Eve ? Who is that girl ?
-
Peace SoA
I don't think your point is valid..
While I agree with a lot of what you say, there are parts of the Koran which are falsifiable, I don't see why we should not apply the scientific method to those particular parts?
For example I can watch superman and accept he has supernatural powers, yet at the same time be critical of his ability to turn back time by reversing the rotation of the Earth because of our understanding of reality.
Sure he can stop a speeding train or bullet or leap the tallest buildings, if he is strong/fast enough, but changing the rotation of the earth will never reverse time.
While I agree we should not try to show that the Koran is the work of God because it contains "scientific miracles" I don't see why we cannot apply the scientific method to applicable parts to see if there is a flaw in it?
I mean, if the Koran says that mountains act as stabilising pegs yet geologists can demonstrate that mountains in fact destabilise the earth then there is a good indication the Koran is not the word of God.
If the Koran says all living creatures are made from water and biologists find a living being that isn't, again this is a good indication that it is not the word of God.. no?
-
Shalom Aleikhem BobaFett,
I don't think your point is valid..
While I agree with a lot of what you say, there are parts of the Koran which are falsifiable, I don't see why we should not apply the scientific method to those particular parts?
I partly agree with you. However, please try to realize that when we wish to "scientifically" analyse this issue, we must remove all bias. It depends on the reader which part of the Qur'an the reader thinks is a claim about the world that can be tested. Let me give you a quick example. Let's say that Qur'an or any other religious book claims that God fashions out of matter what is developing in the womb of a pregnant woman. I'd pick that as a claim and test it and demonstrate that we can account for the processes involved in the making of the baby and therefore the claim is BS! Now, the theist/believer might say that they interpret that as a metaphor, not as a factual claim. By doing that, every wrong claim can be explained away. That is not how a scientific investigation works.
On top of that , there are other big problems such as
- Identification of the ACTUAL texts. There are versions of the Qur'an and we have to first identify the ACTUAL one. We can't even begin before we do that. If you haven't already, then I will suggest that you read the article on version of Qur'an from the main site (free-minds.org).
- From the translations and their diversity we already know that the choice of words can make the verses a bit plastic. Plastic meaning that the meaning is contingent on the stretch of imagination of the translator. Same is true for the general reader of the Arabic text. Who gets to interpret or translate? Why?
I believe that this one problem of agreeing on one interpretation is enough to end your scientific analysis before it begins. If you can not get people to agree on a fixed meaning, then there is no point in trying to determine if it matches with science or not.
- If we do agree on the meaning of the words and interpretations, will we also agree that the meanings are to be kept unchanging? If not, then we can't analyse it scientifically. If something can mean "yes" "no" and "may be", there is no rational justification for being happy about it matching with what science says the answer should be. That is because of the fact that if science changes the positive answer to negative tomorrow due to a recent discovery, the believers will still claim that "that is one possible meaning". If science finds new evidence that makes us uncertain, the believers will still say "that is one possible meaning". So, it really isn't that falsifiable after all.
For example I can watch superman and accept he has supernatural powers, yet at the same time be critical of his ability to turn back time by reversing the rotation of the Earth because of our understanding of reality.
I agree with you 100%. However, you are misrepresenting the case I was arguing against. If the author of this thread would have been like "let us try to match known scientific facts with parts of the Qur'an for fun", I'd be quiet about it. The author of this thread did not do that. The author of the thread made claims of "MIRACLES" and challenged others to bring over another book! I am pretty sure you can tell the difference between doing something like that and just working out the scientific sanity of science fiction stories. When we debate superman, we do not make bold claims of miracles and claims about what is factually and actually true. Which is exactly what the originator of this thread is doing. I hope that you see through this.
While I agree we should not try to show that the Koran is the work of God because it contains "scientific miracles" I don't see why we cannot apply the scientific method to applicable parts to see if there is a flaw in it?
And I have raise some issues in whatever I have written to you previously. I am willing to discuss it further. On the face of it it seems like a sound idea. However, trying to be honest and objective ruins the fun.
I mean, if the Koran says that mountains act as stabilising pegs yet geologists can demonstrate that mountains in fact destabilise the earth then there is a good indication the Koran is not the word of God.
1679 Have they not looked at the birds held in the atmosphere of the sky? No one holds them up except God. In that are signs for a people who believe.
Science
Lift = Weight
http//web.mit.edu/16.00/www/aec/images/GIFS/bird.gifWe know that the lift generated by the wings of the bird = 0.5 * density of the fluid medium(air)speed squaredsurface area of the wing* the lift coefficient of the wing. As long as the value of the products of all that remains constant, the bird will not fall as the downward pull of gravity (weight) will be balanced by the upward pull created by the lift producing wings. Clearly, Qur'an fails there while trying to impress an illiterate audience about how God holds them up.
