Professor Richard Dawkins embroiled in Twitter row over Muslim comments

[PapaG]

Doesn't this dumbass know that you can't question Islam as a religion? Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. are fair game, but you can't question Islam, you idiot!

Richard Dawkins has been forced to defend controversial comments he made online after saying the last time Muslims contributed something worthwhile was during the Middle Ages.

Prof Dawkins, the bestselling author of The God Delusion, wrote on Twitter that all the world's Muslims had won fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. He went on to argue that although Muslims were responsible for many achievements during the Dark Ages, including alchemy and algebra, their contribution since then was questionable.

His comments sparked outrage from many high-profile writers and journalists including author Caitlin Moran and Channel 4 News Economics Editor Faisal Islam.

Moran tweeted: "it's time someone turned Richard Dawkins off and then on again. Something's gone weird." Writing on Twitter on Thursday, Prof Dawkins said: "All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though."

While in response to another Twitter user who wrote that Muslims were responsible for alchemy and algebra, he replied: "Indeed, where would we be without alchemy? Dark Age achievements undoubted. But since then?"

He later tried to justify his comments by saying he talked about the number of Muslim prize winners because we often hear "boasts about their total numbers".

He wrote: "Why mention Muslim Nobels rather than any other group? Because we so often hear boasts about (a) their total numbers and (b) their science."

He added: "A statement of simple fact is not bigotry".

continued at link

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Islam is a beautiful religion. Their followers are one of peace.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Islam is a beautiful religion. Their followers are one of peace.

 

[Further]

Very interesting. A lot has to with the Mongol massacres during the 1200's. before that, many Muslim nations were the most advanced cultures in the world, great art, science and mathematics. But the Mongols killed between 10 ang 80 million, specifically anyone of culture or from a decent family (wealthy enough to study and read). After that, much of the books and art destroyed, and the people left were mainly non-city folk, farmers and such, and the culture never really recovered.

Of course, saying what I just did would get Dawkins in far more trouble than he currently is.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

He is awfully western centric

 

[Masbee]

Truth is a motherfucking bitch.

The sooner muslims face their demons, the better off we all will be.

I read an author thirty years ago who claimed that we were in for one hundred years of pain and suffering as islam worked through its shit.

 

[MarAzul]

Doesn't this dumbass know that you can't question Islam as a religion? Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. are fair game, but you can't question Islam, you idiot!

Richard Dawkins hardly deserves discussion. But I will have a chuckle over him ragging on the Muslims. Now what they do with him could also bring some chuckles.

 

[Eastoff]

He's trying to be an equal opportunity "anti-religion" figure. He thinks Christianity is fake, and so is Islam. It's not surprising that zealots might get offended.

 

[Masbee]

Richard Dawkins hardly deserves discussion. But I will have a chuckle over him ragging on the Muslims. Now what they do with him could also bring some chuckles.

You think it is funny that a significant minority of muslims are crazed, violent lunatics, and that a large portion of the "sane" muslim community tolerate their crazies?

 

[crandc]

This was unworthy of Dawkins. I've read his books & articles. They are worth reading. There is a huge difference between criticism, even harsh criticism, of a religion and gratuitous insult of any person who follows or identifies with a given religion. And Papa G, Dawkins has been a scathing critic of all religions. He is comparing apples and oranges. Conveniently ignoring the destruction of the great Muslim Empire by Christian Crusaders, which destroyed what was then the world's leading center of science. Maybe otherwise Muslims would win all the Nobels? If you use this "logic" to its conclusion, well, women have won fewer Nobels than men. African descended people fewer than European descended. Does opportunity and recognition have any bearing?

Criticize the Jewish religion all you want, I'll probably agree. Throw out an insult against all Jews and I'll spit nails at you too.

And Jews have won more Nobels than Oxford grads.

 

[jlprk]

Very interesting. A lot has to with the Mongol massacres during the 1200's. before that, many Muslim nations were the most advanced cultures in the world, great art, science and mathematics. But the Mongols killed between 10 ang 80 million, specifically anyone of culture or from a decent family (wealthy enough to study and read). After that, much of the books and art destroyed, and the people left were mainly non-city folk, farmers and such, and the culture never really recovered.

Of course, saying what I just did would get Dawkins in far more trouble than he currently is.

