The interviewer/debater with Richard Dawkins above is Mehdi Hasan whose article for the Huffington Post on the debate at the Oxford Union can be found in the link.
Some highlights of the article, the last paragraph:
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?”
My mother posed that same question 300 minutes ago. Showed her my Christmas present “a universe from nothing: why there is something rather than nothing” by Lawrence M. Krauss. Offered to lend but she went silent.
This worked out better then when on Christmas Day she said “atheists are full of doom”. I therefore mentioned that there was good news. The baby Jesus was born to take away original sin by growing up to be crucified. Through the economy of salvation this newborn baby whose purpose is to grow up and die nailed to a wooden structure so that we may live eternally, covers all of us. So let us be happy about that blood washing away something we were not responsible for. This is the Good News!
I was banned from the kitchen for that, leaving me to look after my disabled brother.
The point here is Hasan says there is a difference between evidence and proof – that there is evidence but no proof for theism. So an argument would be that we all die is evidence we have original sin (else we would not die), so this explains why we need Jesus to saves us. This faith is justified because we all die and fall short of perfection, thus needing redemption we are incapable of on our own. Naturally no one can prove this, however the evidence for death and Jesus’ life make this valid. That mistakes evidence as a premise (original sin, son of god), which is not useful to build on for actual evidence and proof.
Hasan would disagree with Jesus saving us, as he is a Muslim. Myself as an atheist. Would he go about this with reason, logic and rationality looking at a premise or on the basis that Islam alone is true? The point is that the former are critical analysis applicable to any faith mind set. The later is justified by circular reasoning and cannot be proven wrong so must always be true, because the premise at it’s heart is it must be. All thinking must lead to this truth.
He also mentions the classic first cause argument premise which conveniently skips how we get to organised religion, let alone a particular faith, being the thing to believe and follow. The only leap done here is a quick this universe/world is too awesome must be created by a designer, to land with my faith gives credit to the designer which makes it much better than atheism.
When you ask for the missing link from creator to law giver to one true faith it boils down to no proof but the evidence is there based on a lack of imagination of how a universe could otherwise exist, suggesting a designer had to effect the cause of the earth. God is exempt from needing cause/effect beginning naturally.
Because he is super. Unlike the arguments put forward for them, like Hasan’s.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog