Professor Richard Dawkins embroiled in Twitter row over Muslim comments

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
GOD said:
I agree, not a baseline, but it is an indicator. One of many.

I have personally had many problems with the grandiosity and overly floral way that Dawkins says many of his thoughts. Don't get me wrong, I think he is a brilliant man, much much brighter than I am. And, I think he is right most of the time. But he is the living embodiment of pomposity, and I think that clouds many ideas that should be more accessible to every day schmoes like myself.

In this situation, I think he has chosen an indicator, but just one of many, and looking at just one could show a false positive. Also, he hangs it out there on twitter without the careful reasoning something like this deserves. He is supposed to be an intellect. It's fine to be on twitter to tell a joke or talk about how someone looked fat in their Jeans, but it's not the right medium to actually analyze why one religion might be hindering it's followers from pursuing discoveries that may lead to a better life. Dawkins, how bout using that brain of yours to actually take a stab at why we see the indicators. Also, there are so many other indicators, perhaps he should break down a few more, and analyze it by more than just Muslim or not Muslim, how about Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Atheist. If religion in general the cause, than why are so many of the Nobel's won by Jews? I think this is a pretty fertile topic for an intellect like Dawkins to really go indepth in.
Click to expand...

Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize. For what?

I think you have to look at the prize as a joke. It's extremely skewed toward winners in western nations.

The list of Israeli Nobel Prize winners isn't exactly impressive:

Shmuel Yosef Agnon, Robert Aumann, Menachem Begin, Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko, Daniel Hahneman, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Dan Sechectman, and Ada Yonah. Considering 42% of all Jews in the world live in Israel, the list is shockingly small, and limited mostly to those who tried to make peace with the Palestinians (call it an encouragement).

It doesn't help that the British Empire devastated the middle east through its occupation and arbitrary drawing of nation borders and installation of monarchies. All set in motion since about the time the Nobel prize was instituted. Or that two of the oldest and western-like nations in the middle east were pitted against one another in a bloody war involving WMDs, and then we bombed one of them to near the stone age ($1T didn't fix the place) and have crippling sanctions on the other since.

I've encountered a number of muslim people in the past several years that I find to be most impressive. A sportswriter. A physician. A surgeon. College professors. Some of the highest skilled high tech engineering types.

The guy who headed the IAEA and the potential peacemaker in Egypt is one of the brightest guys in the world. The guy who designed the modern Chicago skyline (skyscrapers) was a muslim.

It's pretty clear to me that there are plenty of contributions going on. They're just not getting the notoriety that others' get.
 
Denny Crane said:
Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize. For what?

I think you have to look at the prize as a joke. It's extremely skewed toward winners in western nations.

The list of Israeli Nobel Prize winners isn't exactly impressive:

Shmuel Yosef Agnon, Robert Aumann, Menachem Begin, Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko, Daniel Hahneman, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Dan Sechectman, and Ada Yonah. Considering 42% of all Jews in the world live in Israel, the list is shockingly small, and limited mostly to those who tried to make peace with the Palestinians (call it an encouragement).

It doesn't help that the British Empire devastated the middle east through its occupation and arbitrary drawing of nation borders and installation of monarchies. All set in motion since about the time the Nobel prize was instituted. Or that two of the oldest and western-like nations in the middle east were pitted against one another in a bloody war involving WMDs, and then we bombed one of them to near the stone age ($1T didn't fix the place) and have crippling sanctions on the other since.

I've encountered a number of muslim people in the past several years that I find to be most impressive. A sportswriter. A physician. A surgeon. College professors. Some of the highest skilled high tech engineering types.

The guy who headed the IAEA and the potential peacemaker in Egypt is one of the brightest guys in the world. The guy who designed the modern Chicago skyline (skyscrapers) was a muslim.

It's pretty clear to me that there are plenty of contributions going on. They're just not getting the notoriety that others' get.
Click to expand...