Sounds like what the marauding U.S. Army did to American Indians in the 1800s. As late as the 1920s, the government was still doing mass hangings of all medicine men (the intellectual class) of a tribe. When you compare 1920 maps to 1940 maps, most Indian villages have disappeared.

 

[¹²³]

So, Nobel Prizes = Contributing something worthwhile? That simply doesn't make any sense.

 

[Further]

Sounds like what the marauding U.S. Army did to American Indians in the 1800s. As late as the 1920s, the government was still doing mass hangings of all medicine men (the intellectual class) of a tribe. When you compare 1920 maps to 1940 maps, most Indian villages have disappeared.

The Mongols would do that ten fold. They would go into cities and towns, and if the people didn't give up immediately, all their possessions and even their people as slaves and such, the Mongols would kill every living thing in the city. Every man, woman child, even the chickens. And then, just to make sure they were successful, they would leave, and then send a small detachment back 3 days later to kill anyone who had found a good hiding place the first time through. The elite naturally lived more in cities and towns than some of the farmers and other "lower" peoples, so when these slaughters took place it was the result that the elite (who were the educated) that would perish. In America, they would specifically target the medicine men and chiefs, and would often kill large groups, but not the extreme and unrelenting slaying of everyone in an area.

An interesting side note, the Mongols believed that is was very bad to spill the blood of a royal, so the super elite, would be tracked down one by one and killed in ways that spilled no blood, like drowning. And these killings of the rest of the folk were terrifying. For example, in one incident the mongols built a floor that would go over all their captives so that after they got done slaughtering most of the folk, they had a banquet on a floor built on people, crushing them, They laughed and got drunk smothering and crushing those people to death.

 

[Ed O]

So, Nobel Prizes = Contributing something worthwhile? That simply doesn't make any sense.

Why not? Not every Nobel prize means a ton, but are you saying that they're worthless?

In any event, I believe he is reacting to an assertion by some about the number of Nobel Prizes that Muslims have won... I have never heard that asserted as a point of pride before, but I get the sense he's not just pulling that out of nowhere.

Ed O.

 

[¹²³]

Why not? Not every Nobel prize means a ton, but are you saying that they're worthless?

No, I'm saying that there is a ton of different ways to contribute to the humanity.

In any event, I believe he is reacting to an assertion by some about the number of Nobel Prizes that Muslims have won... I have never heard that asserted as a point of pride before, but I get the sense he's not just pulling that out of nowhere.

Ed O.

I think he is pulling that out of nowhere, I've never heard that before as well. And it doesn't make any sense to use that as an argument, since so few muslins actually won a nobel prize. I've done some Google searching with the words muslims and nobel prize and almost everything I find is "4 Muslim vs. 129 Jewishs", not a single link claiming muslims have contributed something worthwhile.

 

[Ed O]

Criticize the Jewish religion all you want, I'll probably agree. Throw out an insult against all Jews and I'll spit nails at you too.

But "Muslim" is not the same as "Jewish" because there are distinct ethnicities (Persian, Arabic, etc.) with Muslims that, to the best of my knowledge, do not exist with the Jewish faith.

Ed O.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

But "Muslim" is not the same as "Jewish" because there are distinct ethnicities (Persian, Arabic, etc.) with Muslims that, to the best of my knowledge, do not exist with the Jewish faith.

Ed O.

Uh-oh, let's not open that bag of worms again. GOD and crandc have made it very clear that to them and theirs, "Jewish" is an ethnic designation moreso than a religious one.

 

[Ed O]

No, I'm saying that there is a ton of different ways to contribute to the humanity.

That is true, but by that logic there is no single piece of evidence that could be raised about contributions to humanity because there are so many others. Therefore, it is impossible to prove any relative contributions to humanity.

Which might be something you're comfortable with (and I don't really care one way or the other) but it seems sort of a weak approach to take, logically.

I think he is pulling that out of nowhere, I've never heard that before as well. And it doesn't make any sense to use that as an argument, since so few muslins actually won a nobel prize. I've done some Google searching with the words muslims and nobel prize and almost everything I find is "4 Muslim vs. 129 Jewishs", not a single link claiming muslims have contributed something worthwhile.

