The Dawkins 'Race' Row

[Fidel_Castronaut]

For those who haven't heard, Dawkins has had some criticism thrown at him for comments made over Twitter about the lack of Muslim Nobel Prize winners (among other things).

A good summary is here:

http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/4267/...g-catch-up

Effectively folk criticising Dawkins have accused him of being racist for pointing out two things (his words)

1. Cambridge (Trinity) has more Nobel Laureates than all of the Islamic world put together (and)
2. 'They' [The Islamic world I'm guessing] did some great things in the middle ages (but have effectively produced or contributed nothing in hundreds of years).

Your thoughts? (I've simplified the entire debate/row, but the summary site gives some good background).

My first reaction is to say (truthfully) that whatever else his comments are, they're not racist, as 'Islam' is not a race. In fact the assumption that all muslims are brown is pretty stupid.

Anyway, if anyone cares, share your thoughts.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Islam is not a race. They cannot have it both ways.

Do we not always compare which countries have more technical advances? How is his comment different?

BTW, he wasn't the first to mention muslim's nobel prize stats. Neil DeGrasse Tyson brought it up in a talk. Not only that, he directly linked it to Islam.

Why are muslims so touchy about this? I don't get it. Everyone is so touchy on their behalves. Jews have often been quoted to have won the most nobel prizes, I don't see anyone throwing a fit when people say that. Muslims may feel like Islam is a race because they believe people cannot opt out of it, but whatever, it isn't.

500 years from now, a muslim name would be just as common as a christian name. And having one wouldn't mean you're muslim, just like today not all Peters are Christians/Catholics.

Edit: And are we reallly going to pretend to be shocked that someone can suggest religion would affect how someone does science? Look at all the religious people rallying against evolution! Come on! Why is Islam getting special treatment in this game?

[fr0d0]

Yeah I see lots of atheists hammering him. They make the point that the vast majority of Muslims are based in underprivileged countries, which seems fair. Cambridge on the other hand is hardly a fair comparison.
Muslims/Arabs pride themselves on their academic history, which is undeniable. Obviously they're not producing now.

[paulpablo]

For those who haven't heard, Dawkins has had some criticism thrown at him for comments made over Twitter about the lack of Muslim Nobel Prize winners (among other things).

A good summary is here:

http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/4267/...g-catch-up

Effectively folk criticising Dawkins have accused him of being racist for pointing out two things (his words)

1. Cambridge (Trinity) has more Nobel Laureates than all of the Islamic world put together (and)
2. 'They' [The Islamic world I'm guessing] did some great things in the middle ages (but have effectively produced or contributed nothing in hundreds of years).

Your thoughts? (I've simplified the entire debate/row, but the summary site gives some good background).

My first reaction is to say (truthfully) that whatever else his comments are, they're not racist, as 'Islam' is not a race. In fact the assumption that all muslims are brown is pretty stupid.

Anyway, if anyone cares, share your thoughts.

Totally agree, Islam isn't a race that should be the end of the argument as far as people calling him racist.

Also facts if they are true can't be racist, they're just facts.

[Faith No More]

They might be facts, but Dawkins is referencing them as a point to imply that Islam is the motivating factor behind them and ignoring all of the socio-economic issues contributing to those facts.

I don't think it's bigotry, just ignorance and gross over-simplification.

[paulpablo]

They might be facts, but Dawkins is referencing them as a point to imply that Islam is the motivating factor behind them and ignoring all of the socio-economic issues contributing to those facts.

I don't think it's bigotry, just ignorance and gross over-simplification.

I can't see how economic factors would be a problem for islamic countries there's a few Islamic countries far far richer than the UK where Cambridge is.

Also I imagine dawkins is making a point of saying this because of the amount of muslims who claim that Islam is an open minded scientific religion.

[Faith No More]

I can't see how economic factors would be a problem for islamic countries there's a few Islamic countries far far richer than the UK where Cambridge is.

It isn't a matter of the wealth of a country. What matters is resources the average Muslim has to receive an education and then be able to achieve a position that allows them to engage in research that could potentially lead to a Nobel Prize. In the "rich" Islamic countries, the wealth is in a concentrated few. If you're going to address Muslims as a whole, then the opportunities for the average Muslim is what's relevant.

Also I imagine dawkins is making a point of saying this because of the amount of muslims who claim that Islam is an open minded scientific religion.

