Richard Dawkins is so wrong it hurts: What the science-vs.-religion debate ignores

[undeterred]

Acolytes of Dawkins & Hitchens pretend that ignorant evangelicals represent all of religion. Here's what they miss
Sana Saeed

I’m supposed to hate science. Or so I’m told. I spent my childhood with my nose firmly placed between the pages of books on reptiles, dinosaurs, marine life and mammals. When I wasn’t busy wondering if I wanted to be more like Barbara Walters or Nancy Drew, I was busy digging holes in my parents’ backyard hoping to find lost bones of some great prehistoric mystery. I spent hours sifting through rocks that could possibly connect me to the past or, maybe, a hidden crystalline adventure inside. Potatoes were both apart of a delicious dinner and batteries for those ‘I got this’ moments; magnets repelling one another were a sorcery I needed to, somehow, defeat. The greatest teachers I ever had were Miss Frizzle and Bill Nye the Science Guy... I also spent my childhood reciting verses from the Qur’an and a long prayer for everyone — in my family and the world — every night before going to bed. I spoke to my late grandfather, asking him to save me a spot in heaven. I went to the mosque and stepped on the shoes resting outside a prayer hall filled with worshippers. I tried fasting so I could be cool like my parents; played with prayer beads and always begged my mother to tell me more stories from the lives of the Abrahamic prophets.

With age, my wonder with religion and science did not cease. Both were, to me, extraordinary portals into the life around me that left me constantly bewildered, breathless and amazed. Science would come to dominate my adolescent and early teenage years: papier mache cigarettes highlighting the most dangerous carcinogens, science fair projects on the virtues of chocolate consumption during menstruation; lamb lung and eye dissections, color coded notes, litmus tests on pretty papers, and disturbingly thorough study guides for five-question quizzes. My faith, too, remained operational in my day-to-day life: longer conversations with my late grandfather and all 30 Ramadan fasts, albeit with begrudging pre-dawn prayers. I attended Qur’anic recitation classes where I could not, for the life of me, recite anything that was not in English. I still read and listened to the stories of the prophets, with perhaps a greater sense of historical wonder and on occasion I would perform some of the daily prayers. Unsupervised access to the internet also led to the inevitable debates in Yahoo chat rooms about how Islam did not subjugate me as a woman. At the age of 16, I was busting out Quranic verses and references from the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad to shut up internet dwellers like Crusade563 and PopSmurf1967.

It never once occurred to me during those years, and later, that there could be any sort of a conflict between my faith and science; to me both were part of the same things: This universe and my existence within it. And yet, here we are today being told that the two are irreconcilable; that religion begets an anti-science crusade and science pushes anti-religion valor. When did this become the only conversation on religion and science that we’re allowed to have? This current discourse that pits faith and science against one another like Nero’s lions versus Christians — inappropriate analogy intended — borrows directly from the conflation of all religious traditions with the history and experience of Euro-American Christianity, specifically of the evangelical variety.

In my own religious tradition, Islam, there is a vibrant history of religion and science not just co-existing but informing one another intimately. Astrophysicists, chemists, biologists, alchemists, surgeons, psychologists, geographers, logicians, mathematicians– amongst so many others – would often function as theologians, saints, spiritual masters, jurists and poets as much as they would as scientists. Indeed, a quick survey of some of the most well known Muslim intellectuals of the past 1,400 years illustrates their masterful polymathy, their ability to reach across fields of expertise without blinking at any supposed “dissonance.” And, of course, this is not something exclusive to Islam; across the religious terrain we can find countless polymaths who delved into the worlds of God and science.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/05/richard_dawkins_is_so_wrong_it_hurts_what_the_science_vs_religion_debate_ignores/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

[Warren Stupidity]

1. The first sentence is a pathetic strawman argument.

Dawkins has never made that claim. This article is just the usual atheist bashing BADS ATHEIST BADS!

[Atman]

2. ^^ +100

[stopbush]

3. Yep. Quite the opposite. Hitchens was adamant that the problem with religion

had nothing to do with extremists, but with the basics of religion, ie: the things that even the most milquetoast religionist believes.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Indeed, and a discussion of the merits

of that position would be both honest and interesting, but doesn't meet the rhetorical standards for atheist bashing at huffpo and slate and salon. They don't want a serious discussion.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. in reply to message deleted:

When the thesis itself is a fallacy there is no need to read the supporting text.

[GeorgeGist]

6. As a scientist I'm sure she has a theory ...

of where God came from.

eta: and evidence to support it.

[longship]

7. Yup. More atheist strawmanning.

And they always target Dawkins (who apparently provides a target rich environment) and Hitchens (who is no longer alive to defend himself -- which he would do).

I get tired of these all too familiar screeds that wheeze away like an old accordion.

It goes like this... First, we define the atheists by some out of context quotations -- or by just making shit up. Then, we rail about how intemperate/mean/whatever the atheists are. It gets so tiring to read this same pap over and over again. All these screeds contain cartoon versions of atheists.

