From what I've seen of his arguments about religion (among other topics not related to his profession), I regard him as naive and severely ignorant in terms of sheer diversity of thought. His success is not, to me, a sign of the overall quality of his arguments or notions. I'm glad that Arabs have been able to get access to his works, though.
If you're wondering, however, I'm not necessarily talking about the Middle East. I recently saw the third Ip Man movie (which I thought was decidedly disappointing), which made me remember the fantastic second movie, which I think did an EXCELLENT job of depicting Western civilization's behavior with others. That's the context I'm talking about.
Consider, after all, that these Arab atheists could be seen as simply swapping the Qur'an for The God Delusion, thus we're not substantively much different than before.
Yes, Dawkins sometimes makes some very ignorant statements, but I think he also makes a lot of good points. From what I can see, a part of his success is that his sharp, critical tone counters the nature of mainstream Islam, which contains threats and graphic promises of Hell for non-believers. This sharp nature appeals to many ex-Muslim and ex-Christian atheists in particular who believe that the "softer" arguments against religion are lacking in effectiveness or assertiveness.
I'm not sure what exactly it would mean to swap the Qur'an with the God Delusion, but generally, if one is talking about swapping a book that contains things like the verses below—and these are just a couple of samples from many—with the God Delusion, then I don't even see a comparison. Where in the God Delusion do hatred and demonization of others reach this point?
Qur'an 4:56 said:
Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses - We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise.
Qur'an 24:2 said:
The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
(
Source of translations.)
Western civilization has had strong imperialistic leanings and committed many atrocities because of those. No argument from me there. What I'm talking about is cultural norms and traditions overall, not governmental policies or military actions. And on those fronts, I think Western culture has it right in far more ways than many other cultures.
Ours, as far as I can tell, was the first culture to start writing about these notions of secularism. Hence, we came up with it. But if it's everyone's well-being that we're talking about, secularism does not have a monopoly on that goal. Heck, it's not even really intrinsic to secularism, as Communist countries have demonstrated. As I understand it, secularism is simply a separation of religion and state politics.
What system other than secularism ensures in principle that all groups, religious or not, have equal rights in society?
I appreciate the clarification.
And yes, I've also seen plenty of arguments from "my side" that is evocative of fascist regimes, both in the colloquial sense and the etymological sense.
That's really the reason I'm playing Devil's Advocate. There's
no such thing as a viewpoint that cannot be corrupted and used to suppress and harm other people. That's one reason why I'm not a moral objectivist. No matter what system of "objective morality" is on the table for discussion, it can and will be corrupted.
If both models of moral objectivism and moral relativism can be corrupted (I do believe the latter can be corrupted as well), then how is that one reason to not be a moral objectivist if it applies to both models of morality anyway?
I don't believe these matters to be objectively bad, because I don't believe in objectivity. But trust me, that does not mean I'm in favor of things like genital mutilation (male, female, OR intersex which is the kind our culture does with almost no questioning yet by non-intersex people), foot-binding, or systems of caste. I merely recognize that my being against these things is because they run contrary to my values, and I naturally place greater importance on my own values when there is such a clash.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with basing ethics on an axiom, just like how a lot of disciplines are based on axioms. Consider physics, for example: why do scientists study natural phenomena, and what makes that desirable as opposed to not studying them? Aren't they working under the axiom that studying natural phenomena is desirable?
To me, the same thing applies to ethics: I think ethics should proceed from the axiom that the well-being of conscious creatures is desirable and of utmost importance.
Because war is expensive, both in terms of money and life. It's not something that's (usually) declared lightly, despite what propaganda machines would have people believe about the Enemy, because the potential loss is really, really high if it goes poorly.
Keep in mind, resources, here, includes land.
I think you make a very good point, but I also think that ideological interests also play a huge part in many wars and can actually be the primary motivator for those wars. In the Syrian Civil War, for example, some factions are fighting mainly due to ideological motivations. One person a relative of mine knew of wanted to go to Syria to "fight in the way of God." No resources, no land; just ideology. That's just one example.
Gooooooodwiiiiiiiiin....
Actually, World War I might be the better counter-example here, since it was boiled by an unstable socio-political situation in Europe, and sparked by a series of complicated alliances responding to an event in an Eastern European country that has nothing to do with the rest of us. I'm not sure if there were any real resources gains by the Allied powers beyond what was robbed from Germany by that war's end.
Yes, I knew I was pulling a Godwin there, but I still thought the example was relevant to the discussion.
Okay, so, if World War I wasn't primarily driven by a desire for resources or land, was it really a rare example, or are there many wars like it that don't mainly originate out of a desire for resources and land?
If I'm misreading you at all in any of the above, feel free to correct me. I'm pretty muddled today, so please forgive me if I make any such mistake.
