I agree with this. I don't think that analysis changes my point. He is ignoring the fact that different cultures measure great success in different ways. He is in essence acting as a gatekeeper to the "civilized" section of society and denying Muslims entrance based on an arbitrary criteria of number of Nobel Prizes won.
I don't think the "ten random inventions" is a reliable metric.
lets set Dawkins aside for a moment and look at the concept of using any metric. As humans, we judge, and especially if we are hoping to improve, we use metrics to make those judgments. This particular judgment was not an all reaching judgment of a peoples, but a specific one which holds one thing to be positive that some may not view as a positive. Scientific endeavors matter. Many think this is hogwash. If they think that advancements in tech, science, healthcare, education are trivial, and that what really matters are the bonds of family, the love of god, the overall happiness, then any metric that measures scientific study is pointless. And, there is a real logical and understandable basis for looking at the world in that lens. Just look at those two categories, there is a lot going to the second group.
But if you say that advancements do matter, science and tech, mathematics and physics, healthcare and medical research, then there are metrics that can be used. It is a reasonable metric to look at Science based Nobel Prizes. That's just one metric, but an interesting one. It says nothing about the abilities of 99.99999% of the population because so few garner such a prize, but it does mark those who make the biggest contributions in a field. If you choose chemistry, that's pretty specific, you could say that the best chemists the world has seen in the past century are not Muslim. That is a very specific statement based on this metric. Dawkins was simply opening up that metric.
There are other metrics that could be used, but they would draw the same ire but would be more difficult to track and less poignant.
Other metrics could look at scientific papers. We could look at patents. We could look at owners of tech companies. We could look at graduation rates from scientific fields. We could look at a lot of stuff, and each metric only gives a small piece of the puzzle. But that does not mean that there is not any merit to the single metric chosen.
Islamic society, when stable, has produced many scientific achievements. In and around the Ottoman Empire in the middle ages there were huge advances in astronomy, mathematics and medicine made by Muslims scientists. Since the start of the Ottoman-Habsburg wars, scientific advances by Muslims have been on the decline due to external and internal strife in the Middle East, West Asia and North Africa. The fact that significant scientific work has dried up isn't due to the religion. It was there the whole time.
You say it's due to external strife in the Middle East, but why is there so much ongoing external strife? That may have some to do with the religion too. sunni vs shiite as an example.
When you have such a rich history of scientific advancements that constricts to a trickle nowadays, I think there are going to be multiple reasons. Strife from fighting certainly may play a role, perhaps the disparate economic situation in many Muslim nations might share some blame. But I really think you are being blind if you don't think that religion also plays a large role in the situation.
You may ask why did the religion not hinder in the past, but it does now? that makes no sense. But that's not fair since scientific advancements are built off of past knowledge. 500 years ago, when there were many top minds, much less was known in the world as a whole so you could still be a scientist and not have that conflict with science. You are figuring out math for example, not something that slaps religion in the face like so much of science does today. If you are to learn today what is needed today to be a good scientist, you have to accept current logical paradigms like evolution, or at least have a well thought out scientifically based reason to deny that theory. There is so much more known today that being a very devout person precludes most people from developing a scientific mind.
That quote describes the education Muslims receive perfectly... in tribal Pakistan. In the modern Middle East, the girls are often more educated than the boys. I think Dawkins is tripping over himself to be a reactionary atheist malcontent and not realizing that he is speaking in total hyperbole. It certainly doesn't help that he is doing it over twitter. He might as well be trying to have a rational discussion (not that I think that's his goal) in Youtube comments sections
I think he made a statement that was not representative enough. But I think you too are being disingenuous only pointing out tribal Pakistan. I think the truth lies somewhere in-between. I knew a teacher who was teaching in Dubai, a very westernized school, and some of the stories he told were ridiculous. Certainly not as bad as women not receiving education, but the topics they were allowed to cover were highly scrutinized and the textbooks were very demeaning to certain groups in society. By the way, he quit right after 911 when the kids were standing on their chairs and cheering for the towers falling down and drawing happy pictures of the towers and people jumping to their death. Sorry, got side tracked, but my point is that the truth lies in the middle.
Well put.
I would say that I think it's pretty unlikely that a Muslim is going to make any major breakthroughs in the field of say, evolution. But there is no difference in belief between Muslims and Christians that would hinder one over the other in scientific pursuits.
It’s a level of religiosity. A Muslim and a Christian who are both extremists wont be studying the periodic table. But I think there are more extremist Muslims in the world than Christian extremists.
I don’t agree with everything Dawkins said, but I do think there are some underlying topics that should be discussed more often in an open but not racist way. Because these topics are race-adjacent they appear to be dangerous things to talk about. But fact is that being highly religious is a problem in our modern world, at least from my perspective.