First, as I said above, Nobels in the sciences. That's very different than other ones like the peace prize.

Next, I mentioned Jews, not people from Israel. Also, I was not trying to prove some point other than pointing out that it's not just that the Muslims are religious (someone else mentioned that Dawkins was just trying to denigrate the Muslim religion as he would any religion) if there is an issue with contributions to society, it reaches beyond the just being religious to something in their culture. Or actually, I was saying this is something that Dawkins should discuss, one way or another, and be honest about where that discussion leads.

In the sciences
Jews with Nobel Prizes in Chemistry
31

Jews with Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine
53

Jews with Nobel Prizes in Physics
49


Now, what does that mean? not much, I contend that most of those people were actually secular Jews, they just came from a culture that prides education. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates

As I said earlier referencing the Mongols, and you bring up with the Christians, I agree completely that much of the reason the Muslims are behind in this area of their culture is because they have a history where those who pursued their lust for knowledge were wiped out, along with much of the actual books.


Nowhere did I say in any way shape or form that Muslims are less intelligent than you or I.

I have worked on a project with a Muslim in another lab who was nothing less than brilliant.

I am referencing culture as a reason why they don't value the advancements of knowledge like we do here in America. This is not some innate inability, just the opposite, a simple change in philosophy and they could be world leaders again.

Sure there are contributions, but considering 23% of the world is Muslim, we should expect about one quarter of advancements to come from Muslims. Do you believe this to be the case? Perhaps its just a misguided perception, but I just don't think so.
 
Last edited:
You missed the point.

In the sciences. Jews from Israel: ZERO or ONE. What's special about Jews outside Israel? After all, it was Israelis who invented VOIP and Lempel-Ziv-Welch compression (LZW, like all the .gif files in the world use it).

There's a bias against people from the middle east, at the very least.

And Peace is what most of those countries need, not science. The contributions along those lines will lead to more science. I mean, it's hard to do science in a lab that looks like this:

130421195130-01-syria-0421-horizontal-gallery.jpg


Oh yeah. Obama's prize is proof they have no problem giving the award to Muslims.
 
Denny Crane said:
You missed the point.

In the sciences. Jews from Israel: ZERO or ONE. What's special about Jews outside Israel? After all, it was Israelis who invented VOIP and Lempel-Ziv-Welch compression (LZW, like all the .gif files in the world use it).

There's a bias against people from the middle east, at the very least.

And Peace is what most of those countries need, not science. The contributions along those lines will lead to more science. I mean, it's hard to do science in a lab that looks like this:

130421195130-01-syria-0421-horizontal-gallery.jpg


Oh yeah. Obama's prize is proof they have no problem giving the award to Muslims.
Click to expand...
yes, i missed that point. ill have to think about it. it is interesting.
 
Denny Crane said:
You missed the point.

In the sciences. Jews from Israel: ZERO or ONE. What's special about Jews outside Israel? After all, it was Israelis who invented VOIP and Lempel-Ziv-Welch compression (LZW, like all the .gif files in the world use it).

There's a bias against people from the middle east, at the very least.

And Peace is what most of those countries need, not science. The contributions along those lines will lead to more science. I mean, it's hard to do science in a lab that looks like this:

130421195130-01-syria-0421-horizontal-gallery.jpg


Oh yeah. Obama's prize is proof they have no problem giving the award to Muslims.
Click to expand...

OK, I thought a little more about it. 23% of the world population is Muslim. In America there are 6.2 million Muslims or about 2.1% of the population.. In America slightly less than than that are Jewish, about 5.4 million Jews in America.

If it were simply a matter of the Middle East being ignored, we should see Muslims outside of the Middle East garnering Nobel Prizes on par with the rest of the non-middle east population.




I am not saying that this is enough of an indicator to really point to anything meaningful, which brings me back to my original point that Dawkins didn't go nearly far enough into the subject to be able to make the types of conclusions he seems to be making. All I'm looking for is some more input, some more data, some other indicators.
 
