Understanding Backward Mentality (Philosophy)

What is backward mentality? From the word itself, it is a reverse thought process wherein the thinker thinks the other way around.

This mentality has been applied on numerous arguments made by the unwary speaker. Not only that, such mentality has also been applied on our daily lives, but sometimes we even failed to notice it until we think deeply enough to analyze such erroneous ways.

Why is it erroneous? Well, I am going to give the following arguments and analyze each, presenting a rationale on each argument to prove my point.

For example, "I am a Christian therefore I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and I follow the teachings of the bible." This kind of statement puts the speaker in a compromising, restrictive position. Why? That's because by putting the title before the things you believe in (or not believe in) along with the practice (or do not practice), you are in a position where you look for things to believe in (or not believe in) and practice (or do not practice) to support the title. Your tendency here is that to associate yourself with the title, you "have to" follow every belief and practice stated. Now, you are being "force" to meet those prerequisites because you are a Christian. This deprives you of freedom and could prevent you from actually appreciating your being a "Christian." Unless, of course, you like to be a slave to your title.

Now, observe the difference once I switch the statement to the proper proposition.

"I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and I follow the teachings of the bible therefore I am a Christian." By stating the belief and the practice before the title, you are now clearly describing yourself; without the restriction... and above all, this statement shows your willingness, and being deserving of the title.

Backward mentality applied in daily life

An example of this is in the case of parents forcing their children to acquire their title, desires, or even their religion. For example, parents decide whom their children should marry, what career their children should take, or what their children should believe. This kind of mentality is usually common among the conservatives. This affects the new generation in a negative way, although it can usually be justified saying that parents only wants what they think is best for their children because they love them very much. Still, the very fact remains - no one wants to be forced into a position they don't want. This is actually depriving children their basic rights to choose of who they wanted to be or what they wanted to become.

Perhaps, one of the negative effects to children is that they loss the sense of independence, they are more likely to rely on their parents and on their parents decision. Another is obsession - the more a person is being force to avoid, the more it craves for it. And perhaps, it may also result to unresolved stages of a child.

Of course, there are other examples, if you are keen enough to spot them, backward mentality happens every day.

Effects of backward mentality

The number one negative effect of backward mentality is slow to no progression. A society prone to backward mentality is likely to remain the same no matter what era they are in.

Backward mentality also often creates confirmation bias, ignorance, and could make one less reasonable. People with backward mentality are often narrow-minded, traditional, ignorant, and they are more likely bound by their title rather than who they really are.

How to avoid backward mentality?

There are quite many ways, but for a few examples:

• Do not let titles dictate your beliefs, principles, or practice. Optimally, remove all labels and titles from yourself. Be what you are.
• Be open-minded, but do not just believe anything, be resourceful enough to determine what is true and what is not.
• Don't let any belief system blind you.
• Do not assume to know everything. Be humble enough to be able to learn new things.
• Never stop educating yourself.
• Do not force your beliefs or opinions on others.
• Respect other people's beliefs or opinions.
• Always follow the evidence to where it leads you, but don't let your hopes too high.
• Do not assume to know what's best for others. Learn to respect their decisions.

And the long list goes on...

Islamic terrorists: are they heroes, martyrs, or deluded? (Philosophy)

Current Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri

Let's talk about terrorism and terrorists by first defining what it means...

Terrorism, a systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. It is a controversial term that has not been universally agreed because some may view it as an heroic act, and merely a term use or applied to a faction by an opponent to make the cause look bad.

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. On the other hand, the use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group.

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities and individuals with access to state support to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (although such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).

It is controversial, but perhaps, one thing is being agreed on the term - it uses brute force and it brings terror to mankind (whether it be to an innocent civilian or an enemy). An abiding characteristic of terrorism, therefore, is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.

Another concept to add to the existing definition we currently have is that it holds to the belief that "if you are not with us, you are against us" or "you're either with us or against us". This then forces witnesses, bystanders, or other unaligned with some form of pre-existing conflict to become allies with the speaking party, otherwise lose favor. An act of terrorism therefore is hell bent on terrorizing or destroying everyone who are not considered an ally.

