Dr. Dawkins attacks religion in documentary

[sonz]

A British zoologist has crossed his limits in a two part documentary on Britain’s Channel Four that argues that religion is “the root of all evil”.

In the program, Professor Richard Dawkins, who was educated at Oxford University and taught zoology at the universities of California and Oxford, said that religion is like an “elephant in the room, ignored by everyone”, claiming that this is a result of “the process of non-thinking.” As usual, his dependence on science in the program was selective despite his use of strong statements such as "I am a scientist and I believe that there is a profound contradiction between science and religious belief" and "there is no well demonstrated reason to believe in God".

Dawkins equated religious education to child abuse and said that children must be protected from the religion of their parents on grounds of “pseudo-psychology“. His theory shows that he failed to acknowledge, perhaps in ignorance of it, that researchers in Oxford have found that children may have a natural tendency to believe in God with or without their parents’ interference.

He also avoided the fact that the failure of the so-called "free-thinkers' prediction" that there would be no religion in the modern world is in itself great evidence of a natural inclination in human beings to believe in God and to seek His guidance.

An article by Dr. Shaikh Riyad Nadwi criticized Dawkins program, saying that greed and unjust politics are the real reasons behind conflicts not schools that teach children to love God and accept His guidance. Shaikh Nadwi says that believers are victimized when greedy politicians hijack religion to expand their powers and exploit the wealth and the property of others.

Dawkins also argued that "the idea of a benevolent Creator belittles the elegant reality of the universe". Shaikh Nadwi answered back his attack, saying that when scientists told Dawkins that, for example, the sun is a nuclear reactor, it does not give him the authority or, as he claims, "evidence" to declare that God does not exist, that believers indulge in "a process of non-thinking", that to believe one must be "barking mad" and that God is "the most vindictive character in all fiction". This is arrogance far beyond the limitations of science.

God's evidence is all around us and spreads far beyond the limits of our comprehension. "(God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion." (The Qur’an 21:33)

"I built the heaven with power and it is I, who am expanding it." (The Quran 51:47)

Dawkins also claimed that religion is the “root of all evil“.

But Shaikh Nadwi said the 130 million people who died in the four main wars in the 20th century didn’t lose their lives due to religion, but due to something much closer to Dawkins' heart; human greed. His book "The Selfish Gene" played a key role in promoting the notion that "greed is good".

Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) warned Muslims against greed, saying that "if the son of Adam had an entire valley of gold, he would wish for two valleys, and(until) his mouth will not be filled except with dirt (i.e. upon death)".

"Obsessed you are by greed for more and more. Until, you reach the graves, But nay, ye soon shall know (the reality). Again, ye soon shall know!" (The Qur’an 102:1-4)

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

These two programmes were one a couple of weeks ago, and I enjoyed watching them. I generally agree with most of what Dawkins says, so that's not too surprising.

He made his interviewees looks preposterously silly with very little effort - except for the final one, who was just seething with hatred.

In the program, Professor Richard Dawkins, who was educated at Oxford University and taught zoology at the universities of California and Oxford, said that religion is like an “elephant in the room, ignored by everyone”, claiming that this is a result of “the process of non-thinking.”

This is inaccurate, by the way - Dawkins actually describes faith as being a "process of non-thinking".

Peace

 

[Khattab]

Hi Callaum,

Are you talking about Ibn Al Khattab the jewish convert to Islam? To be honest he was very passionate but I dont think he was seething with hate. And to be honest I think Dawkins had a hard time responding to the points he raised. Richard Dawkins came across as someone who really wasnt interested in finding out about religion and went into the programme with a closed mind and set of beliefs I doubt he would give up. There came across to me a sense of arrogance and like I said simply not wanting to listen. This didnt surprise me as he has always been keen to do away with religion.

Peace

 

[akulion]

This Dawkins dude obiviously is the "non thinking" party and dosent realize that in the middle ages the Islamic State which extended over 3 continents was the educational light of the world at that time.

Baghdad was the capital and gave birth to modern science as we know it today.

Poor Dawkins..needs to do a little more thinking before he makes programs.

 

[HeiGou]

This Dawkins dude obiviously is the "non thinking" party and dosent realize that in the middle ages the Islamic State which extended over 3 continents was the educational light of the world at that time.

Baghdad was the capital and gave birth to modern science as we know it today.

Poor Dawkins..needs to do a little more thinking before he makes programs.

You know, I tend to think there was some intellectual activity at the other end of the Eurasian landmass!

But I doubt that he does not know that. I suspect he would say that the Muslim inherited the wealthier and richer part of the Roman Empire and that legacy did not disappear over night.

