate answer from religious sources.
Richard Dawson, like many experts in one
field and little knowledge of others where they have no qualifications and
ought not to make pronouncements, appears to have a very naive attitude towards
Religion which does no good to the reputation of either himself or to science
which he tries to champion and represent.
He does not know, but ought to have examined
and understood that:-
(1) He claims to champion Science, but his
dealing with Religion is based on inadequate knowledge and research, and is
wholly unscientific. He shows the same kind of prejudices that he accuses the
adherents of the religions of having.
(2) It is clear
that he has faith in science and reason and is no different in this respect
from others except that they put their faith in other things. He knows, or
ought to know, that even a rational argument is validated by a confirming
experience that fits into a self-consistent system of experiences. This in its
turn is validated by its consistency with Reality and what survives in the end.
(3) Theologians, like scientists, certainly
use reason and many religious people also experiment and form their opinions
based on thought and experiences just as scientists do. Many scientist are also
religious people while others admit that they are agnostic and do not know
everything. Others understand that some religious concepts refer to abstract
principles, or are symbolic or like formulae, though verbal rather than
mathematical, or refer to experiences or mental states and processes and not
naïve literalism in the way Dawkins tries to present them.
(4) Most people have unexamined and even
irrational opinions, prejudices and superstitions. This has to do with human
nature and not with religion. These opinions can be based as much on science as
on religion or anything else.
(5) The conflict between peoples is not
always based on Religion, but could be based on political, economic, racial,
cultural, or any other factors. The two world wars had little to do with
religion, and the tyrannies such as that of Hitler and Stalin were certainly
not based on Religion. Nor are the gangs that form in cities and fight each
other.
(6) There is a
difference between what religions teach and how people behave. Religions
recognise human limitations and failings and came to improve human beings. An
examination shows that all genuine religions teach compassion, justice, truth,
virtues and peace and opposition to the vices, oppression and persecution. These conflicts are obviously connected
with defects in human nature, which religion came to cure.
(7) Human beings
are more than reason. They also have feelings, love, sympathy, desires,
motives, empathy, consciousness, conscience, and will. When emphasis is placed
on reason alone, then intolerance, callousness, cruelty and heartless inhumanity
will prevail. As history shows, it has prevailed in many regimes such as those
of Nazism, Fascism and Communism which also undertook the persecution of
Religion as Dawkins apparently also advocates.
(8) Religion deals
with values and conduct of life while science deals with facts and a certain
kinds of knowledge. The two are distinct in concepts, purpose and methodology.
Religion is wider than Science and includes knowledge, motives and behaviour,
but science does not include religion.
(9) It is not,
therefore, possible for religion to be merely an abstract and impersonal
academic discussion. It goes much deeper in engaging his thoughts, feelings and
behaviour and his consciousness, conscience and will. It is connected with a
persons own being and self-image. It enters into all aspects of life, economic,
political, social and cultural.
(10) The result of
this connection is that it is also affected by these factors and they tend to
corrupt religion. It becomes difficult for people to distinguish between what
their religion teaches and what enters into it from extraneous sources,
unobtrusively or accidentally or by unconscious or deliberate misinterpretation
designed to serve self-interest, fantasy or prejudice. Much, therefore, that is
falsely attributed to religion is really caused by such non-religious factors.
It is not denied that many malpractices and evils have become associated with
religion. But it is only correct education and a proper understanding and
application of religion that can rectify this.
(11) It is in the cradle of religious
groups that Charity and Learning and Civilisation was created, nourished and
preserved when all around them spiritual and mental darkness reigned. Genuine
religions come through persons who are followed because they are recognised as
having a more highly developed consciousness, conscience and will. It is,
therefore, the main civilising factor for mankind. Until recently, the various
cultures of the world could be defined by the religion prevalent in the area
– e.g. Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam.
(12) As religion is
connected with a deeper level of human nature, it is unlikely that TV features
such as this can have any effect other than annoying people and perhaps
increasing entrenchment and retaliatory actions.
Professor Richard
Dawkins should have known all this before he plunged blindly into his
irrational tirades. This ignorance does him no credit whatever. On the
contrary, as some of the people he interviewed noticed, he displayed unjustified
arrogance.
Critic:-
As a person who has
read and enjoyed much of Dawkins's material (in relation to evolutionary
biology) I believe him to be an excellent scientist and populariser of science.
What has religion brought the world other than hatred, conflict and enmity
between men? I find it hard not to see (and be angered by) the thinly-veiled
threat in your point 12.
Are people of
reason to be silenced because of the possibility of "perhaps
increasing entrenchment and retaliatory actions" by ignorant fanatics?
Thankfully, not in the democracies in which professor Dawkins and I live.
Comment:-
By
"entrenchment and retaliation" I meant the kind of thing going on in
the USA
- i.e. the retreat into religious bigotry aand naivety and attack on science. It
did not occur to me that someone would interpret this as terrorist attacks. It
just goes to show how prejudices lead to misinterpretations. It should be
evident for anyone that reads the original article that the same criticism that
was made of Dawkins position can also be levelled at this critic as he makes
the same misplaced points that Dawkins made.
I too have read
Dawkins work and admired his scientific work. But, as I indicated, he shows complete
ignorance and prejudices about the nature of Religion and this has soiled his
reputation. He should have stuck to what he knows about. In fact if he had studied
his own subject better and consulted other Biologists he would have known that
things that are so widespread and common to man as
religion is must have some genetic basis and evolutionary value. He would have
understood that Religion has at least six recognised functions:- (1) To create a world view in which experiences can be
interpreted. (2) To form the basis and justification of an Ethical and moral system.
