Richard Dawkins hasn't read the Quran yet.

[Sees]

From what information he has, he sees Islam as the ideological commonality amongst much of the world's most dangerous groups...

I say prove him wrong, don't cry about it. Judging by its fruits, in light of universally recognized good, Islam has been on the naughty for a long time.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Exactly.

I've read a few books by him and seen him speaking, and when it comes to science, biology and evolution especially, he's great and interesting. But when it comes to religion, he can quite mess it up (and did at the event as well, saying something that Christianity was great and he preferred it over any other religion, or something, ).

 

[Simurgh]

Dawkins uses science to refute the existence of the supernatural, based on evidence. There is no evidence that gods exist. If you take issue with what he states then listen to what he actually says instead of just taking some phrases out of context and declaring them the sum total of his ideas. He is a biologist who happens to be an atheist. That means he is not hampered by religious superstition when looking at the results of scientific inquiry. I recall him saying that he knows little about Islam and is more comfortable denouncing Christianity since he is more familiar with it. So when he considers Islam evil, it is due to the fact that Islam is getting a bad press because of the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, not because of what is stated in its scripture.

Maybe what is necessary is not people getting upset about how acts of violence perpetuated in the name of a given religion—and Islam is not the only one here—are judged by those experiencing and/or observing them. Maybe the answer lies in people who consider themselves religious finally taking a stance against those who act contrary to the tenets of their faith and holding them accountable for the acts committed in the name of their god. At that point, Dawkins and others would not have anything to say that upsets the sensibilities of religious people.

Furthermore, all those creationists who speak out against evolution—a scientific theory with all that implies—have no right to continually compare their faith based system with actual science. They just don’t mix. If you have to believe in some supernatural stuff to give your life meaning, then just accept the fact that it is a belief and that’s all it is. Provide us all with a plausible alternative based on your religious texts and such and stop pretending that it is anything more than what it is—a belief based model of how your religion accounts for the existence of observable, measurable, and physical reality.

BTW, Dawkins has pointed out repeatedly that he is a biologist and not a religious scholar. It is those who interview him and insist on bringing religion into the conversation—mostly to bait him—who insist that he take a position. Apparently, he has entertainment value. As he is exploited by the religious right to serve as a poster boy of atheism, so he uses the same to point out the fallacies of blind faith in regard to science.

If you take issue with what he says, why listen?

 

[sojourner]

Dawkins uses science to refute the existence of the supernatural, based on evidence. There is no evidence that gods exist. If you take issue with what he states then listen to what he actually says instead of just taking some phrases out of context and declaring them the sum total of his ideas. He is a biologist who happens to be an atheist. That means he is not hampered by religious superstition when looking at the results of scientific inquiry. I recall him saying that he knows little about Islam and is more comfortable denouncing Christianity since he is more familiar with it. So when he considers Islam evil, it is due to the fact that Islam is getting a bad press because of the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, not because of what is stated in its scripture.

Maybe what is necessary is not people getting upset about how acts of violence perpetuated in the name of a given religion—and Islam is not the only one here—are judged by those experiencing and/or observing them. Maybe the answer lies in people who consider themselves religious finally taking a stance against those who act contrary to the tenets of their faith and holding them accountable for the acts committed in the name of their god. At that point, Dawkins and others would not have anything to say that upsets the sensibilities of religious people.

Furthermore, all those creationists who speak out against evolution—a scientific theory with all that implies—have no right to continually compare their faith based system with actual science. They just don’t mix. If you have to believe in some supernatural stuff to give your life meaning, then just accept the fact that it is a belief and that’s all it is. Provide us all with a plausible alternative based on your religious texts and such and stop pretending that it is anything more than what it is—a belief based model of how your religion accounts for the existence of observable, measurable, and physical reality.

BTW, Dawkins has pointed out repeatedly that he is a biologist and not a religious scholar. It is those who interview him and insist on bringing religion into the conversation—mostly to bait him—who insist that he take a position. Apparently, he has entertainment value. As he is exploited by the religious right to serve as a poster boy of atheism, so he uses the same to point out the fallacies of blind faith in regard to science.

If you take issue with what he says, why listen?

