Richard Dawkins hasn't read the Quran yet.

[Erebus]

I think Richard Dawkins just has a problem with religion in general.

From what I've read/seen of Dawkins' work, I wouldn't say he has a problem with religion as a whole exactly. I think he finds religion largely superfluous at best, but only really takes issue with the negative aspects. Basically if you're a religious person who doesn't try to harm/coerce/convert others then he's probably got no problem with you (or interest in you).

I've said before that I don't think Dawkins is qualified to discuss religion in depth. From what I've seen he has a decent knowledge of the Bible, a rudimentary knowledge of the other main religions and next to no knowledge of the less common religions. As such he attempts to tackle a gargantuan subject from an incredibly narrow viewpoint and (in my opinion) largely falls flat doing so.

However, where I do agree with him is in his criticism of religion entering into the legal and political world. Despite being religious myself, I'm also very much in favour of secularism and as such can understand why Dawkins would criticise religions that go against this. Islam is one of those religions which is frequently intertwined with law and politics, therefore there are elements of Islam that can be criticised from a Secular viewpoint without needing an in depth knowledge of the religion.

 

[sojourner]

just because we see these problems in the society, it is not necessary that the true Islam is the cause or the 'evil force' behind everything.

Is the truth and character of a religion, though, not borne out in how it informs and influences the cultures and societies in which it thrives? surely, there's more to religion than what's written about it. The writings may say one thing, but the people are as much a part (and the embodiment) of the religion as its precepts. The writings may say one thing -- the people may say another. All of it is "the religion." Pointing out "what the Koran says" is only one side of the dice. Dawkins is pointing out what many of its adherents are doing. What they are doing may be at odds with the writings, but they're still doing it "in the name of" and "as a result of" the religion and their participation in it.

 

[ChristineES]

I just don't believe for one second that religion causes all the world's problems (like war and terrorism). The causes of these problems are humans. I sound like a broken record when I say this, but it's because I find it to be true.

As for the OP, a person should know all they can about a religion or faith before they criticize it.

 

[metis]

To me, religion is a lot like a car: it can be used for good or bad.

Over the years I've noticed a general pattern that many others have said they've noticed as well, namely that the "my way of the highway" approach used by all too many "true believers" is exceedingly dangerous and has led to so much agony and death historically. It has busted up many families, turned friends into enemies, and turned basically nice people into tyrants.

 

[Sees]

I just don't believe for one second that religion causes all the world's problems (like war and terrorism). The causes of these problems are humans. I sound like a broken record when I say this, but it's because I find it to be true.

As for the OP, a person should know all they can about a religion or faith before they criticize it.

The cultures that become inseparable from some are the big problem. I interviewed many "prisoners" during Operation Iraqi Freedom when in various parts of the region and I can't remember one who wasn't like a Jerry Falwell on steroids, on his worse day.

I would still talk to other Marines about Islam and how many Muslims are of a more gentler nature with less fundamental world-view or at least not of the mind to enforce the other.

 

[fantome profane]

I think it is disappointing that Dawkins has not read the Quran. It would only make him a better critic of religion if he had.

 

[ChristineES]

The cultures that become inseparable from some are the big problem. I interviewed many "prisoners" during Operation Iraqi Freedom when in various parts of the region and I can't remember one who wasn't like a Jerry Falwell on steroids, on his worse day.

I would still talk to other Marines about Islam and how many Muslims are of a more gentler nature with less fundamental world-view or at least not of the mind to enforce the other.

There's no doubt that people (including terrorists) can use religion as a tool or an excuse to do the things they do. But it isn't the religion itself that does it, it is the people following it. The things people do as a religious influence can be "good" things, such as feeding people and such or it can be more violent things. But the majority of people following various faiths are usually just out living their lives. For instance, I see Muslims everyday and none of them are out blowing anyone up or even thinking about it.

 

[Sees]

I think it is disappointing that Dawkins has not read the Quran. It would only make him a better critic of religion if he had.

I agree, but I think he simply sees it as adding on to Biblical mythology and doesn't want to give it the attention he believes it doesn't deserve. He thinks the Bible itself is important literature for understanding parts of western civilization's history.

 

[ChristineES]

I agree, but I think he simply sees it as adding on to Biblical mythology and doesn't want to give it the attention he believes it doesn't deserve. He thinks the Bible itself is important literature for understanding parts of western civilization's history.

I just don't think it's right for Mr. Dawkins to criticize Islam without knowing what the Qur'an says. He might just come up with the same conclusions that he has now if he does read it.

 

[Sees]

There's no doubt that people (including terrorists) can use religion as a tool or an excuse to do the things they do. But it isn't the religion itself that does it, it is the people following it. The things people do as a religious influence can be "good" things, such as feeding people and such or it can be more violent things. But the majority of people following various faiths are usually just out living their lives. For instance, I see Muslims everyday and none of them are out blowing anyone up or even thinking about it.

I agree, but some have the tendency to ignite dangerous subcultures much more than others. It is not really all that difficult to discern which ones either. Most people would be surprised how many sympathize with the dangerous subcultures and live amongst them.

 

[Ouroboros]

Do you think it is ignorant, or does he have the right? My point isn't about Richard Dawkins or Islam, I'm just curious whether someone is right to judge a religion without at least a decent knowledge of its texts, traditions, or whatever defines it.

When Dawkins is referring to Islam, I think he's thinking about the practice and practitioners specifically. It's more about how does it work and what do people do. In his opinion (and I'm not going to take a stand for or against) the result of Islam (as a religion, not a book) is evil. Something like that. It doesn't matter what the religious book says if the religious who follow it are behaving bad. Put it this way. If some rascal boy throws a ball through your window and then says that he read it in a book. Can you make a claim about the actions of the boy and his attitude without reading the book he's referring to? I think you can.