My question to you would be, well, what happened? What went wrong? Why did that educational light disappear and still has not been lit among the Muslims of the world? Why is it, no matter where you think modern science originated, was modern science entirely the product of Western scholars and scientists? Why did Muslims make precisely zero contribution to that process between, say, 700 AD and 1900 AD?

 

[akulion]

Science and human progress can never be attributed to a single nation or person or religion EVER!

The fact is that Allah gives everyone different talents and gifts - wether muslim or not or christiar or jewish. Everyone has a free will to use their talents for betterment of humanity or to waste them altogether.

So to say religion is the root of all evil and is a non thinking way is ridiclous.

There have been great Religious Scientists as well as non religious ones.

It all depends on your personal dedication to your research or cause etc.

 

[Takumi]

Dr Dawkins and his colleagues are like commercials on television, they only thrive and the business that support them prosper only if we PAY attention to them.

Religion is the root of all evil? I need to read his work and find his definition of evil.

For some people, promiscuity and intoxicants are evil but for some, promiscuity and incests are natural and intoxicants are fine and dandy.

 

[HeiGou]

Science and human progress can never be attributed to a single nation or person or religion EVER!

I assumed you meant that it had to be shared among nations, but I suppose you mean that it is the work of God? If so, why has God chosen the West to bring so much science and human progress into the world?

The fact is that Allah gives everyone different talents and gifts - wether muslim or not or christiar or jewish. Everyone has a free will to use their talents for betterment of humanity or to waste them altogether.

So to say religion is the root of all evil and is a non thinking way is ridiclous.

There have been great Religious Scientists as well as non religious ones.

It all depends on your personal dedication to your research or cause etc.

I think you are right to say that to claim that religion is the root of all evil is wrong. But it is odd that Muslims have done so little in the last 1000 years or so on the science front. You must have an explation for this. You must have thought about it. May I ask again for your thoughts on this subject?

 

[akulion]

I assumed you meant that it had to be shared among nations, but I suppose you mean that it is the work of God? If so, why has God chosen the West to bring so much science and human progress into the world?

What I mean is that the science that we enjoy today is a collection of the efforts of millions of people before us who strove hard to make progress.
- The number system used today by egyptians.
- The paper we use today by chinese
- The planes we use today by Americans
etc etc etc....

That is why no one can make a claim to being "the best" because if the people before them had not invented the things they did - this person or nation wouldnt have invented what they did in turn (if u get what I am saying)

As for Allah giving the west power - He adresses humanity in the Quran and says " To Each nation and people I have appointed a term and when this term is finished nothing can stop their decline"

So you see in the Past
Romans were on top at one time
Egyptians were on top at one time
Muslims were on top at one time
British were on top at one time
Now we see the USA is on top - it is their appointed term.

Allah is merciful to all his creation irrespective of gender or religion. He gives all people wealth and wisdom etc.

So we as humanity are all working together on our progress. Each nation that comes and goes on top contributes a piece of the puzzle along the way and thus humanity moves forward step by step.

But it is odd that Muslims have done so little in the last 1000 years or so on the science front. You must have an explation for this.

To answer that question I will give you two references you MUST look them both up please:

1) Watch the movie: Islam Empire of Faith ( A PBS Production)
2) Read this article: Article
and then follow the link at the bottom to the page given

You will see exactly how much the Muslims have given to the world

 

[Khattab]

HeiGou to say Muslims contributed nothing to science over the last 1000 years just shows your ignorance when it comes to this topic. Muslim Spain was a place where science thrived whilst the rest of the world was stuck in the so called "Dark Ages". Here is an article which mentions some contributions:


How Islam Influenced Science

During the Middle Ages the Islamic World had a very significant impact upon Europe, which in turn cleared the way for the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. In the Medieval age, Islam and Muslims influenced Europe in a number of different ways. One of the most important of these subjects was Science.
Ever since Islam was born, Muslims had made immense leaps forward in the area of Science. Cities like Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo and Cordoba were the centers of civilization. These cities were flourishing and Muslim scientists made tremendous progress in applied as well as theoretical Science and Technology. In Europe, however, the situation was much different. Europe was in the Dark Ages. It had no infrastructure or central government. To the Muslims, Europe was backward, unorganized, carried no strategic importance and was essentially irrelevant. This considering the time period was in fact true. Nevertheless the Catholic Church (which at the time was the strongest institution in Europe) successfully convinced Christian Europe that the Muslims were infidels. This caused Europeans to think that Muslims were culturally inferior to Europe and thus Europe was unable to benefit from the new scientific discoveries being made in the Islamic lands before the 1100’s. By doing this Europe kept itself in the Dark Ages while from China to Spain Islamic Civilization prospered. During the Crusades there was limited contact between Muslims and Christians and not much was transferred. As A. Lewis explains, "The Crusaders were men of action, not men of learning". The real exchange of ideas which led to the Scientific revolution and to the renaissance occurred in Muslim Spain.

