You couldn't be more wrong. Naik is a religious fundamentalist who 'knows' he is right because he read that in a religious book of his 'choice'. Nothing could possibly budge him from his belief because his belief is not something he acquired through reasoning - it simply appeals to him. Even when evidence is presented that contradicts the truth claims of the religion he was indoctrinated into as a child, he would simply cast them aside.
Dawkins is a scientist. He doesn't 'believe' in evolution or any other provable fact because of its holy or sacred nature but simply because there is an overwhelming evidence which supports his views. If for example evolution was to be proven as wrong he would immediately abandon it - no fundamentalist would ever do that. You see, when a scientific principle is wrong somebody eventually discovers the mistake and offers a better explanation based on evidence that other people can independently verify. That is how science works and is the exact opposite of how immutable religion works.
Exactly! You have an emotional attachment to it. But that doesn't make it any more true than any other religion.
I don't want to dwell too much on the relative merits and demerits of Dawkins' beliefs. What I would say, however, is that in many academic circles, there is a pre-commitment to certain worldviews. These worldviews are dogmatically adhered to and, in many cases, reinforced retrospectively. It is, for instance, no coincidence that many 'sceptics' oof yesteryear flocked to Darwin's then nascent and uproven theories because it gave scientific backing to their pre-existing belief in the totality of materialism. This was at a time when Darwin's theory wasn't nearly as widely accepted as it is now.
Even a cursory analysis will show how feverishly evolution is defended by many in academia. If it isn't a belief, then it is mighty close to becoming one.
ghassan the quran lends iitself far too easily to superficial and literalist interpretation misleading billions over the years. Was this by design or error?
There are numerous prophetic traditions, and indeed ayahs in the quran, which imply that there are multiple ways in which to interpret Quranic verses. One tradition suggests that there are seven meanings to each verse. Another suggests there is an inward and and outward meaning to the verses. That aside, the fact that the Quran, in whatever way you choose to read it, has appealed to billions throughout the recent history of mankind is testament to its longevity and brilliance.
Coming back to your question; it is quite conceivable that different interpretations exist, and have existed, to show the plurality Islam has to offer. Or to confirm its appeal as a book which speaks to the professor and the idiot alike.
Topic: hi! new ex-muslim from London