Now, let's define what is a terrorist. The term terrorist can be as controversial as the term "terrorism", but to make it simple, a terrorist is an agent carrying out acts of terrorism.

So now that we have defined the terms, let's go to the main question...

Are Islamic terrorists heroes, martyrs, or deluded?

Whatever answer you might give, it would come out subjective or "mere opinion" unless you can provide strong grounds or basis to support your answer.

So instead of giving a direct answer, let's analyze... let's see where the term terrorist really fits in.

Are they heroes?

The definition of hero is "A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life."

Since some terrorists are courageous, and has risked or sacrificed their lives for a purpose, they can be called heroes by their allies. However, it is questionable if their purpose is noble. For instance, the acts of Islamic terrorists, who destroys innocent lives including the lives of their own fellow peaceful Muslims cannot be called noble. It even contradicts with the peaceful ways of Islam. And although Islam permits Jihad against non-Muslims, Jihad is "a religious war for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims" that some Islamic teachers believe was only meant for self-defense. Using evil as a means to promote the religion is not the right way of a "good" religion, neither can the end justify the means, for the more they do this, only the more Islam is being hated.

By terrorizing the world, by killing innocent lives, by endangering their fellow Muslims, they cause more harm to Islam than good. This makes Islam look as if it's a religion of war (contrary to being a religion of peace), it makes Islam look like as if it's an enemy to mankind and something to be disgusted and feared. In other words, they bring bad meaning to Islam, and this can't be called noble nor can this be called "heroic."

Furthermore, Islamic extremism as inspired by "Qutbism" ideology, maintains a political and religious agenda that's not universally accepted. They may be heroes to their own, but they will always be an enemy to the world, even to some of their fellow Muslims.

Are they martyrs?

By proper definition, a martyr is somebody who suffers persecution and death for refusing to renounce, or accept a belief or cause.

In the case of Islamic terrorists, they are the ones who persecute others - killing innocent lives who are not aligned with them is an act of persecution. If they are to be called martyrs, then they should be the ones who should have been persecuted, but it's the other way around. In other words, martyrdom favors the defensive position and shuns aggression.

But some may say that terrorists were also persecuted and hunted down by their enemies, therefore, they are martyrs. This is, of course, an understatement. Regardless of who strike first, they were hunted down and persecuted because they have been at war; to such point that they had became a threat to mankind; a persecution they invited and which was merely carried out of self-defense, and you can't be a martyr when your persecution was merely a result of your evil deeds. This is similar to the case of a criminal paying for its crime.

Are they deluded?

A delusion is a "false belief" held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence. It is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, poor memory, illusion, or other effects of perception.

So can we call terrorists deluded? If a terrorist is merely being the result of gullibility or ignorance, we cannot call them deluded because they are merely victims of deception themselves. However, if that terrorist is the one perpetrating or strongly adheres to the false belief, he/she can be called deluded. Unless, he/she is totally aware of what he/she is doing and does it simply to manipulate others. Such an act can be called a "fraud" rather than a "delusion."

Furthermore, Qutb's ideology "Qutbism" (the ideology that inspired Islamic extremists) that states "all non-Muslims including Muslims who they believe strayed from Islam were infidels" is not universally accepted even by some Muslims. This philosophy is of course, false, for even in some non-Muslim religions, there is a belief in God, the difference perhaps is the way they understand and worship God; which is different from that of the Muslims (something which is brought about by diversity). Also, to Non-Islamic religions, Muslims may also be called infidels for not belonging to their group. So, this is a case of everybody is an infidel. This is also the reason why there is a never ending conflict existing among different religious groups, most especially among Abrahamic (Christian, Judaism, Islam) religions.

