Richard Dawkins vs Josef Al-Khattab

I give the point to Richard Dawkins in this excerpt from "The Root of Evil?".

Here he speaks with New York-born Joseph Cohen, child of a secular Jewish family who moved to Palestine as a Jewish settler, only to convert to Islam and move to Gaza with his family as Josef Al-Khattab.

The thing to bear in mind is that in public debate you are speaking primarily to the public, not to the person you are debating. The goal is to win public opinion to your viewpoint, and all rhetorical devices are utilized with this aim in mind.

Richard Dawkins is speaking to the Western public who are the intended viewers of his documentary. Al-Khattab, on the other hand, appears to be speaking with other fundamentalist Muslims in mind. His comments will win approval and favour from them for being "preaching it as it is", however, they are unlikely to influence the public that Dawkins is chasing.

If Al-Khattab had spoken with Dawkins' audience in mind he might not have provided Dawkins with such a clear cut example of the "demon of religious extremism" that Dawkins' metanarrative rests on. The editor of a documentary will always have the power to selectively edit and contextualize, so anyone with an opposing viewpoint is at a disadvantage. Still, there are things you can do to more or less play into their hands.

Khattab seems unconcerned with influencing Dawkins' audience. He is simply interested in stating his position forcefully. Unfortunately Dawkins' presentation rests on characterizing religion as forceful and unreasonable.

Full respect to Khattab for being hardcore and representing without any self-doubt. This is probably the mentality you need to survive when you live in a city under siege inside an occupied land, however I don't recommend this approach for preachers living inside Western societies.

Instead I would recommend using a more rational approach that acknowledges Dawkins' valid concerns, and extends them further. Choosing to speak on divisive social and cultural issues is not a good idea.

Dawkins' angle relies on the fear of Western populations of the clash of cultures - of foreign cultures which fanatically insist on retaining their values as they come into contact with other cultures.

The Vedic paradigm is one of cultural assimilation, rather than one of rigidly promoting a static culture. This ability to adopt and adapt to local culture has lead to the rich Vedic tradition with its plethora of forms of religious and cultural expression.

In his book Krishna Samhita Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura explains the Daksa Yajña as the recounting of the assimilation of the worship of Lord Siva into the Vedic civilization. At the time that it was happening Daksa represents an Aryan who is "racist" - he won't have any Deity of an aboriginal black race get a share of the sacrificial offering. However he is suitably punished and the moral of the story is - "Siva is in" (conveniently rendered as a white Deity now, with the ash on him).

At the beginning of Krishna Samhita and throughout its narrative, Bhaktivinode Thakura writes that he is speaking especially to fit within the framework of Western academics, and he apologises to the followers of Siva, who, he points out, is glorified in the Bhagavatam as the greatest devotee of Visnu.

We should remember that while it is an offense to consider the demigods to be equal to or independent of Visnu, it is also wrong to be offensive to the demigods, who are all devotees of the Lord.

The point here is that we do not have to proselytize on unpopular or incompatible cultural issues, but neither do we have to cede that "anything goes". Hindus and Muslims lived alongside for generations by respecting each others right to live within their own boundaries according to their cultural tradition.

At the same time a lot of our presentation does rely on challenging culture - a prime example is meat-eating. However, we are able to do this on the basis of rational explanation, in addition to scriptural injunction. Scriptural injunction is interpreted as cultural tradition by those who do not accept the same, or any scriptures. When speaking to an audience we should take into account their valid pramana, or source of authority. For modern Western audiences this means anumana, or reason. Demonstrating the value of scripture using reason is effective to such an audience. Flatly demanding that they accept another pramana will look like fanaticism to them.

As Srila Prabhupada put it, succinctly: "Religion without philosophy is fanaticism".

For example, Srila Prabhupada while discussing devotees' clothing with the public would give rational explanations, and would make it clear that devotees adopted this mode of clothing because they rationally understood and accepted it and wanted to do so - not because they were under duress to do so. Nor is anyone under any duress to accept it if they do not want to.

While we can agree with Dawkins that cultural inflexibility is the cause of severe problems in the flattening world of the 21st century, there are still some things that are more favorable than others, according to the Vedic science of consciousness - especially an analysis according the Vedic understanding of the three modes of material nature. Scripture is not unreasonable. It is reasonable as far as reason goes, and it goes further. It does not do away with reason, rather it informs reason right up to the point that it leaves it behind.

So we are willing to sit down and rationally discuss it, without resorting to rabid slogan-reciting and childishly blocking our ears. At the same time, we would like the freedom to live the way that we want to live, and to offer the opportunity to others to adopt our modes of lifestyle, if they wish.

What could be objectionable about that?

Key Points:

• Participate in the meta-narrative ("Yes, how different cultures and faith traditions interact is a concern in a globalized world")
• Be prepared to establish and defend your positions using the pramana of your audience (Use rational explanations and quote statistics for Westernized audiences)

These two points demonstrate to the audience that your faith is not irrational in its nature, and that you are not using it as a psychological crutch because you can't interact with other people as a normal human being.

• Avoid being boxed in on cultural issues (Remember that culture is a supporting element for spiritual practice - if your audience has no spiritual practice, there is little point trying to establish supportive elements)
• Public presentation means giving people enough that they can digest it and move forward with interest and enthusiasm (Don't try to give people the entire philosophy and value system in five minutes)