Just as most real scientists would regard what a fundamentalist preacher has to say about the origin of the universe as drivel, so real theologians regard what a biologist has to say about God as drivel. If he has no expertise on the subject, he'd probably do better to not speak as a pundit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, I'm not really sure where to create this thread so I'm sorry if this isn't the right place.

Anyways, I just learnt that Richard Dawkins, who spends a good portion of his hate towards Islam, has yet to read the Quran! How can he make up his mind regarding a whole religion solely based on different manifestations and interpretations that we see today, without even reading the religion's text?

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.

What do you think?

Why would someone need to read the Quran to be able to judge the effects of Islam?

Argue whether or not he's wrong if you want, but I don't see why a person would have to be silent about the effects of Islam without reading the Quran.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just as most real scientists would regard what a fundamentalist preacher has to say about the origin of the universe as drivel, so real theologians regard what a biologist has to say about God as drivel. If he has no expertise on the subject, he'd probably do better to not speak as a pundit.

Ah - the Courtier's Reply.

Courtier's Reply - RationalWiki

 

[Sha'irullah]

IT seems to me that many are forgetting that Richard Dawkins promoted that the Bible be taught as a historical document and that modern Europe would not be the way it is without the Bible.

He is also an atheists/agnostic who speaks fondly of the moral lessons taught by Jesus while criticizing much of the Bible still.

Dawkins does not hate any religion he just finds them false and devoid of facts. He has no issues admitting that morals can be extracted from them but he is also very clear about the fact that the same morality can exist without religion.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ah - the Courtier's Reply.

Courtier's Reply - RationalWiki

It's true that people can have opinions even without studying it deeply, but I think there are times when people speak out about a topic and it's based on misinformation. Reading more, studying more, etc would help those people. For instance, evolution is criticized by many who never picked up a book. Some even read a little here and there, and some even took some classes, but are still very ignorant about the topic. It's a fine line.

 

[Ouroboros]

What I find even more ironic is the misappropriation of the term, "pundit/paṇḍitá".

Everyone knows it's a contraction of pun and bandit. A pun-bandit essentially... Shooting dumb jokes from their hip.

 

[sojourner]

Ah - the Courtier's Reply.

Courtier's Reply - RationalWiki

Nah. Not buyin' it. Sure, Dawkins can say anything he wants. However, his credentials as a scientist do not automatically make him a theological authority. I can talk about biology, too. But my theological credentials don't make me an authority in biology. Generally, what Dawkins has to say about the existence of God is laughable, intellectually irresponsible and intentionally provocative. People eat him up, though, because it's precisely what they want to hear.

If Dawkins wants to appear credible longer, it might behoove him not to speak as a pundit when he's not one, because he's coming off as another Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Ok, I'm not really sure where to create this thread so I'm sorry if this isn't the right place.

Anyways, I just learnt that Richard Dawkins, who spends a good portion of his hate towards Islam, has yet to read the Quran! How can he make up his mind regarding a whole religion solely based on different manifestations and interpretations that we see today, without even reading the religion's text?

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.

What do you think?

By their fruits ye shall know them...

 

[sojourner]

Dawkins does not hate any religion he just finds them false and devoid of facts.

His "findings" are hardly worthwhile. That's like saying "the desert is false and devoid of fish." One hardly expects to find fish in the desert. Likewise, if one truly understood religion, one would hardly expect religion to be fact-driven; it's wisdom-driven.

But, just as lack-of-fish does not render the desert "false," neither does "wisdom-driven" render religion "false."

This goes to my point to Penguin above, which is that Dawkins is wholly either willfully ignorant about the nature of religion, or exploiting a false analysis of it for his own gain, gong by what he generally has to say about it. Dawkins is wrong, because he either doesn't or won't get it.

 

[sojourner]

By their fruits ye shall know them...

That quotation refers knowing people -- not religions.

 

[Sha'irullah]

His "findings" are hardly worthwhile. That's like saying "the desert is false and devoid of fish." One hardly expects to find fish in the desert. Likewise, if one truly understood religion, one would hardly expect religion to be fact-driven; it's wisdom-driven.

Well I never said I agree with Dawkins though . I personally find his assertions that science disproves religions or any god hypothesis to be a bit of an overstretch.

But, just as lack-of-fish does not render the desert "false," neither does "wisdom-driven" render religion "false."