Also note that while these religions have a shred of truth and moral lessons in each and every one of them, they are also guilty of nonfalsifiable claims, a reason why they are at constant odds with the more reliable Science and some humanistic philosophies. Their inconsistency with some scientific facts and their failure to provide objective proof (such as proof to support supernatural claims) also proves the point that they are merely subjective views. Claiming any of these religions to be "absolutely true" (note the word "absolutely") while they are significantly lacking evidence, can already be called a religious delusion. Moreover, some religions were also criticized by humanistic groups because they were willing to compromise anything including human rights and safety for the sake of "mere" belief.

Furthermore, Qutbism stresses that only Islam can bring true goodness to mankind but encourages Muslims to wage war against Non-muslims. The truth is, any religion can have some "good" and "bad" in them. Claiming Islam as the only good religion is a bias statement. This shows that Qutb was, perhaps, deeply indoctrinated in Islamic ways, but had never studied other religions nor even got a chance to be properly acquainted with them. His jumping to such conclusions may simply be due to blind subjugation and ignorance.

Qutb can be called deluded, and his delusion may spread to other minds like a disease.

And also, acts of aggression, most especially, towards the innocent has never been viewed "good" by the world. To believe that it is, is therefore, a false belief. However, contrary to ad populum, the idea I have here is not to base my point of view with the most numbers of like thinkers, but with regards to its consistency with the world view or the standard moral principle found in all religions (ie. the golden rule, compassion, humility, hope, etc.).

Perhaps, some Muslims might disagree with me, but ask yourselves this question, what have these so-called religious wars brought so far? Well lets see... the world now fears Islam, the reason why Muslims had been banned in some countries. This fear also lead to the discrimination of Muslims. It had also estrange Islam to the rest of the world. It had brought so much death, hate, and sorrow. It had made Islam an enemy to mankind. So ask yourselves... can that be any good? I'm simply saying, terrorism or war is not the way to go as it is bound to damage Islam's reputation.

Finally, it's also worth noting that the word "terrorist" has never been a good word to begin with. A reason why even some terrorist hate being called a "terrorist", although they carry out acts of terrorism anyway.

A Quote from the Quran

"And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend. But none is granted it except those who are patient, and none is granted it except one having a great portion [of good]."

Quran 41:34-35

Good Reads

Does the Quran promote violence? By Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi
Does the Quran teach to kill, tax or convert? By Ustadha Zaynab Ansari

God does not exist says Hawking (Philosophy)

Stephen Hawking

The world's most famous physicist Prof. Stephen Hawking has declared that God does not exist.

Hawking joins the opinion of several other world-class scientists like Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, James Watson, Victor Stenger, Sam Harris and many others who deny the existence of God in the name of the latest advancements in physics, biology, neuroscience and other scientific domains.

The so-called "New Atheism", championed by Richard Dawkins, sees God as a delusion, a by-product of the mind of superstitious and scientifically uneducated people.

"Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing ... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists and why we are here." This is the conclusion of The Grand Design, Hawking's latest book.

Hawking's assertion is based on the predictions of his famous M-theory.

Now, a certain Giovanni Serritella, an acclaimed environmental scientist, who works for the European Union Delegation to Indonesia expressed his own opinions on the matter.

He said that Einstein's theory of relativity says that time is not the same for everyone but is "relative" to how fast one is moving. At variable speeds or in the presence of weak and strong gravity, time behaves elastically, it can stretch and shrink and even stop.

This is true as this phenomenon has been observed by measuring the rate of atomic clocks mounted on supersonic jet planes moving at different speeds at various distances from the Earth's surface.

Under extreme gravity like at the moment of the birth of the universe (the big bang), gravity was so intense that time was "compressed" to a zero point. Not only space but time itself was born at that moment. There was no "before". Now why is this? As previously stated in Einstein's theory of relativity, time is relative to the speed one is moving, and in the presence of weak and strong gravity, time behaves elastically. In this same case, time is influenced by gravity, and with the presence of this powerful unseen force, time itself can be halted. So there was no time to begin with - there was only gravity.