Last edited:
GOD said:
OK, I thought a little more about it. 23% of the world population is Muslim. In America there are 6.2 million Muslims or about 2.1% of the population.. In America slightly less than than that are Jewish, about 5.4 million Jews in America.

If it were simply a matter of the Middle East being ignored, we should see Muslims outside of the Middle East garnering Nobel Prizes on par with the rest of the non-middle east population.




I am not saying that this is enough of an indicator to really point to anything meaningful, which brings me back to my original point that Dawkins didn't go nearly far enough into the subject to be able to make the types of conclusions he seems to be making. All I'm looking for is some more input, some more data, some other indicators.
Click to expand...

He should have called out black people. How many Nobel prizes they win?
 
GOD said:
OK, I thought a little more about it. 23% of the world population is Muslim. In America there are 6.2 million Muslims or about 2.1% of the population.. In America slightly less than than that are Jewish, about 5.4 million Jews in America.

If it were simply a matter of the Middle East being ignored, we should see Muslims outside of the Middle East garnering Nobel Prizes on par with the rest of the non-middle east population.




I am not saying that this is enough of an indicator to really point to anything meaningful, which brings me back to my original point that Dawkins didn't go nearly far enough into the subject to be able to make the types of conclusions he seems to be making. All I'm looking for is some more input, some more data, some other indicators.
Click to expand...

The muslims I've met are deeply spiritual. I was out to dinner with one of my friends and warned him he was about to eat pork in the bacon wrapped around his steak.

There's an obvious bias against muslims or even people from the middle east here. One of those doctors calls himself a persian instead of Iranian for some reason. I think that's a hint.

There's this, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism

One recent study found that half of all American Jews have doubts about the existence of God, compared to 10–15% of other American religious groups.[2]
 
I really wish I hadn't brought up Jews at all, because then there is this terrible tendency to compare and contrast the two when the real question is "is the Muslim Religion hindering it's people from making significant advancements to the world?"

I don't know the answer, but it's an interesting question. And I am not making any type of statement about the abilities of the religious, I am strictly talking about the effects that believing in God, believing that faith works, believing in magic, if that hinders ones ability to make significant social and scientific contributions.

Likewise one could as if being an Atheist hinders ones ability to ??????
 
GOD said:
I really wish I hadn't brought up Jews at all, because then there is this terrible tendency to compare and contrast the two when the real question is "is the Muslim Religion hindering it's people from making significant advancements to the world?"

I don't know the answer, but it's an interesting question. And I am not making any type of statement about the abilities of the religious, I am strictly talking about the effects that believing in God, believing that faith works, believing in magic, if that hinders ones ability to make significant social and scientific contributions.

Likewise one could as if being an Atheist hinders ones ability to ??????
Click to expand...

I think the parallel (jews, muslims) was drawn fairly. The concept raised was the one of racial bias.

I really don't think the Muslim Religion hinders its people from making advancements in the least. No more than having black skin prevented people from "thriving" in the US all along.

I'll draw the parallel there for you. Google Black Wall Street. When it was over, 13 blocks of Tulsa looked like that burned out neighborhood in the picture I posted earlier.
 
I will say I believe that any devout religiosity brings with it a smaller likelihood that those people will bring forward great advancements. It simply stops being their goal, at least in modern times. The believe that God created everything and pulls the strings in life, that type of thinking is incongruous with trying to learn and create, especially in the sciences.

I worked very closely with John, a very devout Chinese Baptist. He had his PhD and had worked in my field for 12 years. He was wonderful at being given tasks to complete or experiments to run. But when we were in lab meetings, he was completely devoid of deep understanding of the complexities that he was dealing with on a daily basis. He never actually came up with fresh experiments that were well aligned with our hypothesis. I, a lowly lab tech, came up with more new experiments that were put into play than John.