I agree here which is why I spend so much time trying to display the fallacy of "knowledge = disbelief"

This goes to my point to Penguin above, which is that Dawkins is wholly either willfully ignorant about the nature of religion, or exploiting a false analysis of it for his own gain, gong by what he generally has to say about it. Dawkins is wrong, because he either doesn't or won't get it.

Dawkins is wrong on many things about god but I would not say he is wrong about religion. He expresses much honesty by not denying the social benefits of a religious institution but he does not try and whitewash it by declaring religion innocent.

 

[sojourner]

I would not say he is wrong about religion. He expresses much honesty by not denying the social benefits of a religious institution but he does not try and whitewash it by declaring religion innocent.

Dawkins needs to practice the same precision with religious commentary, though, that he obviously does with his science. It's irresponsible to make such blanket statements about either religion in general, or religions in specific. For religion is multifaceted -- not only in terms of its diversity of understanding and expression, but also in terms of how it is propagated, practiced and presented. If he has a beef, he should be specific as to the beef. To wit: "Islam is evil" is an irresponsible, blanket statement designed to provoke. it's cheap showmanship, a la Limbaugh and Stern. It would be better to say, "these factions of Islam are evil," or "these passages in the Koran are evil."

Dawkins is dead wrong if he thinks that the only significance of the bible to culture is as a bit of history. If that's truly what he thinks, he has no leg to stand on.

 

[Quagmire]

***Mod Post***

Thread moved to Religious Debates.​

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That quotation refers knowing people -- not religions.

And is no less applicable.

 

[Simurgh]

Dawkins needs to practice the same precision with religious commentary, though, that he obviously does with his science. It's irresponsible to make such blanket statements about either religion in general, or religions in specific. For religion is multifaceted -- not only in terms of its diversity of understanding and expression, but also in terms of how it is propagated, practiced and presented. If he has a beef, he should be specific as to the beef. To wit: "Islam is evil" is an irresponsible, blanket statement designed to provoke. it's cheap showmanship, a la Limbaugh and Stern. It would be better to say, "these factions of Islam are evil," or "these passages in the Koran are evil."

Dawkins is dead wrong if he thinks that the only significance of the bible to culture is as a bit of history. If that's truly what he thinks, he has no leg to stand on.

that should also apply to all those pseudo-scientists who cling on to creationism and/or intelligent design. they should stop arguing from faith and actually start using real science if they want to pretend that their system has the credibility of a scientific model.

Constantly picking on Dawkins may be the thing to do, but demanding that he only speak of biology and nothing else while asking him to expand on his ideas about religions and then condemning him for his opinions is just an asinine cop-out.

By the same token, creationists should stop arguing about things they know nothing about and are to afraid to actually investigate. They are merely religious practitioners with no understanding of what a scientific theory actually is. And as long as they think a banana is proof of intelligent design, then they better just sit back and start growing a brain. They'll need one.

 

[McBell]

Ok, I'm not really sure where to create this thread so I'm sorry if this isn't the right place.

Anyways, I just learnt that Richard Dawkins, who spends a good portion of his hate towards Islam, has yet to read the Quran! How can he make up his mind regarding a whole religion solely based on different manifestations and interpretations that we see today, without even reading the religion's text?

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.

What do you think?

The actions of the adherents to a religion have no bearing on a religion?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Ok, I'm not really sure where to create this thread so I'm sorry if this isn't the right place.

Anyways, I just learnt that Richard Dawkins, who spends a good portion of his hate towards Islam, has yet to read the Quran! How can he make up his mind regarding a whole religion solely based on different manifestations and interpretations that we see today, without even reading the religion's text?

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.

What do you think?

can't view the image but I"m assuming its making fun of Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins has made a great deal of money being an anti-theist and writing books of controversy. However several people like him as well as Richard Dawkins himself have looked more specifically at the points of Islam that are harmful and made it their point to try and fight agaisnt that.

I agree as do most people that Radical Islam is dangerous and should be fought. However where the line between "radical Islam" and "Islam" should be drawn seems to be controversal.

But his objections to Islam are still well placed and has not been refuted as of yet. However his objections also have little to do with the Koran but rather the real world aspects in which this resonates.