The issue of efficiency of religion is one of the most important current theological topics. Since this concept does not require complex philosophical and scientific grounds, it can easily engage the general public, and for this reason, it has been used by atheists like RICHARD DAWKINS. Following the pragmatic approach to religion, DAWKINS has discussed the relationship between religion and morality in some chapters of the The God Delusion, but not in the usual way, rather, he tries to deny religion by denying the moral efficacy of religion. It is not that simply DAWKINS declares that ethics is separate from religion and that religion can enter other fields such as issues related to belief, rather he attempts to undermine the authenticity of religion through showing its inefficiency. In denying religious ethics, DAWKINS presents his argument in two ways. First, he explains human ethics from a scientific and evolutionary point of view, and in the next stage, he criticizes religious ethics, and then, by proving human ethics and negating religious ethics, he concludes the negation of religion and God with a pragmatic approach. This article examines DAWKINS' pragmatic approach with descriptive-analytical method, regardless of his scientific-evolutionary arguments which have been criticized in other articles. The following results have been achieved: 1. fallacy in his pragmatic approach, 2. imperfection of the human ethics claimed by him, and 3. criticizing his perspective toward religious ethics and presenting the rational-scriptural model of religious ethics.

Abstract: Steven Hawking and RICHARD DAWKINS are contemporary theologians who have come up with empirical approaches in the field of theology, one in the field of physics and the other in the field of biology. The most important factor that has led to such a conclusion in the scientific approach of these two scholars is their wrong definitions of subject and philosophical conceptions. The current research has critiqued their views by extracting their definitional elements from their works with a library-based approach. Their Misconceptions of philosophy and its realm, as well as their misconceptions of philosophical concepts such as misunderstanding the immaterial, the necessary Being and Its Attributes, the criterion for the need to necessary Being, and the principle of causality, time, and nothingness may be cited as some examples of these deficiencies.

RICHARD DAWKINS, emphasizing maximum scientism, argues for the conflict between science and religion. By proposing the improbable argument, he has viewed the existence of God as being of the least possiblity, and finally, inferred atheistic belief. In contrast, Alister McGrath dismissed DAWKINS's maximum view of scientism as incorrect and, using critical realism and the psychology of perception, challenged his atheistic view. The point of leading research is to evaluate and measure this encounter. In this study, we have used analytical and library-based method and technique. The research shows that although the analysis of McGrath from a theistic point of view of the universe as an interpretive framework solves DAWKINS' alleged conflict between science and religion, it still cannot be away from epistemological relativism. At the same time, some of his critiques on the proof of improbability are not without weakness.

In his book "The God delusion" RICHARD DAWKINS has denied the existence of the God of Abrahamic religions, including Islam. In order to prove his point of view, in addition to presenting the reasons he tried to remove everything that is considered as an obstacle. The point of view of agnosticism is one of these obstacles that DAWKINS, by accepting its principle, believes that the probability of the non-existence of God is greater than his existence; therefore, one should not be agnostic about the existence of God. He has based his belief on the basis of the division of " agnosticism " into temporary and permanent, Knowing the existence of God as a scientific hypothesis, the principle of the impossibility of definitively proving the absence of a thing, criticism of Bayesian reasoning and improbable reasoning. In this article, DAWKINS' point of view and reasons are first introduced in a descriptive way, and then the success rate of the reasons presented in proving his claim is analyzed by a critical method. The result of the research shows that these reasons cannot prove his claim and their ultimate efficiency is to prove theoretical agnosticism.

On the one hand, scientific advances have brought new challenges and many criticisms to the design argument, and on the other hand, it has become a turning point in presenting new readings and interpretations of the argument. RICHARD DAWKINS came to the view that scientific findings have always opened the way for a naturalistic explanation of natural order. On the other hand, Anthony Flew also came to the belief that new scientific developments have strengthened the result of the design argument. Using a descriptive-analytical method and relying on the principle of "designed state of nature", The present article has evaluated Flew and DAWKINS' arguments. The main problem of the research is that the best explanation for the orderliness of existence is "evolution" and "natural selection" or "intelligent designer"? The result of the research indicates that the explanation of the origin of order on the course of evolution faces many scientific and theological challenges, and Flew's collective reasoning will lead to a conclusion based on probabilities in a way that is rational and worthy of consideration, although a rational argument, though not being in logical deductive form. And also this research shows that it is possible to have an approach to theology from empirical sciences without using ambiguous philosophical principles and concepts.