Cordoba was the capital of Muslim Spain. It soon became the center for all light and learning for the entire Europe. Scholars and students from various parts of the world and Europe came to Cordoba to study. The contrast in intellectual activity is demonstrated best by one example: ‘In the ninth century, the library of the monastery of St. Gall was the largest in Europe. It boasted 36 volumes. At the same time, that of Cordoba contained over 500,000!’.

The idea of the college was a concept which was borrowed from Muslims. The first colleges appeared in the Muslim world in the late 600's and early 700's. In Europe, some of the earliest colleges are those under the University of Paris and Oxford they were founded around the thirteenth century. These early European colleges were also funded by trusts similar to the Islamic ones and legal historians have traced them back to the Islamic system. The internal organization of these European colleges was strikingly similar to the Islamic ones, for example the idea of Graduate (Sahib) and undergraduate (mutafaqqih) is derived directly from Islamic terms.

In the field of Mathematics the number Zero (0) and the decimal system was introduced to Europe, which became the basis for the Scientific revolution. The Arabic numerals were also transferred to Europe, this made mathematical tasks much easier, problems that took days to solve could now be solved in minutes. The works of Al-Khwarizmi (Alghorismus) were translated into Latin. Alghorismus, from whom the mathematical term algorism was derived, wrote Sindhind, a compilation of astronomical tables. He, more importantly, laid the ground work for algebra and found methods to deal with complex mathematical problems, such as square roots and complex fractions. He conducted numerous experiments, measured the height of the earth's atmosphere and discovered the principle of the magnifying lens. Many of his books were translated into European languages. Trigonometric work by Alkirmani of Toledo was translated into Latin (from which we get the sine and cosine functions) along with the Greek knowledge of Geometry by Euclid. Along with mathematics, masses of other knowledge in the field of physical science was transferred.

Islamic contributions to Science were now rapidly being translated and transferred from Spain to the rest of Europe. Ibnul Hairham’s works on Optics, (in which he deals with 50 Optical questions put to Muslim Scholars by the Franks), was translated widely. The Muslims discovered the Principle of Pendulum, which was used to measure time. Many of the principles of Isaac Newton were derived from former Islamic scientific contributions. In the field of Chemistry numerous Islamic works were translated into Latin. One of the fields of study in this area was alchemy. The Muslims by exploring various elements, developed a good understanding of the constitution of matter. Jabir ibn-Hayyan (Geber) was the leading chemist in the Muslim world, some scholars link the introduction of the ‘scientific method’ back to him. A great number of terms used in Chemistry such as alchohol, alembic, alkali and elixir are of Islamic origin.

Medicine was a key science explored by Muslims. Al-Rhazes is one of the most famous Doctors and writers of Islamic History. Every major city had an hospital, the hospital at Cairo had over 8000 beds, with separate wards for fevers, ophthalmic, dysentery and surgical cases. He discovered the origin of smallpox and showed that one could only acquire it once in one's life, thus showing the existence of the immune system and how it worked. Muslim doctors were also aware of the contagious qualities of diseases. Hundreds of medical works were translated into Latin.

All of this knowledge transferred from the Muslims to the Europeans was the vital raw material for the Scientific Revolution. Muslims not only passed on Greek classical works but also introduced new scientific theories, without which the European Renaissance could not have occurred. Thus even though many of the Islamic contributions go unacknowledged, they played an integral role in the European transformation.​

 

[HeiGou]

HeiGou to say Muslims contributed nothing to science over the last 1000 years just shows your ignorance when it comes to this topic. Muslim Spain was a place where science thrived whilst the rest of the world was stuck in the so called "Dark Ages". Here is an article which mentions some contributions:

If it makes you feel better I am perfectly happy to conceed all that. The only real question remains my original and utterly unanswered one - what went wrong? Why is it that the Muslims squandered that lead and have never caught up? Why is it there is not one single important Muslim scientists working in the Muslim world and all the important Muslims scientists that do good work, have to work in the West?

 

[akulion]

Guys stop fighting and relax

We all learn from each other things we dont know so lets all chill out and in the spirit of learning maintain respect and tolerance


========================================

If it makes you feel better I am perfectly happy to conceed all that. The only real question remains my original and utterly unanswered one - what went wrong? Why is it that the Muslims squandered that lead and have never caught up? Why is it there is not one single important Muslim scientists working in the Muslim world and all the important Muslims scientists that do good work, have to work in the West?

