Richard Dawkins

[e/y]

Read his twitter feed from time to time, full of this sort of shit:



He's a shithead.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Well Islam does seem to have a unique propensity to inspire some of its followers to threaten or commit violence against any perceived slight - but then, to see that outside the context of wider events is disingenuous at best and at worst can serve a racist agenda, I agree.

The whole 'Innocence of Muslims' thing was really fucking weird, I mean sure, the Copts have a pretty shitty time of it but what did the people who made the film hope to achieve? Probably exactly what they did achieve, I suppose.

Agreed, that's pretty dickish.

 

[Sectionfive]

he's an ass

 

[crackerjack]

Winning friends and influencing people as per...

 

[zhao]

he's an ass

^

 

[zhao]

something for the Dawkins lovers: his endorsement of that ultra-rightist racist hate-mongering bigot:

Geert Wilders: A Victory For Common Sense

 

[Mr. Tea]

Some discussions I've seen recently on Facebook and elsewhere have made me wonder exactly when it was that large numbers of soi-disant liberals and leftists collectively turned Dawkins into this Literally-Worse-Than-Hitler cartoon hate-puppet. As I've said here before, he does seem to be personally quite unpleasant and I think his obsession with religion as the root of all evil is misguided and ultimately unhelpful to the cause of secularism - but if you purport to give any kind of a shit about human rights, is he honestly your number one enemy in a world that also contains the Taliban, Boko Haram, ISIS, Zionism or the Tea Party?

Also, the reflexive branding of anyone with an attitude towards Islam other than absolute, boot-licking deference as "Islamophobic" and (sigh) "racist"* is getting really, really fucking old now. It is not a "race", it is a belief system, and no belief system is above commentary, analysis or criticism, regardless of what its adherents (and their secular supporters) may think.

*As in this piece of lamentable woolly-brained bollocks, whose author actually agrees that Islam is not a race and then proceeds to pretend that it is anyway, for the purpose of insisting that any and all criticism of it is "racist" and therefore invalid.

 

[droid]

I think it might be something to do with the fact that Dawkins and his followers claim to represent rationalism, skepticism and logic, whereas, as we know the opposite is often true, and in the wider sense, the new atheist movement is enmeshed with a political and cultural viewpoint which is anathema to many 'rationalists' who generally tend to swing the other way.

So theres a bit of a bait and switch going on. One might buy into new atheism with the idea that you're supporting a movement which represents one set of values, when in fact, they represent something else entirely.

Or in other words, Chomsky vs Dawkins, who'd win in a fight?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Hmm, I dunno about "the opposite" exactly, but broadly I agree that it can start to look more like a kind of petty tribalism than the high-minded, objective rationalism that it claims to be. And when it actually starts to verge on fanaticism it just gives ammunition to those in the pro-faith camp who say atheism is "just another religion".

(To be clear, it certainly isn't, but I concede that the more radical sort of "atheism-ism" can begin to look like one.)

 

[Sectionfive]

Droid is correct I think. It is important to underline that secularism is as much a contested space as the 'religious marketplace' has always been. My separation of church and state can look very to yours and that person over there agrees with neither of us. There is plenty of division within Dawkins brand of atheism too but many outside it, both a/theist, see it as incredibly shallow and also a threat to whatever goals they are pursuing.

The source opposition from religious minded is obvious enough but for anyone under a very broad umbrella of progressive politics, the kind of ideas that New Atheism represents in practice are damaging and stifling in their blindness to the bigger problems. So what better way to make people think twice about New Atheism than turning Dawkins into a figure of fun. Something he seems more than capable of achieving on his own it has to be said.

 

[Mr. Tea]

You've missed a word here - very what?

My separation of church and state can look very [...] to yours and that person over there agrees with neither of us. There is plenty of division within Dawkins brand of atheism too but many outside it, both a/theist, see it as incredibly shallow and also a threat to whatever goals they are pursuing.

I suppose so.

I do have to wonder if Dawkins thinks atheists make up a greater proportion of the world's population now than before The God Delusion came out, and if so, how much of that is due to his activities. I can't help but think that the extreme anti-religion rhetoric from people like him and Hitchens is not helping to promote secularism because the people who'll agree with it will be the people who thought that way in the first place; the very religious are going to see it as vindication that their beliefs are under attack by "fundamentalist atheists", while I suspect moderate or cultural believers are probably more likely to be moved in the direction of stricter interpretations of their respective faiths - out of a sense of solidarity in the face of those who are opposed to an important part of their culture - than to think "actually this guy's right, religion is stupid and evil so I'm going to be an atheist from now on".

 

[DannyL]

Mr Tea - I think Islam is better understood as an "ethnic identity" than a belief system, as are many other religions as practised.

I have always hated Dawkins so I find his descent into pantomine villian kinda heartening and reassures me of my ability to "pick a wrong 'un". I am kinda curious to see if anyone will identify failings in works of scientific populism.

 

[Sectionfive]

very different, sorry.