He might have pulled it out of nowhere and then made up the fact that he hears people talking about the number of Muslim Nobel winners. I don't know that one way or the other--I just know what was in the article.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Uh-oh, let's not open that bag of worms again. GOD and crandc have made it very clear that to them and theirs, "Jewish" is an ethnic designation moreso than a religious one.

That's fine... but do they think that "Muslim" is an ethnic designation, too? If not, why make the Jewish/Muslim parallel in this situation, and if so... then I am surprised

Ed O.

 

[Further]

That's fine... but do they think that "Muslim" is an ethnic designation, too? If not, why make the Jewish/Muslim parallel in this situation, and if so... then I am surprised

Ed O.

you seem to get it. there no parallel in this situation.

Also, perhaps it was a mistake and they were not talking about how many Muslim Nobel winners there were, but maybe he misheard and they were actually talking of Muslim Kabob winners. They certainly have the rest of the world outdone in the awesomeness of their Kababs.

 

[¹²³]

That is true, but by that logic there is no single piece of evidence that could be raised about contributions to humanity because there are so many others. Therefore, it is impossible to prove any relative contributions to humanity.

Which might be something you're comfortable with (and I don't really care one way or the other) but it seems sort of a weak approach to take, logically.

I think Dawkins could find more strong evidences to show us how Muslims haven't contributed to humanity. Using only nobel prize winners seems a weak approach to take, logically.

From the article: "Muslims were responsible for many achievements during the Dark Ages, including alchemy and algebra, their contribution since then was questionable." Even if we accept his premise that the only way to contribute to humanity is through science, he should show us how poor is the scientific production in the muslim world vs the rest of the world. Number of papers, studies, patents, I don't know, but his approach looks like he didn't want to take the subject seriously.

 

[bluefrog]

All the world's Filipinos had won fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge

 

[SlyPokerDog]

It's not like there aren't some very wealthy Muslims in the world. Maybe one of them should set up their own version of the Nobel Prizes. It's not like all of humankind wouldn't benefit.

 

[magnifier661]

Why not? Not every Nobel prize means a ton, but are you saying that they're worthless?

In any event, I believe he is reacting to an assertion by some about the number of Nobel Prizes that Muslims have won... I have never heard that asserted as a point of pride before, but I get the sense he's not just pulling that out of nowhere.

Ed O.

What's more import, feeding a million Ethiopians with money donated for food or winning a Nobel prize in science?

Nobel prizes are wonderful and the people that receive them are important to our civilization; but I give more credit to those that are selfless and giving to those in need.

 

[Further]

Those that give to people in need, that's wonderful, but that's fleeting. If I spend 10 million on food for the poor, after they have fed, what's changed? They are hungry again. But if you win a Nobel prize in science, it's likely that you have done something that has significantly improved the lives of people living or kept people from dying. And once the next year rolls around and someone else wins the next Nobel, your contribution will still be playing dividends for a very long time.

Both are wonderful things that should be encouraged.

 

[magnifier661]

Those that give to people in need, that's wonderful, but that's fleeting. If I spend 10 million on food for the poor, after they have fed, what's changed? They are hungry again. But if you win a Nobel prize in science, it's likely that you have done something that has significantly improved the lives of people living or kept people from dying. And once the next year rolls around and someone else wins the next Nobel, your contribution will still be playing dividends for a very long time.

Both are wonderful things that should be encouraged.

Well you should look into the "Clinton global initiative". They are raising money to build an infrastructure for people in Africa for farming and processing viable foods for trade and feeding themselves.

 

[Further]

Well you should look into the "Clinton global initiative". They are raising money to build an infrastructure for people in Africa for farming and processing viable foods for trade and feeding themselves.

That's awesome. That's a great way to do it, the infrastructure is really the key.

 

[magnifier661]

That's awesome. That's a great way to do it, the infrastructure is really the key.

Yeah it's a great association. They seemed to really understand that you must build infrastructure or the people will always starve.

I also believe those that win Nobel prizes are very important; but not the baseline of a certain society to achieve greatness.

 

[Denny Crane]

So, Nobel Prizes = Contributing something worthwhile? That simply doesn't make any sense.

Truth. Jimmy Carter has one, so does Al Gore.

 

[Further]

Yeah it's a great association. They seemed to really understand that you must build infrastructure or the people will always starve.

I also believe those that win Nobel prizes are very important; but not the baseline of a certain society to achieve greatness.

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.