Furthermore, Hawking states that a "law of gravity" exists and this creates the universe. The writer assumed that Hawking believes the gravity and not God created the universe. Now note, Hawking is not a full-blown Atheist, he is more of an agnostic, perhaps, someone who shares Einstein's point of view - that of a Monist Physicalist, otherwise known as Scientific Pantheists. The view of Scientific Pantheists can be quite confusing to both opposing sides (Atheism and Theism) because while Pantheists do not believe in a deity, Pantheists do treat nature sacred and divine. Quoting a statement he said on CNN back in 1999; when Larry King interviewed him if he believes in God. Hawking's answer was "Yes, I do, if by God you mean the embodiment of the laws that govern the universe." So when Hawking says "God does not exist", he was referring to a deity (the Theistic subjective view of God).

Now, Giovanni Serritella goes on with the philosophical argument that if X creates Y, we must presuppose the existence of X in the first place to bring Y into existence. Likewise, we must presuppose the existence of gravity to bring the universe into existence. Now, I believe that is not true, as Hawking's also said it's like asking the question "What lies North of the North Pole." Of course, in a circular world, North of the North pole would simply bring you South, not North, which goes to say that such an argument falls under the category of "Circular Reasoning," a type of formal logical fallacy.

Another confusing statement (surprisingly, from a scientist) he made, is when he said Einstein's theory of relativity shows that Hawking's statement is illogical because it is like saying that gravity existed "before time," which is absurd. I'm not sure which part of Einstein's theory he did not understand... I am no scientist, but I am familiar with Einstein's theory which I will quote again:

Time is relative. It speeds up or slows down depending on how fast one thing is moving relative to something else.

What does this mean? It means that before the big bang, when everything was held together by forces of gravity, there was no time to begin with. In simple analogy, just try to picture up two cars racing in a time trial. Of course, the fastest gets in the finish line in the shortest time span. Now, in the case of heavenly bodies, assuming the Earth moves still? Will your clock remain accurate? Now, on an even difficult analogy, as far as the atomic scale... if the atoms stop moving, would a person gets older? Would the planets move? Would you be able to count time when your brain stops operating? As you can see, everything in the material universe is composed of atoms and even subatomic particles, and if these stop moving, time itself will halt. This was what Einstein meant when he formulated the theory of relativity. In other words, time is simply a measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects. There is no time when there are no events taking place. So, in the case of "before the big bang", there was already gravity, but time does not seem to exist yet as the movement of particles was prevented by an unseen force. Now, call this force God if you may, but in Physics, it's called gravity.

The writer also asks hypothetical questions such as "Did gravity generate itself?", which is hitting the walls of "Circular Reasoning" again. Okay, let's assume God did it? Is it relevant to ask who created God then? Of course, if God created Himself, then how does it differ with gravity being there in the first place?

Now, he goes on to quote Hawking saying Hawking sustains that "the universe creates itself out of nothing." But Hawking's nothing is actually something "Gravity" (first self-contradiction). Hawking then says that the universe creates itself (second self-contradiction). He says that this is a case of double self-contradiction. But, it is also worth noting that the laws of nature as with gravity is already part of the universe, and not as a separate entity. It appears Serritella misunderstood gravity for an object. Also note that Pantheistic stand point maintains that everything is connected and is one.

Furthermore he gives an analogy as with the case of an Apple computer. He asks "should we account for it by mentioning its inventor (Steve Jobs) or should we follow Hawking's reasoning and say that the Apple computer arose naturally from the laws of physics?" Of course, how the computer was made was brought about by a series of natural processes. As Carl Sagan had once said "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." This is true. In other words, if man himself is a product of nature, then it is part of a process that made up the computer.

However, there are some parts of his reasoning I agree on.

He said that science does not ask the "why" question of purpose. This is true, but that's because the answer to the "why" question falls under subjectivity, and Science only accepts objective reasoning.

He also states Hawking and many scientists claim that God is unnecessary. This reasoning, he says, shows that offering a choice between God and the law of gravity is, in fact, illogical as both are needed.

He continues to say "Likewise, the law of gravity does not 'create' gravity it only 'explains' what's already there (gravity) and 'predicts' how gravity behaves. The bottom line is that the laws of physics cannot create anything or cause anything to happen. Rather than ultimate creators of the universe, they are just descriptions of how things behave."

