Here’s a conflict in human thinking in general. It’s revealed in this old exchange between Mehdi Hasan and Richard Dawkins.
Hasan is a believing Muslim, and Dawkins asks if he believes that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse. Hasan says he does, that he believes in God and in miracles. Dawkins is incredulous.
My position, as a hard atheist, is that I agree that those are ridiculous beliefs that contradict reality and reason, and that it is very silly to believe in gods. I’m going to side with Dawkins a little bit on this one.
At the same time, though, I’m also going to side with Hasan a little bit…maybe a lot. He concedes that he could be wrong, which is a position I will always favor; he’s demonstrating tolerance for ideas that differ from those of his faith. I’ve never heard Hasan proselytize for Islam, and he says that he’s teaching his own child about Islam, which is fine with me as long as he’s also introducing that child to his principles of tolerance and a willingness to concede the possibility of error.
I also believe that everyone holds silly beliefs. Many people will go into the world of a movie or video game and suspend their strict adherence to the rules of reality for a while; I don’t think they go insane while doing that. Humans have an amazing capacity for stretching their minds out of congruence with nature, and that’s a good thing — we’d have no art, no music, no literature, if we didn’t have that ability. Some people might believe that the Minnesota Vikings are the greatest football team in the world, or that they’re a great cook, or that the sound of church bells is esthetically superior to the sound of the Muslim call to prayer. We don’t condemn them for that, as long as they’re willing to tolerate the existence of church bells and the muezzin. I’m comfortable with a Catholic church down the street from me as long as they aren’t trying to compel me to revere a cracker.
The big question in my mind is always going to be what are you going to do about it? You can disagree with me about evolution, for instance, and I’m going to think you are a very foolish person, but I’m not going to have you arrested or burn down your church. On the other hand, I don’t trust a religious fanatic to not try to make my university illegal, or censor the things we teach — we’re already seeing that happening. You can’t police a belief or an opinion!
I’m afraid I don’t trust Richard Dawkins to not be authoritarian. He has strongly held beliefs of his own, about how science is the only acceptable approach to understanding the world, or about how people’s perspective on gender should be tolerated, and I think he has already been abusing the respect he earned for his science and writing to advocate for oppression and intolerance. Don’t give him any more influence.
So far, Mehdi Hasan seems to be mainly advocating for human rights for all people, and is acting as a positive influence in the world.
I could be wrong. I hope I’m not.
Given how he has been responding to established gender science studies, I have serious doubt about his first belief.
He seems to have confused “science” with “dogma.”
Not to mention his insistence that gamete size is a “universal biological marker” for sex despite the existence of isogametic organisms, and even worse for his claims, organisms that make both large and small gametes and can self-fertilise. This should not be obscure knowledge to a professional biologist. It’s not even obscure to gardeners.
Hasan believes Muhammad ascended to Heaven.
Dawkins believes in White Supremacy and Toxic Masculinity.
I think Dawkins doesn’t have nearly as much edge over Hasan as he thinks when it comes to laughable beliefs.
@chrislawson: I don’t understand why these people say gamete size is the universal marker for sex. Indeed, it is pretty much the worst possible marker. Billions of people do not produce gametes, whether they have yet to reach puberty or they are post-menopausal or for some other reason. Furthermore, producing gametes is a very private activity, and hardly anybody can be sure what others produce or even what they themselves produce at the moment.
And PZ mentioning a cracker led me to find the wikipedia mention of one particular cracker…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration#2008_controversy_in_the_US
Those were fun times, almost 17 years ago!
Dawkins has vaporized his credibility not so long ago.
He now calls himself a cultural xian and a xian Supremacist. He doesn’t use that word but claims xianity is the best religion in the world.
Just about every sentence is wrong.
.1. Xian culture doesn’t even exist.
There are 42,000 xian sects and they don’t agree on anything including the number of xian gods, from 1 to 5. A lot of sects hate each other and they used to fight wars until we took away their armies and heavy weapons.
.2. What xian ethos?
There are near countless varieties and some of the current larger ones such as US fundie xianity are very toxic and violent. The Southern Baptists got their start by defending slavery and they haven’t changed that much since the 1840s.
Dawkins seems to have forgotten that the attacks on the Theory of Evolution are mostly by fundie xians who claim the universe is 5,000 years old.
.3. Dawkins claims xianity is the superior religion in the world.
That is an opinion, not a fact.
The history of xianity is soaked in blood, from the Reformation wars to the genocides of Indigenous people during the European Colonial period.
You can easily argue that Buddhism is more humane.
The same goes for Wicca or some forms of Paganism.
What Dawkins did was cherry pick the form of xianity he grew up with, 21st century UK Anglican church, and ignored the other 99% of the religion and the 2,000 year history of the religion.
This would work for someone in an English village maybe but you could expect better from a Cambridge professor.
The difference is that an essential part of White Supremacy and Toxic Masculinity is acting in a misogynistic and racist way. AFAIK, believing that Muhammad ascended to Heaven doesn’t require doing anything antisocial.
Ever read the Quran? It is chocablock full of weird nonsense. Allah creates falling stars to chase eaves dropping djinns away from Allah’s throne in the seventh heaven. Allah sends a flock of birds to kill a war elephant by dropping pebbles on it. King Solomon understands the language of ants and birds. Bizarre tall tale about the Queen of Sheba follows. The sun sets and rises in a giant mud puddle at the ends of the world. And more It is truly a bizarre and silly book. Allah wills who he will lead right and who he leads astray. Say what? And then there are the hadiths. Which are also in many cases bizarre. The Quran obviously was not send to Mohammad by a super intelligent entity.
https://the-derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/mohammed-believe-it-or-else.pdf
The US Christian theocracy is now engaged in a religious war in the Middle East. Do we need more proof that it is not it is not a source of good?
@8 yeah that stuff is super weird, unlike turning a person into a pillar of salt or putting a bunch of animals on one big boat or eating a magic apple thus dooming humanity or
I have a bigger problem with the way most churches brainwash their members than with the beliefs themselves. Every aspect glorifies and protects their own doctrine while excluding and deprecating competing views. The message is delivered by exalted, highly trained salespeople accompanied by compelling music in inspiring spaces. Reverence is enforced, and questions are not allowed. Children are not taught about the diversity of religions and philosophies, but only what that church believes. They are taught to not trust their flawed minds, but rather to trust scripture and church leaders. Young adults are asked to vow to accept the church’s beliefs and never change their minds.
It’s the opposite of education, which should not only be as factual as possible, but also teach us how to separate fact from fiction and open our minds to new ideas. Believing as I do that education is good for people, it’s hard for me to be okay with institutions which are purpose-built to undermine it.
Secularism has problems defining lines on when a belief goes from tolerably weird to actively harmful, but I’ll still take that perpetual debate over any sectarian approach that assumes they already have the correct beliefs on everything.
So, yeah, Muhammad’s magic horse? Weird, but it neither breaks my arm or picks my pocket. I can choose whether or not it’s worth the frustration of debate to talk about it, but if it’s not causing me harm, I’ll happily focus on other, more important tasks. If they want to spend tax dollars researching how to make a horse fly, or start causing trouble for people who don’t believe in the horse, then I’ll be justifiably concerned. In my political circle, that kind of thing doesn’t happen very often with Muslim beliefs. Many Christians, however, will misbehave if given the chance because they have the political power and privilege here in the US.
Indoctrination is bad. Children are people and entitled to make their own choices as they grow up. It’s a parent’s duty to ready them for dealing with a messy and diverse world full of unknowns.