There is no question that Richard Dawkins is the most respected and well-known evolutionary biologist in the world. Justifiably his original and seminal contributions to evolutionary biology and his perceptive and clear writing have enabled a broad understanding of science among the public.
However, after watching the recent episode of the Bill Maher program where Dawkins appeared I must disagree with their characterization of ‘liberals’ who don’t want to criticize Islam. Maher suggested that liberals don’t criticize Islam because they are relativists who don’t want to criticize Muslim ‘cultural traditions and practices.’ Dawkins concluded by saying ‘to hell with their culture.’
Although there are naive liberals, including many college students, who are relativists and don’t want to disrespect any cultural values of Muslims or others, most thoughtful liberals are not in that category. Thoughtful liberals suggest that ‘Islamic culture’ is maintained by too many Muslims and have dangerous and inhumane ideals. Yet, they are also aware that Islamic culture is directly contested and criticized by many Muslims who want to reform and moderate their traditions and practices. There is an Enlightenment process that is going on within the Islamic world. It is an extremely gradual and slow process with reactionary forces trying to resist it. But, how many years did it take for the Enlightenment to take hold in the West? The current presidential debates in the U.S. demonstrate that the Enlightenment has been resisted by many in the West.
I think that the recent civil dialogue between Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz could help inform both Dawkins and Bill Maher in their characterization of Islamic culture. Nawaz and Harris ended up agreeing that Islam cannot be considered an essentialist religion with ‘inherent ideals’ and meanings shared by all Muslims. As Maajid says “Religion doesn’t inherently speak for itself; no scripture, no book, no piece of writing has its own voice.” Scripture exists; human beings interpret it.” Islam is riven with factional disputes, just as other religious traditions or communist or socialist movements. Harris admits that Maajid persuaded him toward this view of Islamic culture. When Dawkins and Bill Maher condemn ‘Islamic culture,’ they are using an antiquated understanding of culture as a monolithic and uniform force that infects everyone in the group in the same manner. This is the same mistake of those who employ the rhetoric of the simplistic ‘clash of civilization thesis.’ Anthropologists, and most thoughtful liberals have abandoned this approach to culture for many years.