(3) To provide acceptance, comfort and relieve stresses in times of trouble and
difficulty. (4) To create a socially cohesive force. (5) To enhance awareness
of oneself and one’s surroundings (6) To channel
psychological energy, give direction to efforts and purpose to life.
It seems to me and
others that Dawkins is a fanatic, or like those who persecuted Religion such Communists. When scientists abandon fact and
reason and propagate prejudices should they be allowed to get away with it? Are
you saying that refuting Dawkins is not allowed in your Democracy? Do you wish
to ban religion as Dawkins obviously does?
Question:-
Professor Dawkins
is attacking blind faith and supporting Reason. You make a distinction between
intelligence, reason and logic, indicating that Intelligence is more
fundamental. Can you elaborate this?
Comment:-
There is a
distinction between “blind faith” and “real faith”.
Blind faith refers to what a person has become conditioned to, to habit and
prejudice. It is not necessarily untrue or wrong when it refers to something
that is current in the society based on its collective experience and useful to
its existence and health. It is not confined to religion either. Real faith
refers to the fact that something is accepted and understood because it belongs
to a self-consistent system of outer and inner experiences. It is in accord or
harmony with the essential processes of a person’s existence and gives
meaning to his experiences. Faith, as Love and Hope is an essential ingredient
for healthy existence, the malfunction of which are responsible for or aspects
of psychological, spiritual and social diseases. There can be no knowledge or
science if there is no faith in it. Intelligence requires faith and seeks it.
According to the
Prophet (saw) the first thing created by Allah was Intelligence. Some
commentators reduce this to Reason. Professor Dawkins is an idoliser of Reason,
ignores the wider human faculties, and he is unaware of the implications of his
reductionism.
Intelligence is
more than reason but includes it as a subset, and reason is more than logic,
but can include this as a sub-set. Logic is a human invention that is based on
certain rules of thinking verbally. Reason refers to the processing of data in
all kinds of ways and applies to perception, motives and action. Intelligence
refers to adaptability, the self-regulatory ability to adjust to Reality.
Human beings are
more than reason. They also have desires, motives, feelings, love, faith, hope,
sympathy, empathy, consciousness, conscience, and will and these faculties can
and do go wrong because of various psychological, social, and physiological
causes. They can atrophy, be misdirected or become perverted or inverted.
Religion exists to try to rectify these defects, actualise human potentialities
and facilitate development.
Consider the
following rational argument:-
Person
"A" says:- "B can kill me. So I must kill B to ensure that he
cannot kill me."
Person
"B" says:- "A wants to kill me. So I must kill B to ensure that
he cannot kill me."
Note that:-
(1) These arguments
do not consist of logical syllogisms, such as "All men are mortal. A is a man.
Therefore, A is mortal". The validity of this depends on definitions of
the terms and these definitions refer to something that has been experienced.
It is the experience that makes it valid.
(2) But they are
reasonable arguments that refer to a condition of life. Each of them is
justified by the other in a vicious circle. What kind of existence would they
produce! Reason can justify all kinds of cruelty.
(3) The arguments
have an assumption that people want to live and wish to avoid being killed.
This refers to motives which justifies the argument. But motives also include
desire to cooperate and compassion etc. which creates a wider field to which
intelligence applies.
In general people
who place their emphasis on reason alone tend to be autistic or psychopathic as
they lack feeling and conscience, but may rationalise their activities to
themselves and others. This includes many people who have power, politicians,
business men, people in authority and many scientists, some of whom worked on
human experiments, often in secret, or on weapons of mass destruction (nuclear,
biological or chemical) and some who experiment on animals for various excuses.
Professor Dawkins
is an atheist who does not understand the concept of God. He seems to think it
refers to an entity like others in the Universe. Like others, he probably does
not wish to understand the concept as this would involve him in certain
obligations. The existence of intelligence and consciousness and the fact that
Prophets and Saints have appeared in the world does not make him wonder. Nor
does he wonder about the existence of the Constants, Forces and Laws that
define the Universe. So he is left with physical evolution by blind chance. But
there is reason to believe that evolution by chance alone cannot explain the
arising of man because there has not been enough time since the Universe began
for all the necessary mutations to occur. The counter argument is that we cannot
calculate chance backwards. For instance if we deal cards at random then the
combination of cards a person is dealt has a very low probability but is
nevertheless a present fact. This, however, can also be countered. No selection
can take place until there has been a mutation of value. But the probability of
this taking place by chance alone is too low to explain the speed of evolution.
There must be some causal factor that increases the probability. The mutation
must also be such as to be reproducible.
In fact, it can be
argued that “survival of the fittest” has no meaning because it
involves a vicious circle. That which survives is fittest and the fittest
survives. In fact, it is usually circumstances that determine what
characteristics are useful or harmful and these can change. Flexibility and the
versatility of abilities allow adaptability to changing circumstances. External
events such as impact of meters, volcanic eruptions climate changes owing to
cosmic events can cause mass exterminations of some species giving others a chance
to multiply. Predators tend to select and kill the easiest prey, the young that
have not yet developed fully, leaving others, that are better protected by
their parents or herds or the environment, to reproduce.
But there is
certainly a direction to evolution, of increasing complexity, capability and
unification. It is perfectly possible to think of this not as a side effect of
the various processes but as the means by which this is achieved. There is an
inbuilt striving for evolution, a reaction or counteraction to the opposite
process, a synthesis that neutralises analysis, a balance of anabolism and
catabolism that defines the Cosmic Metabolism. From the Islamic point of view
creation was originally an instant spiritual event which created the World of
Potentialities, the Blue Print as it were (54:49-50, 65:12). Physical Evolution is the
gradual actualisation of that which exists as potentiality.
----------<O>----------
Contents