John and I had some wonderful conversations about god, religion, I even came with him on a couple of special occasions to his church and had a great time (once for Chinese New Year and another time to see John sing in church choir). When we would just talk, he seemed to be missing that love of exploration that many non-believers have. And he also saw how science worked through the lens of someone who believed in the bible and the two just don't match up. I will say one thing, he was happier than me. He would never harm a soul, he was very giving and is a friend I plan to visit next time i'm in Boston (where he works now).
 
More like devout religiosity is frowned on by the scientific community.

John is an anecdote.
 
GOD said:
I will say I believe that any devout religiosity brings with it a smaller likelihood that those people will bring forward great advancements. It simply stops being their goal, at least in modern times. The believe that God created everything and pulls the strings in life, that type of thinking is incongruous with trying to learn and create, especially in the sciences.

I worked very closely with John, a very devout Chinese Baptist. He had his PhD and had worked in my field for 12 years. He was wonderful at being given tasks to complete or experiments to run. But when we were in lab meetings, he was completely devoid of deep understanding of the complexities that he was dealing with on a daily basis. He never actually came up with fresh experiments that were well aligned with our hypothesis. I, a lowly lab tech, came up with more new experiments that were put into play than John.

John and I had some wonderful conversations about god, religion, I even came with him on a couple of special occasions to his church and had a great time (once for Chinese New Year and another time to see John sing in church choir). When we would just talk, he seemed to be missing that love of exploration that many non-believers have. And he also saw how science worked through the lens of someone who believed in the bible and the two just don't match up. I will say one thing, he was happier than me. He would never harm a soul, he was very giving and is a friend I plan to visit next time i'm in Boston (where he works now).
Click to expand...

Many religious people have spearheaded huge advancements in science. One example is the creator of the Big Bang. Evolution was created by a religious man.

I can understand that many in modern science may frown upon a theist; but saying that science and theism aren't compatible is very generalized and just wrong.
 
The sidebar to the so-called controversial comments is the tendency for people to shout "racism!" whenever Islam is criticized. This is a discussion that Dawkins has intentionally spurred.

Also, if we're looking to be offended, MarAzul's comment about wait until they get at him and how funny that will be comment is the worst. How's Salman Rushdie faring?
 
I should note that while I admire Dr. Dawkins and find his books to be pretty wonderful I don't love his Twitter persona. Sometimes I wonder if it's really him. Not nearly as refined as his interviews and public appearances. Sam Harris seems to handle Twitter with less snark.
 
speeds said:
The sidebar to the so-called controversial comments is the tendency for people to shout "racism!" whenever Islam is criticized. This is a discussion that Dawkins has intentionally spurred.

Also, if we're looking to be offended, MarAzul's comment about wait until they get at him and how funny that will be comment is the worst. How's Salman Rushdie faring?
Click to expand...

Or maybe its Dawkins should be smarter than to generalize an entire philosophy based on a minuscule baseline. I mean this guy is supposed to be a "out of the box thinker"; yet that statement was very closed minded.
 
magnifier661 said:
Or maybe its Dawkins should be smarter than to generalize an entire philosophy based on a minuscule baseline. I mean this guy is supposed to be a "out of the box thinker"; yet that statement was very closed minded.
Click to expand...
I think he was pretty specific in what he said.
 
[video=youtube;fDAT98eEN5Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAT98eEN5Q&feature=youtu.be&t=6m40s[/video]
 
Denny Crane said:
More like devout religiosity is frowned on by the scientific community.

John is an anecdote.
Click to expand...

I think a representative anecdote.

Most of the people up here are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, some religion, but very few are orthodox in their views. I don't think its a case of the scientific community looking down on them, I think it's people in a frame of mind that is incongruous with scientific inquiry. There are levels of religiosity, using restaurant talk, mild to very spicy. As the devotion to the religion increases, the ability to trust only the science dictates goes out the window. Now, it's how god fits into the situation, it's what the science should say to match with god.

