Dawkins Upsets Muslims and Muslim Apologists by Speaking a Truth About Muslims
Courtesy of "The Week":
CONTROVERSIAL atheist Richard Dawkins sparked yet another row on Twitter after posting a tweet, apparently apropos of nothing, that declared: "All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though."
First of all, note The Week's implicit disapproval of the satement in "apparently apropos of nothing." The whole point of Twitter is to originate conversations with short statements: the first statement of any Twitter thread will necessarily be "apropos of nothing." This is a veiled way of saying "without provocation" -- as if one needs "provocation" to speak the truth about Muslims, since they are such a special group who must be handled so very carefully.
Secondly, the statement is factually-correct. Trinity College has 32 Nobel Prize winners, while there have only ever been 10 Muslim Nobel Prize winners.
Thirdly, the Muslims did do some great things during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages. Not much since, though, which of course was Dawkins' barb, the more effective for being implicit and universally-known.
The message, which appeared as Muslims around the world celebrated the festival of Eid al-Fitr, prompted an angry reaction along with accusations of racism.
But that only spurred on the irascible Dawkins, who followed up his first tweet with others that read: "You can attack someone for his opinion. But for simply stating an intriguing fact? Who would guess that a single Cambridge College..." and "Muslims aren't a race. What they have in common is a religion. Rather than Trinity, would you prefer the comparison with Jews? Google it."
The result was uproar as critics expressed astonishment at the arbitrary nature of his statistics.
Note that everything Dawkins said here was rational and factually correct, and everything said in opposition to Dawkins irrational and factually incorrect, and The Week still characterizes Dawkins' response as "irascible," presumably because he did not roll to present his belly in submission to the ineffable Islamicness and Leftism of his critics.
In fact, Dawkins' initial statement was factually correct, also Muslims are not a race; and finally Dawkins' statistics were both factually correct and germane: if one argues that Islam should be compared to some other religion, Judaism, Christianity, or Hinduism would be relevant points of comparison.
Oh, and if we take "Jewish" to mean at least one-quarter Jewish descent, 187 Nobel Prize winners have been Jews. (I can't seem to find a good source for Jews-by-religion as Nobel Prize winners, though I suspect the number is more than 10 because I've seen some individual practicing Jews who have won Nobel Prizes).
The most unintentionally-hilarious reaction was by Nelson Jones:
"Dawkins's well-honed technique (it often amounts to trolling) is to say something pointlessly provocative, wait for the inevitable backlash... and then express innocent bafflement that anyone could possibly object," notes a weary Nelson Jones on the New Statesman website.
Jones also takes issue with Dawkins by suggesting that it is the Nobel prize rather than Islam that is the root of the problem.
"It's ridiculous to view it as some sort of failure on the part of Islam," he says. "Rather, it shows that modern science (by which I mean academic, research-intensive science) has been and remains an overwhelmingly Western phenomenon."
First note the adjective "weary," as if Jones were the more responsible and rational person dealing with Dawkins' childish outburst -- despite the fact that Dawkins happens to be factually right.
Secondly, note his absurd premise: "It's ridiculous to view it as some sort of failure on the part of Islam." Really? Are not Muslims responsible for their own cultures in exactly the same way that Christians, Jews, Hindus and Atheists are for theirs?
Thirdly comes the crowning absurdity: "Modern science ... remains an overwhelmingly Western phenomenon."
Yes, Mr. Jones. That's Dawkins' point. Thank you for agreeing with him. And thank you for your Yama-like stupidity in failing to note that that's what you've just done.
Now, if they gave out Nobel Prizes for murdering one's daughters or blowing oneself up in crowded concourses, things might be different!
CONTROVERSIAL atheist Richard Dawkins sparked yet another row on Twitter after posting a tweet, apparently apropos of nothing, that declared: "All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though."
First of all, note The Week's implicit disapproval of the satement in "apparently apropos of nothing." The whole point of Twitter is to originate conversations with short statements: the first statement of any Twitter thread will necessarily be "apropos of nothing." This is a veiled way of saying "without provocation" -- as if one needs "provocation" to speak the truth about Muslims, since they are such a special group who must be handled so very carefully.
Secondly, the statement is factually-correct. Trinity College has 32 Nobel Prize winners, while there have only ever been 10 Muslim Nobel Prize winners.
Thirdly, the Muslims did do some great things during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages. Not much since, though, which of course was Dawkins' barb, the more effective for being implicit and universally-known.
The message, which appeared as Muslims around the world celebrated the festival of Eid al-Fitr, prompted an angry reaction along with accusations of racism.
But that only spurred on the irascible Dawkins, who followed up his first tweet with others that read: "You can attack someone for his opinion. But for simply stating an intriguing fact? Who would guess that a single Cambridge College..." and "Muslims aren't a race. What they have in common is a religion. Rather than Trinity, would you prefer the comparison with Jews? Google it."
The result was uproar as critics expressed astonishment at the arbitrary nature of his statistics.
Note that everything Dawkins said here was rational and factually correct, and everything said in opposition to Dawkins irrational and factually incorrect, and The Week still characterizes Dawkins' response as "irascible," presumably because he did not roll to present his belly in submission to the ineffable Islamicness and Leftism of his critics.
In fact, Dawkins' initial statement was factually correct, also Muslims are not a race; and finally Dawkins' statistics were both factually correct and germane: if one argues that Islam should be compared to some other religion, Judaism, Christianity, or Hinduism would be relevant points of comparison.
Oh, and if we take "Jewish" to mean at least one-quarter Jewish descent, 187 Nobel Prize winners have been Jews. (I can't seem to find a good source for Jews-by-religion as Nobel Prize winners, though I suspect the number is more than 10 because I've seen some individual practicing Jews who have won Nobel Prizes).
The most unintentionally-hilarious reaction was by Nelson Jones:
"Dawkins's well-honed technique (it often amounts to trolling) is to say something pointlessly provocative, wait for the inevitable backlash... and then express innocent bafflement that anyone could possibly object," notes a weary Nelson Jones on the New Statesman website.
Jones also takes issue with Dawkins by suggesting that it is the Nobel prize rather than Islam that is the root of the problem.
"It's ridiculous to view it as some sort of failure on the part of Islam," he says. "Rather, it shows that modern science (by which I mean academic, research-intensive science) has been and remains an overwhelmingly Western phenomenon."
First note the adjective "weary," as if Jones were the more responsible and rational person dealing with Dawkins' childish outburst -- despite the fact that Dawkins happens to be factually right.
Secondly, note his absurd premise: "It's ridiculous to view it as some sort of failure on the part of Islam." Really? Are not Muslims responsible for their own cultures in exactly the same way that Christians, Jews, Hindus and Atheists are for theirs?
Thirdly comes the crowning absurdity: "Modern science ... remains an overwhelmingly Western phenomenon."
Yes, Mr. Jones. That's Dawkins' point. Thank you for agreeing with him. And thank you for your Yama-like stupidity in failing to note that that's what you've just done.
Now, if they gave out Nobel Prizes for murdering one's daughters or blowing oneself up in crowded concourses, things might be different!