Abstract The origin of man's belief in God has long been the concern of thinkers of divine religions, experimental sciences and philosophy; From the point of view of Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi and the main Muslim thinkers, man's belief in God is a natural thing that originates from the way man was created. According to DAWKINS, the creation of man on earth does not need a creator God; He considers man's belief in God the Creator to be a virus-like illusion that has replaced scientific theories in the human mind in a unit called "mem" and has developed over time; his main document in this view is the theory of evolution. Using the descriptive-analytical method, this research compares and evaluates the views of Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi and RICHARD DAWKINS about the origin of theism in humans. According to this research, unlike Ayatollah Misbah Yazidi's view, DAWKINS' theory has serious flaws in the ontological and epistemological foundations of the origin of theism in humans.

As an evolutionist biologist, DAWKINS has commented on some non-biological fields of knowledge such as ethics. Regarding ethics, he has utilized different areas of knowledge like social biology, evolutionary psychology, genetics etc. The most important aspect of DAWKINS theory is that he negates any form of moral distinction between human and animals. His concerns about dealing with ethics originate from the motivation to negate the ethical functions of religion. In addition, according to the fact that evolutionary theory fails to explain the morality of human, and considering this as one of its flaws, DAWKINS attempts to resolve this problem in one way or another. This paper is an attempt to analyze and report DAWKINS. attempt.

The English Dominican Herbert McCabe highlighted some ideas of Thomas Aquinas on the knowability of God and on creation, which can usefully challenge some widespread commonplaces. The purposes of this article are two: to present McCabe’ s sophisticated doctrine on the knowability of God and on creation in a systematic way, and to put this doctrine into its historical context. In the scattered and meagre scholarship on McCabe, both points are missing. In fact, despite being highly praised by leading intellectuals such as Stanley Hauerwas, Alasdair McIntyre, Terry Eagleton, David Burrell, Rowan Williams, Denys Turner, and Eamon Duffy, McCabe has remained widely unknown. According to McCabe, both the American creationists and some atheist scientists believe that God— given that he exists— is a powerful entity within the universe, and thus both the atheist and the creationist expect exactly the same elements in the universe. However, according to McCabe, God does not act like natural causes; he is not an element within the universe and not even the most powerful of all the elements, because he created the universe from nothing and is not part of it.

DAWKINS, a contemporary evolutionary biologist and one of the pioneers of modern atheism, while deeply believing in Darwinchr('39')s theory of evolution and offering an atheistic reading of it, has devoted part of his efforts to presenting various objections agains the belief in the existence of God. The point of the forthcoming research is to examine and measure these objections. In this study, in terms of gathering, the library-documental method, and in terms of assessment, the analytical method have been used. The results of the research show that DAWKINS was wrong in all these objections, he was caught in many fallacies, and contrary to his belief, the belief in the Almighty God is the best rational explanation in the world.

The English biologist and philosopher, RICHARD DAWKINS, in his simplicity argument claims that the basic rules of physics are simple, so it is actually more likely that the relatively simple laws of nature would be came into existence for no reason than that they would be designed by a God whose being would have to be more complex than they are. Thus, there is no God. By contrast, keith Ward and other theist philosophers like RICHARD Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga with separating “exclusive” and “inclusive” simplicity, defends from “integrative” simplicity of God. The existence of God integrates all elements, products of evolution and natural basic rules, in a comprehensive system, thus, it is simplest explanation, while DAWKINS’s materialistic view, is not enough explanatory. So “simplicity argument”, is in fact, “the fallacy of simplicity”. In this article, it is tried to deny DAWKINS’s simplicity argument.