The religious/non-religious dichotomy that Dawkins and his followers see as paramount leads them into thinking that all secularists are on his side and all religious against when the reality is much more complicated. A big problem in particular is the opposition to religion is so often an end point rather start. You don't see anything like the same attention given to the factors that enable religious power or control over people and institutions. The source negativity is just presumed as self-evidently religious without any examination of the deeper issues and power. Another part is the tendency to dismiss critics as either misrepresenting or not understanding what he says when the truth is people know exactly what he means and think it's - often harmful - bullshit.

On a side note. Isn't it convenient that US based atheist-for-money Sam Harris has reasoned himself out of criticising Israel.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Mr Tea - I think Islam is better understood as an "ethnic identity" than a belief system, as are many other religions as practised.

Oh come off it Dan, it's a religion and a religion is a set of beliefs. You're not much of a Muslim if you don't believe there is one (and no more than one) God, that Mohammed was his final and definitive prophet and that you ought to give the beers and bacon sarnies a wide berth. And yes of course there's no hard line between ethnic identity, culture and religion, but I don't know if (say) Arab Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, black African Muslims and white European Muslims necessarily recognize each other as belonging to the same "ethnic identity", any more than people in Armenia, Uganda, Texas and Venezuela would, just because they're Christians. Co-religionists, sure, but that's not the same thing.

Also I find it perhaps a bit disturbing to see religion becoming an "ethnicity". I mean, someone born white or black or an Arab will always belong to that ethnic or racial identity, but someone who is brought up a Muslim, Christian or whatever can choose to convert to another religion or indeed abandon religion altogether. It's not fixed at a genetic level in the way facial features and skin colour are. It's not even really comparable to language, which is probably the other most important signifier of identity, because a) with the exception of people with a severe mental deficiency, everyone on earth can speak at least one language, whereas plenty of people get along fine without a religion; b) it's perfectly possible to speak two or more languages, whereas most of the major religions are mutually exclusive (it's hard to see how anyone could in any meaningful sense be both a Jew and a Hindu simultaneously - though I concede it's a bit different with certain East Asian religions), and c) learning a new language takes a long time and a lot of effort, whereas some religions can be adopted almost on a whim or indeed forced on someone by threat of violence.

Further, religion-as-ethnicity feeds the idea that to criticize any aspect of a religion practiced mainly by people who don't look like you is "racist", which just ends up stifling debate and privileging belief over other important aspects of human rights and identity.

 

[Sectionfive]

That's all well and good but why are Muslims so frequently the target of racism then?

 

[Mr. Tea]

That's all well and good but why are Muslims so frequently the target of racism then?

A number of reasons. Partly it's racism in the literal sense because most of them are of Middle Eastern, South Asian or African origin. Partly it's blame-by-proxy for wars and other atrocities being conducted in the name of Islam in many parts of the world, or indeed Islamist terrorism committed against Western targets. Partly it's the continued and highly visible presence of antagonistic Islamism in western countries. Partly it's an aversion which is not really to do with race at all but is based on perceived cultural differentness - and it's not hard to see where that comes from when you consider things like the hijab/niqab which are so radically at odds with the values of most people in Western countries. Anjem Choudhary. Abu Hamza. Lee Rigby. "Honour" killings. 72 virgins. Female "circumcision". BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM. Things which aren't representative of - by a long shot - most Muslims' experiences, values or beliefs but which are in the public consciousness and not for no reason.

But your question is quite telling. I mean, it's become a left-wing item of faith that Muslims are always passive victims of the unjustified, irrational prejudice of others. If you're talking racial prejudice, what about the anti-Semitism that is absolutely endemic among Muslims all over the world? What about the appalling treatment Christians receive in many majority-Muslim countries? Their slaughter currently underway in northern Iraq? Is that less bad because the Christians involved look similar to the Muslims, so it's "merely" a religious or cultural, rather than strictly racial, persecution?

(I appreciate that "But what about [bad thing Y]?" is not much of a response to "What about [bad thing X]?". My point is not to downplay prejudice against Muslims, nor to suggest that it's OK for some non-Muslims to be arseholes to some Muslims because other Muslims are being arseholes to other non-Muslims thousands of miles away. It's just an observation on the kinds of prejudice that clearly matter very much to a lot of left-wing white Westerners, while other kinds matter much less.)

 

[droid]

Surely Judaism is an extant example of total interconnection of religion and ethnicity?

I fear that you've fallen into the whatabout fallacy. Its inherent in any nation that people will, and should, be most concerned about injustices within their own communities and societies, for obvious reasons in that they are highly visible and that they may be directly affected.

Its also incumbent on anyone who wants to have any kind of influence on the world to attempt to change in areas where they may actually be successful, which logically means that they should campaign to change policies of their own governments and the values of their own societies. You can feel passionately about the plight of... Christians in iraq, the treatment of AIDS sufferers in Zambia, persecution of Buddhists in Bangladesh... but the prospects of affecting change in those areas are far slighter than the prospects of affecting change to policies and attitudes at home.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Surely Judaism is an extant example of total interconnection of religion and ethnicity?