And yes, there is a very real case of people in academia looking down on the devout. But I don't think that's the cause. I admit it's real, but I don't think its as gross as people imagine. At least around me, first hand.
 
GOD said:
I think a representative anecdote.

Most of the people up here are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, some religion, but very few are orthodox in their views. I don't think its a case of the scientific community looking down on them, I think it's people in a frame of mind that is incongruous with scientific inquiry. There are levels of religiosity, using restaurant talk, mild to very spicy. As the devotion to the religion increases, the ability to trust only the science dictates goes out the window. Now, it's how god fits into the situation, it's what the science should say to match with god.

And yes, there is a very real case of people in academia looking down on the devout. But I don't think that's the cause. I admit it's real, but I don't think its as gross as people imagine. At least around me, first hand.
Click to expand...

But that's because you aren't noticing the green unicorn
 
magnifier661 said:
Many religious people have spearheaded huge advancements in science. One example is the creator of the Big Bang. Evolution was created by a religious man.

I can understand that many in modern science may frown upon a theist; but saying that science and theism aren't compatible is very generalized and just wrong.
Click to expand...

If you reread my posts, I am quite aware that most advances are by the religious. I am making a distinction between levels of religious activism or belief. The most religious will likely be clergy, going down, little by little, eventually to some putz on the street with a tattoo of a cross and no idea what the bible actually says. \

But mainly I am not making a claim as much as exploring this topic. Speaking my mind but ready to change it. I already have once in this thread.
 
GOD said:
I think a representative anecdote.

Most of the people up here are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, some religion, but very few are orthodox in their views. I don't think its a case of the scientific community looking down on them, I think it's people in a frame of mind that is incongruous with scientific inquiry. There are levels of religiosity, using restaurant talk, mild to very spicy. As the devotion to the religion increases, the ability to trust only the science dictates goes out the window. Now, it's how god fits into the situation, it's what the science should say to match with god.

And yes, there is a very real case of people in academia looking down on the devout. But I don't think that's the cause. I admit it's real, but I don't think its as gross as people imagine. At least around me, first hand.
Click to expand...

Ergo, you look down on John.

Slick how that works :)
 
GOD said:
If you reread my posts, I am quite aware that most advances are by the religious. I am making a distinction between levels of religious activism or belief. The most religious will likely be clergy, going down, little by little, eventually to some putz on the street with a tattoo of a cross and no idea what the bible actually says. \

But mainly I am not making a claim as much as exploring this topic. Speaking my mind but ready to change it. I already have once in this thread.
Click to expand...

I see. Cool beans. Don't mind me then
 
Denny Crane said:
Ergo, you look down on John.

Slick how that works :)
Click to expand...

I do, but not as much as my writing makes it seem. I really do like the guy and respect the man, I simply think his scientific mind is hazy or lazy, one of the two. And for someone who has had the vast education he has had, I would expect more in that realm.

I would rather spend the day with John, break bread with John, than a huge portion of people up here who have a more scientific mind. I am looking down on an ability of John more than actually looking down on John.

But part of that is due to me actually knowing John very well. I do admit I am most certainly biased when first I meet a devoutly religious person. But I look down on most people in some way. I'm an asshole. This must be understood. I think I'm better than you Denny, I think I'm better most people. Actually, that's not quite true, I oscillate between pride and shame rapidly and in truth have low self esteem. I was mainly saying that stuff with a bit of rye wit.

But I look down on some, and some people look down on me, that's natural, I'm just saying that there is an image that the "looking down" is much greater than it is. I give people respect and a chance to wow me regardless of their background.
 
In the relatively few tweets he made the point was that zealotry stifled the progress of an ingenious people. He used the science Nobel's point to illustrate what he was saying. If you want to ascribe an overarching disapproval of all Muslim people and not on the effect the religion had on their scientific progress that's your prerogative. Part of his comments stem from constantly having to deal with people telling him how many billions of Muslims there are as if that were an argument for the veracity of the religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top