What went wrong basically was that 1st of all Gengis Khan invaded the Muslim empire from the East and destroyed Baghdad completely which was the capital and where all the knowledge and stuff was based. (keep in mind these are the old days where capital cities were like the center of everything)

To top it off the Muslims after finally defeating Gengis Khan started going off the teachings of Islam slowly over time. Innovation was intruduced and stagnation set in. the Muslims had grown so rich and powerful that in majority the public as well as the govt stopped caring too much about "threats"

Eventually this corruption set in deep into the Muslim empire and they grew weaker and weaker - until the time came when war broke out with enemies and they started meeting up with defeat after defeat.

So basically like I said - each nation has a term appointed - it was the time for Muslims decline and so in the 1800's the Islamic Khaliphate was finally destroyed and fragmented into the various nations you see today mostly in the middle east and east asia.

sad - but nothing anyone can do against the tides of time and destiny.

Remember my words - one day the same will happen to the USA and it will decline as well and another nation somewhere else will arise to become a new super power.

Such is the decree of Allah.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Khattab,

Are you talking about Ibn Al Khattab the jewish convert to Islam?

That's the guy.

To be honest he was very passionate but I dont think he was seething with hate.

So that's what you'd call it. He actually made open threats against Dawkins and other atheists - "the soldiers of Allah are not going to put up with this anymore". Now that's a person who has lost touch with rationality completely. To be prepared to kill someone simply over a belief is bigotry of the worst kind.

And to be honest I think Dawkins had a hard time responding to the points he raised.

Probably because he was absolutely stunned that someone with such barbaric views existed in the 21st century.

Richard Dawkins came across as someone who really wasnt interested in finding out about religion and went into the programme with a closed mind and set of beliefs I doubt he would give up.

Oh yes - Dawkins made up his mind about religion long ago. I don't think that implies he's not interested in learning about it, though. Just watching the programme you can tell he's studied it in more depth than most Westerners.

There came across to me a sense of arrogance and like I said simply not wanting to listen.

Well, how many of the speakers on the programme actually had anything valuable to say? There was the rabbi who believed the Earth was 5000 years old; the head of a creationist school where the science textbooks were filled with quotes from the Bible - what could a scientist learn from people such as this?

This didnt surprise me as he has always been keen to do away with religion.

Yes - he calls it 'the virus'. He's definitely what I would call a 'militant' atheist. Or 'Darwin's rottweiler', as some of the papers call him...

Peace

 

[Abdul Fattah]

If it makes you feel better I am perfectly happy to conceed all that. The only real question remains my original and utterly unanswered one - what went wrong? Why is it that the Muslims squandered that lead and have never caught up? Why is it there is not one single important Muslim scientists working in the Muslim world and all the important Muslims scientists that do good work, have to work in the West?

Well there's many things to concider. First of all being a muslim or living in a muslim country no longer gives a direct advantage to being a scientist as opposed to before. In the time that th muslim world was blooming and islam encouraged studying nature; the west was hold back by the catholic church who didn't like science. This meant a huge advantage. But there are other things to consider also. A whole lot of books have been burned when muslims where driven away. Economical advantage, Opec is only a recent organisation (recent in terms of history), before that the middle east wasn't that powerfull.
Politics got in the way. Muslims got devided over difrent countrys. There's a lot of reasons. But it's hard to call a single one as cause.

Well, how many of the speakers on the programme actually had anything valuable to say? There was the rabbi who believed the Earth was 5000 years old; the head of a creationist school where the science textbooks were filled with quotes from the Bible - what could a scientist learn from people such as this?

Well first off all note that this itself is a very narrow minded way of reasoning. Just because some religions don't make sense (and not everyone of those religions believe those specific things) doesn't mean that by default all religions don't make sense. Ask yourself: If he really studied religions deeper then the average western person, why did he choose to portray the muslims as hatefull as opposed to non-sensical like he portraited the other religions?

Another flaw in the reasoning, wich again shows narrow mindedness of Dawkins part:
Religion has something to offer for people of every intellegance. It's not because people answer certain religious things in simple minded ways that religion by itself is simpleminded.

 

[Takumi]

So, what is evil defined by Dr Dawkins? Can someone enlighten me?

 

[abdul Majid]

lol non-thinking party

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

So, what is evil defined by Dr Dawkins? Can someone enlighten me?

Dawkins didn't explicitly mention religion as being the root of all evil in the text of his programmes. Their title was speculative, with a question mark.

I would disagree with him on that point anyway - I don't think religions are the root of all evil. Perhaps the desire to control people is, though.

Peace