Dear Richard Sir,
Humbly and respectfully I would like to introduce myself as I am Abid Ali from India (Kolkata). I am a product of an orthodox Muslim family and was very religious too, but in 2009 when I read your ‘God Delusion’, it shuddered me completely. Generally, the views about atheist are very negative in the eyes of ignorant believers. They think atheist are heartless, sadist and callous, which I had too. But my views are reversed after reading your mesmerizing book. Since then, I have read books on Science, Education and atheism voraciously. I am a great fan of Sir Bertrand Russell, as well as yours and thankful to you as you introduced him through your book. I read many of his works. Now, being a teacher I spread about veracity of Evolution and illegitimacy of Creationism. I hate religions now. I have watched many of your videos on Youtube, still watching them.
Sir I need a help from you regarding a criticism against the poor design argument. I am not able to apprehend how to answer what is the called argument of ‘Insufficient Human knowledge’ which says that something seem like they have no purpose because the purpose they have is so specialized but what we deem vestigial or useless, are they truly so? In some cases, this has also been shown to be false. For example, for many years it was believed that the human appendix served no purpose whatsoever, yet it has recently been discovered that it serves an important role in the development of fetuses and infants. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development, which produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. In young adults, the appendix has some immune functions. Also, it was once thought that tonsils were useless, but in fact they have minor disease-preventing properties. In other words, insufficient human knowledge may make things that actually are useful seem useless.
Another one is:
Several generic philosophical criticisms can be directed towards the first premise of the argument – that a Creator God would have designed things ‘optimally’. The argument hinges on an assumption that the human concept of ‘optimal design’ is the same as that of God, but there is no proof that this is valid. This is, in effect, the argument of the Book of Job.
I consider religious believers are drunkards and intoxicants and lames who cannot do without a psychological crutch, i.e. ‘Faith in God’.
I would like to question here, how come an illiterate charlatan like Zakir Naik entered and lectured in support of Islam inside Oxford University in your lifetime. I can’t really believe that person like him could step into the University. Please rectify my knowledge on this, if possible.
I have written an article to FFI and Islam-watch on another Islamic liar, promoter of Pseudo-science and a religious ignorant and sham ‘Harun Yahya’ who is very much admired in Islamic world.
Please Sir, if don’t have any inconvenience then, reply me with the refutation of this criticisms.
I don’t have any other aim of my life other than eradicating Islam.
We just need hope and inspiration from you, to work better. Richard sir, your writing is just awesome; we can’t express in words the beauty of your scripts and the way you put up words into wisdom. I know Urdu and English well, if you need any sort of need, then consider me at your service.
Thanks and regards,
All my love and reverence,