Furthermore he said, "What actually needs explaining is the logical characteristics and intelligibility of nature and the universe, not whether the universe generates itself spontaneously out of nothing or not. Nobel laureate in physics Richard Feynman once stated: 'The fact that there are rules like the law of gravity is some sort of miracle as it leads to the possibility of prediction; it tells you what you would expect to happen in an experiment you have not yet done.'"

Well, I must admit Giovanni Serritella is quite a good philosopher, but as a scientist, I don't think so. But, that's natural. As the saying goes "You cannot serve two masters at the same time." Serritella had to choose to stand whether on the grounds of subjective "Religion" or on the grounds of objective "Science", and in this case, he choose to stand by his faith. Thus, he has to throw away some knowledge and scientific principles in order to accept a fundamental concept that is not supported by objective proof.

Never argue with Idiots! (Philosophy)

There is a saying "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

Now, nobody exactly knows where this quote originated, some say, it came from Bob Smith, while others say from Mark Twain, although Mark Twain's quotation is slightly different from the one above.

But knowing who said this quote is not the point of bringing this topic here. The reason is that the quote is reasonably sound despite the fact that it sounds like an Ad Hominem.

BTW, what is an Ad Hominem?

An ad hominem is latin for "to the man" or "to the person". It is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. It is normally described as a logical fallacy, in other words, it is a false statement.

Well, if you look and carefully analyze the quote, the word "Idiot" there may sound like an Ad Hominem, raising the argument "How would you know that the person you are referring to with this quote is an idiot, if you haven't even argued with him?" If that's the stance, then the quote would be rendered false, however, it is not the case. The quote itself was referring to an already verified idiot, although, idiot as a word that may already be too much, but it holds true for people who never learn or never accepts their mistake.

Of course, arguing is OK, it is a process of checking the logical consistency of an argument. However, arguing is only helpful when it is constructive for it provides a solution to a conflict at hand, otherwise, it's a complete waste of time, most especially if you are arguing with people who insist their ideas or opinions to be correct when it is already proven wrong. But, how would you know if a person is wrong? Well, that's another question and a good one. One of the means to determine the correctness of an argument is to rely on proof (strong evidence), the others are determined by its consistency with reason. If it is unreasonable (often hitting logical fallacies), then it's wrong.

So the quote "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience" may only apply to an idiot, but never on those who can argue and defend their constructs well. It is a good quote, and quite reasonable.

The Gospel of John is proof? (Philosophy)

I am in no way siding on any religion nor standpoint, but sometimes, I could not help but laugh on some of the craziest ideas and presumptions coming out, sadly, from my fellow Christian brothers.

Here is one, which I had found from Richard Dawkins' site. By the way, for those who doesn't know the guy, Richard Dawkins is a professor on Biology, and the author of Atheist books including "The God Delusion." In short, he is an atheist and a famous scientist.

And as much as Christians get bombarded with ridicule and insults by Atheists, the guys who were suppose to be holy are no different. They've also attack the Atheists with bashes, unfortunately, most of these bashes are unreasonable. To give an example, read the argument below:

===============================================
intellectual dishonesty and Damn Lies!
Hello! I am referring to your book, God delusion! I aleady sent you an email about your book, and you have not cared to answer my questions?? I specifically asked you two questions:
1. Jesus death & Resurrection ! Disciple John as eye-witness account! written in his gospel in around 70AD after Jesus' death. This event was foretold in the old Jewish Talmud (Old Testament 700 YEARS BACK. any arguments??? DO YOU WANT MORE PROOF???
2. John's gospel. do you believe it or not????
Go read the Gospel of John and you will realize that 8 authentic miracles are described!
any questions on these///
have a good day. Please reply!
===============================================
Now, what exactly makes this argument unreasonable? The claims do not match the opinions of the experts, moreover, this is a subjective presumption, meaning it simply relies on personal knowledge or opinion rather than supporting evidence.