[RainDog]

9. hmmmm

Muslims, generally, accept evolution as a fundamental part of the natural process; they differ, however, on human evolution – specifically the idea that humans and apes share an ancestor in common. In the 13th century, Shi’i Persian polymath Nasir al-din al-Tusi discussed biological evolution in his book “Akhlaq-i-Nasri” (Nasirean Ethics). While al-Tusi’s theory of evolution differs from the one put forward by Charles Darwin 600 years later and the theory of evolution that we have today, he argued that the elemental source of all living things was one. From this single elemental source came four attributes of nature: water, air, soil and fire – all of which would evolve into different living species through hereditary variability. Hierarchy would emerge through differences in learning how to adapt and survive. Al-Tusi’s discussion on biological evolution and the relationship of synchronicity between animate and inanimate (how they emerge from the same source and work in tandem with one another) objects is stunning in its observational precision as well as its fusion with theistic considerations. Yet it is, at best, unacknowledged today in the Euro-centric conversation on religion and science. Why?

My point here in this conversation about religion and science’s falsely created incommensurability isn’t about the existence of God – I would like to think that ultimately there is space for belief and disbelief. I would like to also believe, however, that the conversation on belief and disbelief can move beyond the Dawkinsean vitriol that disguises bigotry as a self-righteous claim to the sanctity of science; a claim that makes science the proudly held property of the Euro-American civilization and experience.

There is space for belief and disbelief - but not all people or versions of religions are open to this - it's not an issue from the scientific atheists who challenge beliefs because beliefs contradict the best accepted evidence over 150 years on a particular topic: evolution.

If you don't accept that humans evolved from a common ancestor, you don't accept the basic theory of evolution - there's no getting around this. It's a cornerstone of evolutionary thought - common descent. It's like saying, "I agree with the idea of gravity, except on earth. God made earth's gravity specifically."

Dawkins is a biologist. He would rightly call this belief irrational and outside the boundaries of scientific understanding. If she wants to believe this religious exception, she's entitled to do so, but no one has to simply accept this false statement because of a belief system formed long before current knowledge.

But not all Muslims deny human evolution and some cite the Q'uran as reason to acknowledge that humans share common descent in the ocean, not from clay, because it says both.

This person fails to understand, maybe that the guy she is quoting from the 13th c. is rephrasing ideas that were already intellectual currency long before the development of Christianity, much less Islam. That Islamic scholar is talking about ideas from Greek philosophers - the idea was not sui generis from that scholar. The four basic elements. Atoms. Existence of unity of all things. To claim that their are hierarchies - maybe this person means taxonomy - but afaik, there is no accepted "hierarchy" of different forms of matter - they are categorized but not assigned "hierarchical value."

I wonder if this person is saying this is where Islam differs in it's acceptance of evolution - they assign value judgment to different entities? If this citation is correct, then, yes, that's exactly what she's doing.

Muslims accept science as being fully compatible with Islam and readily accept microevolution and the belief in macroevolution, with the only exception being human evolution. Within the corpus of Islamic sources there is nothing whatsoever that contradicts microevolution. Evolution on a larger scale from one type of species to another (excluding humans) as in macroevolution, is equally acceptable and justifiable as per Islamic sources. According to Islam, the only exception that is made is the creation of mankind. Humans are not viewed as being part of the whole evolutionary scheme, but rather being a unique and honored creation of Allah. [Quran 17 0, 38 5]. From an Islamic perspective, everything takes place according to Allah's will and permission and as predestined by Him alone. [Quran 54:49] In light of this, the concept of natural selection randomly taking place according to the evolution theory, is not always accepted in Islam.

Natural selection is demonstrated, conclusively, via genetics. To deny natural selection is to deny evolution as well. So this person is saying Islam rejects evolution if humans are involved. This thinking is really no diff. than fundamentalist creationists, tho some of them do go further and deny microbial evolution.

Islamic scholars have a long tradition of work in mathematics because exact calculations of the sun were part of the custom of the Iman's call to prayer at certain times of the day (and medieval xtians picked up on this with prayer books to note hours for prayer during the day.) Algebra, algorithm, etc. confirm the important intellectual tradition of Islam - but this has nothing to say about current religious beliefs, either.

Islamic scholars and rulers helped to save philosophical traditions from ancient Greek and middle eastern thought during the era of the rise of xtianity and the transition of the Roman Empire into a xtian royal theocracy. This person wants to say that knowledge wasn't cross-cultural - but the ancient world, via trade, etc. had many diff. ethnicities interacting.

This is what creates imagining other ways of being and thinking about the world. This is what science promotes, but religion does not. Religion is about dogma regarding essential questions and has nothing to say to science because of this - and has often been an impediment to progress because of this - any religion.

What the article shows to me is that religious belief once again interferes with acceptance of reality because common descent and evolution via natural selection is evolutionary theory. She rejects this but tells herself she doesn't.

False consciousness about the meaning of things, seems to me.

[MisterP]

10. it's called the "conflict thesis," and it's deader than phlogiston

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

[RainDog]

11. What conversation does science want to have with religion

other than proving or disproving persistent claims about one thing or another?

I just think the article is weak to claim historical incidences of the convergence of religion and science and act like that has any bearing on today. Yes. every religion can claim members who were not antagonistic to science - but what were the acceptable parameters of discussion for those who were invested in religious belief and held power - that's the issue, to me.

Newton was big on alchemy. Bogus stuff. So what? He was wrong, but he was correct about other things - and his work provided ways to test many things.

We don't care about his religious beliefs because they were not part of what is important about his work.

The move from "all religious were not in conflict" to the idea of power relations regarding how to describe reality doesn't mean religious believers do not constantly attempt to provide apologies for their beliefs as part of the cultural discourse surrounding science.

Because that's exactly what this article does.