On another note, have you read Dawkins' books yet? Do you feel you have the right information to judge Dawkins or make claims about what he's right or wrong about without reading his books? I'm just saying that you have to make sure you're not doing the same thing you criticize him for.

With that said, I think it would benefit him to read the Qu'ran, so he can speak from an informed view.

 

[Caladan]

As a scientist, Dawkins can certainly criticize any sets of beliefs and traditions which he finds to be unscientific and to promote superstition. In addition as a public figure Dawkins can expand his criticism to many other venues.
Keep in mind that Dawkins also criticize New Age alternative medicine of many sorts, does that mean the he needs to read the basic core of New Age literature?
Often Dawkins does not criticize the scriptures, but what is perceived to be harmful beliefs or actions in TODAY'S society. This is a key thing to note here. The whole obligation to read the Qur'an is a red herring in a way.

 

[Ouroboros]

I just don't think it's right for Mr. Dawkins to criticize Islam without knowing what the Qur'an says. He might just come up with the same conclusions that he has now if he does read it.

Yes and no.

Islam is after all the religion, not the book. He is not criticizing the Qur'an but the religion. The people who are religious, following the Qur'an, are presenting how the religion, Islam, is. You have to look at the practitioners to have a view or opinion about the practitioners. I think Dawkins is speaking more about his view on the religion itself rather than the contents of the book.

Put it this way, you're right now having an opinion about Dawkins. Have you read all his books? If not, should you criticize him? Maybe you will get to a different conclusion if you read all his books?

I haven't read them all, but I still have opinions about Dawkins. I haven't read any Buddhist text, but I still can have opinions about Buddhists.

 

[Sees]

As a scientist, Dawkins can certainly criticize any sets of beliefs and traditions which he finds to be unscientific and to promote superstition. In addition as a public figure Dawkins can expand his criticism to many other venues.
Keep in mind that Dawkins also criticize New Age alternative medicine of many sorts, does that mean the he needs to read the basic core of New Age literature?
Often Dawkins does not criticize the scriptures, but what is perceived to be harmful beliefs or actions in TODAY'S society. This is a key thing to note here. The whole obligation to read the Qur'an is a red herring in a way.

I think some see it as - It would be great if every part of life was judged by our best beliefs and intentions... While the worst of them were ignored along with our actual deeds.

I like the judging by the fruits myself

 

[Caladan]

I think some see it as - It would be great if every part of life was judged by our best beliefs and intentions... While the worst of them were ignored along with our actual deeds.

I like the judging by the fruits myself

I think you just summed it up better than I did. It is very easy to have an ideal in mind, but to try to substitute the challenges of reality with this ideal is not going to work.
If Europeans are being killed for example because they drew a cartoon of Muhammad (unthinkable in European society), you can be sure people don't need to read the Qur'an cover to cover in order to think that there is something fundamentally wrong with killing a civilian because of satire.

 

[ChristineES]

Yes and no.

Islam is after all the religion, not the book. He is not criticizing the Qur'an but the religion. The people who are religious, following the Qur'an, are presenting how the religion, Islam, is. You have to look at the practitioners to have a view or opinion about the practitioners. I think Dawkins is speaking more about his view on the religion itself rather than the contents of the book.

Put it this way, you're right now having an opinion about Dawkins. Have you read all his books? If not, should you criticize him? Maybe you will get to a different conclusion if you read all his books?

I haven't read them all, but I still have opinions about Dawkins. I haven't read any Buddhist text, but I still can have opinions about Buddhists.

I wasn't really speaking of Dawkins alone, but to anyone who criticizes various religions. As someone pointed out, he is speaking more of the belief in God rather than the religions themselves- which would mean he wouldn't have to read any scriptures at all- as his beef appears to be against any belief in God. And someone wouldn't have to read the entire writings, just enough so that he or she understands what it is the faith teaches. Or, if the faith has no writings, learning about the faith in other ways.

 

[Godobeyer]

What do you think?

I thinks this prejudge action .

 

[outhouse]

Do you think it is ignorant, or does he have the right?

Sure he does have the right.

It is not ignorant.

A thousand people could read the book and interpret it a thousand differnet ways.


I have family that are muslim, and I think he is correct.

 

[Ouroboros]

I wasn't really speaking of Dawkins alone, but to anyone who criticizes various religions. As someone pointed out, he is speaking more of the belief in God rather than the religions themselves- which would mean he wouldn't have to read any scriptures at all- as his beef appears to be against any belief in God. And someone wouldn't have to read the entire writings, just enough so that he or she understands what it is the faith teaches. Or, if the faith has no writings, learning about the faith in other ways.

The latest news is that he spoke out on Twitter or something that Islam was the world's most evil thing, or something like that. I think it's a bit harsh. He can be very crude like that and do foot-in-mouth comments.

Anyway, I don't think anyone should take what he says for gospel anyway. If he speaks out about religion, it's a person's opinions, nothing else. Even though he's a public person, he's not educated in religion or philosophy either. He's a biologist.

 

[ChristineES]

The latest news is that he spoke out on Twitter or something that Islam was the world's most evil thing, or something like that. I think it's a bit harsh. He can be very crude like that and do foot-in-mouth comments.

Anyway, I don't think anyone should take what he says for gospel anyway. If he speaks out about religion, it's a person's opinions, nothing else. Even though he's a public person, he's not educated in religion or philosophy either. He's a biologist.

True enough. I don't really listen to him when he speaks of religion. I might if he were speaking about science.