This type of argument is called Argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance," where "ignorance" stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary." It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).

Obviously, this tactic was use as an attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the claimer and into the opponent (the Atheists).

Fact Finding

Upon further research, I find out that the Gospel of John is an account of the public ministry of Jesus. It begins with the witness and affirmation by John the Baptist and concludes with the death, burial, Resurrection, and post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus. This account is fourth of the canonical gospels, after the synoptics Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Note, the gospel's authorship is anonymous. Its Chapter 21 states it derives from the testimony of the 'disciple whom Jesus loved.' Along with Peter, the unnamed disciple is especially close to Jesus, and early-church tradition identified him as John the Apostle, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. The gospel is closely related in style and content to the three surviving Epistles of John such that commentators treat the four books together, yet, according to most modern scholars, John was not the author of any of these books.

Raymond E. Brown did pioneering work to trace the development of the tradition from which the gospel arose. The discourses seem to be concerned with the actual issues of the church-and-synagogue debate at the time when the Gospel was written c. AD 90 (90 CE). It is notable that, in the gospel, the community still appears to define itself primarily against Judaism, rather than as part of a wider Christian Church. Though Christianity started as a movement within Judaism, gradually, Christians and Jews became bitterly opposed.

John focuses largely on different miracles, including resurrecting Lazarus, which were given as signs to engender faith. Synoptic elements such as parables and exorcisms are not found in John. It presents a realized eschatology in which salvation is already present for the believer. The historical reliability of John is debated, particularly by secular scholarship. In contrast, Grace-oriented churches argue for the total pre-eminence of John.

Authorship

The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The text does not actually name this disciple, but by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve. Today, the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers," reaching its final form about 90-100 AD (CE). According to the Church Fathers, the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Hebrew groups which they deemed heretical. This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century.

1. An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
2. A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
3. The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90 AD (CE).

In view of this complex and multi-layered history, it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process. The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form, renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth.

Error in writing

Among others, Rudolf Bultmann suggested that the text of the gospel is partially out of order; for instance, chapter 6 should follow chapter 4.

4: 53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.
4: 54 This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee.
6: 1 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
6: 2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

Chapter 5 deals with a visit to Jerusalem, and Chapter 7 opens with Jesus again in Galilee since "he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him" — a consequence of the incident in Jerusalem described in Chapter 5. There are more proposed rearrangements.

Gospel with Numerous Authors

One possible construction of the "internal evidence" states that the Beloved Disciple wrote an account of the life of Jesus. However, this disciple died unexpectedly, necessitating that a revised gospel be written. It may be that John "is the source" of the Johannine tradition but "not the final writer of the tradition." Therefore, scholars are no longer looking for the identity of a single writer but for numerous authors whose authorship has been absorbed into the gospel's development over a period of time and in several stages.

The hypothesis of the Gospel being composed in layers over a period of time had its start with Rudolf Bultmann in 1941. Bultmann suggested that the author(s) of John depended in part on an author who wrote an earlier account. This hypothetical "Signs Gospel" listing Christ's miracles was independent of, and not used by, the synoptic gospels. It was believed to have been circulating before the year 70 AD (CE). Bultmann's conclusion was so controversial that heresy proceedings were instituted against him and his writings.

Nevertheless, scholars such as Raymond Edward Brown continue to consider this hypothesis a plausible possibility. They believe the original author of the Signs Gospel to be the Beloved Disciple. They argue that the disciple who formed this community was both an historical person and a companion of Jesus Christ. Brown goes one step further by suggesting that the Beloved Disciple had been a follower of John the Baptist before joining Jesus.

Source: Gospel of John, Wikipedia

Conclusion

The book of John, being authored by numerous anonymous authors make it unreliable. There is doubt that it was doctored to match an ideology that was present on the community that wrote it. Therefore, it cannot serve as supporting evidence. However, religiously-minded people rely on faith rather than evidence, which often make their statements nonfalsifiable. Such nonfalsifiable arguments do not need further debate that's why Dawkins didn't even bother to respond to his emails.