Then why not address those arguments specifically? Why speak so generally?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I can't see how economic factors would be a problem for islamic countries there's a few Islamic countries far far richer than the UK where Cambridge is.

It isn't a matter of the wealth of a country. What matters is resources the average Muslim has to receive an education and then be able to achieve a position that allows them to engage in research that could potentially lead to a Nobel Prize. In the "rich" Islamic countries, the wealth is in a concentrated few. If you're going to address Muslims as a whole, then the opportunities for the average Muslim is what's relevant.

Also I imagine dawkins is making a point of saying this because of the amount of muslims who claim that Islam is an open minded scientific religion.

Then why not address those arguments specifically? Why speak so generally?

I think Dawkins dropped the ball when trying to make a nuanced argument over Twitter in 140 characters. If you read the summary, he actually highlights that the points he was trying to make got lost in the 140 character limit.

I believe the issue he was trying to raise was the retarding nature of Islam amoungst the general population (laity) in which Islam, and Islamic rules,are the dominant political and social arbiter.

Bracketing out socio-economic structures that go hand in hand with these kind of debates, the actual central point I believe is well made. Now we can debate back and forth the level of influence of Islam vis socio-economic structures, but I think the inherent issue (Islam, at least the form of Islam(s) we see today) retards societal development, will remain regardless of the ratio we settle on . Debatable, naturally.

[Faith No More]

I think Dawkins dropped the ball when trying to make a nuanced argument over Twitter in 140 characters. If you read the summary, he actually highlights that the points he was trying to make got lost in the 140 character limit.

True, but that doesn't excuse his over-simplification. He should have been able to recognize the limitations and known that such an argument could not be limited in such a manner. The fact that he chose to address a complex issue in a simple manner appears to demonstrate ignorance of the issue.

I believe the issue he was trying to raise was the retarding nature of Islam amoungst the general population (laity) in which Islam, and Islamic rules,are the dominant political and social arbiter.

I agree that was most likely his intent, but he went about it very, very poorly.

Bracketing out socio-economic structures that go hand in hand with these kind of debates, the actual central point I believe is well made. Now we can debate back and forth the level of influence of Islam vis socio-economic structures, but I think the inherent issue (Islam, at least the form of Islam(s) we see today) retards societal development, will remain regardless of the ratio we settle on . Debatable, naturally.

The problem is that the central point was lost in a poorly communicated argument. Having a valid point is useless if you fail to demonstrate you understand the various factors involved.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I think Dawkins dropped the ball when trying to make a nuanced argument over Twitter in 140 characters. If you read the summary, he actually highlights that the points he was trying to make got lost in the 140 character limit.

True, but that doesn't excuse his over-simplification. He should have been able to recognize the limitations and known that such an argument could not be limited in such a manner. The fact that he chose to address a complex issue in a simple manner appears to demonstrate ignorance of the issue.

I believe the issue he was trying to raise was the retarding nature of Islam amoungst the general population (laity) in which Islam, and Islamic rules,are the dominant political and social arbiter.

I agree that was most likely his intent, but he went about it very, very poorly.

Bracketing out socio-economic structures that go hand in hand with these kind of debates, the actual central point I believe is well made. Now we can debate back and forth the level of influence of Islam vis socio-economic structures, but I think the inherent issue (Islam, at least the form of Islam(s) we see today) retards societal development, will remain regardless of the ratio we settle on . Debatable, naturally.

The problem is that the central point was lost in a poorly communicated argument. Having a valid point is useless if you fail to demonstrate you understand the various factors involved.

Pretty much agree with you. I think Dawkins' issue is that, as he himself says, he likes to step up to the plate when it comes to Twitter and enjoys making sometimes overly parsimonious remarks. However, unlike say, PZ, he doesn't then keep bleating on about how terrible everyone else is who doesn't agree with them and start banning them from his blogs/twitterspheres.

However a part of me thinks that Dawkins new exactly what he was doing and intentionally played the 'point got lost' card. He's a veteran on Twitter and has countless followers. He knows how debates go on there, and he also knows the limitation that it imposes on an actual free flowing intellectual debate.

So maybe this was his attempt to stir. It certainly got a lot of people talking, regardless. And I think we can all agree to a point on the actual central issues regarding racism and the nature of political/social Islam.

EDIT: This got me thinking about my MA thesis which I wrote on the nature of extreme violent ideologies in Islam and the way they surpass and surpress more moderate, free-thinking ideologies.