Clearly it's much more interconnected than it is for Christians or Muslims. And you can be an Jewish atheist while it doesn't really make sense to be a Christian atheist (other than in the extremely limited sense that someone like me celebrates Christmas and says "bless you" when someone sneezes, which is neither here nor there).

But even so, it's not as clear-cut as you make out. "Ethnicity" is a hugely complex concept. There are communities of black Jews in Africa, do they have the same "ethnicity" as the white Ashkenazim? I suspect most of the latter, at least in Israel, would probably not think so.

I fear that you've fallen into the whatabout fallacy. Its inherent in any nation that people will, and should, be most concerned about injustices within their own communities and societies, for obvious reasons in that they are highly visible and that they may be directly affected.

Well, I guess. On the other hand, virtually everyone I know - most of whom are not Muslims or from Muslim backgrounds - is enormously concerned and upset about what's happening in Gaza for no reason more complicated than a sense of shared humanity with a group of powerless people being gradually annihilated. I agree about it being best to make a protest that might have some effect on its object, but just as an example, Lebanon is a country that's much more connected to the West than many others in the MENA region, and could plausibly be influenced by popular protest over an important issue. But when was the last time a crowd of angry white lefties protested outside the Lebanese embassy over the appalling state-sanctioned discrimination against Palestinians in that country? Again, it's not a case of "whatabout", just that it receives far less publicity (basically none, let's face it) because it doesn't fit the standard paradigm of oppressed Muslims and non-Muslim - ideally Western or Israeli - oppressors.

To get back to my main point: I think the essentialization of religion is an extremely dangerous path to go down and although done so with the best progressive intentions (at least, I hope so) will inevitably encourage religious fundamentalism, ghettoization and prejudice between communities. It's far, far more important to respect people simply as people, who may profess this or that religion or no religion at all, than it is to respect them as Muslims, Jews or whatever.

 

[droid]

Well, not to concentrate on Israel, but I think its abundantly clear that the relationship between Israel and the West and Lebanon and the West is fundamentally different.

Discrimination against Palestinians, Druze, Maronites, Shias etc... has all occurred at different moments over the last 50 years or so, the West has not consistently funded or supported one group, (as evidenced by the blundering stupidity of US intervention) Maronites being the obvious exception in recent history, but even then the dynamic between client and sponsor was muddied and relatively short lived.

Compare that to Israel, which, as you know is utterly dependent on US and Western support for military, political and economic support and the situation is clear cut - that support is used to oppress and murder civilians en masse. Sure, protest could, in theory have some small effect on the internal politics of Lebanon, but withdrawal of direct support for Israel would have a huge effect on the continued efficacy of the occupation.

So no, I don't buy the 'what about syria' arguments (not that Im saying that this is your position). They completely overlook the fundamental steps to follow if you wish to make the world less violent - No.1: Stop committing acts of violence. No.2: Stop supporting acts of violence. No.3: Try and prevent others from acting violently.

 

[Sectionfive]

I mean, it's become a left-wing item of faith that Muslims are always passive victims of the unjustified, irrational prejudice of others.

There have been some fuck ups and dubious alliances for sure but they run from policies of Blair to the SWP and you see we are getting into funny definitions of left-wing too. That attitude is based on the same sort of stuff you get from the right that routinely instrumentalises perceived oppression and passiveness of muslim women. From EDL to Dawkins to Hilary Clinton, we see some shady shit dressed up as saviour bullshit.

I know fuck all about Muslims, Islam or the middle east tbh. Just because of who and where I live but there is plenty of past and present in Ireland - and we haven't even scratched the surface - that wouldn't be out of place in the fearmongering you see about Tehran or Bradford or where it is this week.

None of the horror and sensationalism strikes me as something unique that marks Islam out as the "single greatest threat" that Dawkins shites on about. It is dangerous and oppressive dont get me wrong, like most religions but that is not the some total of belief it's not taking over Europe or America any time soon is it and if it did, it wouldn't be any different to most of Europe a few decades ago. With that in mind, we know that much of the oppression didn't melt away as Europe became increasingly secular. When New Atheists talk about Bronze Age Sky Faries they are positioning all the bad bullshit we associate with religion in the past when the reality is, women in particular can tell you that the state, men and all sorts of crap is just wearing secular clothes.

The Irish parliament has just legislated to allow abortion on grounds that were decided by referendum twice in the last twenty-two years. What was once the rule of bishops, now in 2014, sees suicidal women contend with dozens of doctors and psychologists. Most will just get the plane to England, as they continue to do in their thousands each year because the power has just shifted from clerical to 'expert' technocratic hands. We will have to deal with this ourselves the same way countries and people in various stages of secularisation will, on their own terms.

The racism thing is ginormously complex, incomprehendible in its entirety for all sorts of reasons and an increasingly good rule thumb is listening to anybody other than Richard Dawkins.