Before you respond or react. Please try to understand that I am not trying to disprove Qur'an. I am merely giving you an example of how trying to make the Qur'an sound scientific can backfire. I can not take a Qur'anic verse about mountains being pegs seriously while simultaneously ignore the verse about the flight of a bird. There is a reason why these religious claims about scriptures and science doesn't end up in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals.
P.S. The claim about the mountains and pegs is laughable, I just didn't bother to refute it when I could simply show you how I can pick and choose other parts of the book which makes claims about the REAL world and science that we may falsify.
If the Koran says all living creatures are made from water and biologists find a living being that isn't, again this is a good indication that it is not the word of God.. no?
Before I begin saying anything, let me congratulate you on accepting evolution and common descent. I also congratulate the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who unknowingly advances this argument without understanding the implications. Yes, when science talks about life originating in water, it doesn't mean that a God was pulling them out of a bucket full of water. See the following as an example
http//www.origin-of-mitochondria.net/wp-content/uploads/normal_tree_of_life.jpg
For Science to be in agreement with whatever scripture, the scripture must propose a common descent. Just like you see in that tree. Without the tree, we aren't talking about the same thing. In the scientific proposal, we are descendants of creatures of the ocean (LITERALLY). Are you suggesting that the Qur'an is saying the same thing and therefore advancing the theory of evolution as we understand it? If not, then you don't have a case. If you don't agree, then that makes the hypocrisy of your method worse than the method of the original thread starter. That is because your method of establishing facts becomes something like this
Fact Science says that Lift = 0.5 density of the fluid medium(air)speed squaredsurface area of the wing the lift coefficient of the wing
My book says Lift has something to do with air/wing
Therefore My book is scientifically accurate as it mention that word.That takes a special level of cognitive dissonance. Now, just to play that same game again
3048 God Who sends the winds, so they raise clouds, and He spreads them in the sky as He wishes, then He turns them into joined pieces, then you see the rain drops come forth from their midst. Then when He makes them fall on whoever He wills of His servants, they rejoice!
4228 And He is the One who sends down the rain after they had despaired, and spreads His mercy. He is the Supporter, the Praiseworthy.
Science
http//www.enchantedlearning.com/wgifs/Watercycle.GIF
Once again, science shows you that your God hypothesis is redundant. Its like me saying that things fall down because there are pink unicorns pushing them down. Whatever Newton discovered would show that my pink unicorn hypothesis is frankly laughable. In the same way, what we know about water cycles and weather systems makes such verses about a God wishing rain upon anyone laughable.
While we are at it, want to know a fun fact? The Greeks apparently had something to say about life and water. Here is a quote (please read about Anaximander here and here)
610-546 BCE Greek philosopher, astronomer and biologist Anaximander argues that all lifeforms evolved from fish in the seas and underwent modification once it established itself on land. Anaximander also believed in an early concept of abiogenesis which stated that primitive life on earth formed from mist.
570-480 BCE The Greek philosopher and student of Anaximander Xenophanes developed Anaximander's theories further. Xenophanes was one of the first people in history to observe the fossil record and he concluded that most of the world was covered by water in the past by observing the fossil record.
Please feel free to go through the creation myths of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Mesopotamians. Here is a link. It turns out that WATER turns out to be a very common thing in the ancient creation myths when it comes to finding some source of origin.
I am already talking about beliefs held by people thousands of years before Muhammad was even born. A neutral reader of an ancient book can not make extraordinary leaps without appropriate justifications. When we can very easily explain away that he might have been inspired by earlier ancient myths or even made things up, why would we say that he was talking about what we now know to be true. For that to be true, we must necessarily have his statements detailing things out for us so that we can check them against science and know if he is talking about what we know to be true or if he simply made things up. An honest study does not allow you to read into it and make him say things he never said.
Peace
-------------- Student of Allah -
P.S. The claim about the mountains and pegs is laughable, I just didn't bother to refute it when I could simply show you how I can pick and choose other parts of the book which makes claims about the REAL world and science that we may falsify.
What you say is laughable. Other than with accurate XXth centuries scientific vocabulary, I can't think of a better way to describe isostasy in the case of mountains than this. Or are you pretneding that the Qur'an should be using english or german or latin words of present scientific jargon to say things to people in general?
This is ridiculous.
Salaam
-
Shalom Aleikhem huruf,
What you say is laughable. Other than with accurate XXth centuries scientific vocabulary, I can't think of a better way to describe isostasy in the case of mountains than this. Or are you pretneding that the Qur'an should be using english or german or latin words of present scientific jargon to say things to people in general?
This is ridiculous.
Salaam
No.
Please post your claim as a separate thread. Once you post your claim, I will see if it is the same claim and therefore present my refutation accordingly.
Peace
-------------- Student of Allah -
359 The example of Issa with God is similar to that of Adam; He created him from dust, then He said to him Be and he was.
When Allah make comparisons, he is not joking. He respect the form . In this case , there is 25 occurrences for adam and Issa.
Knowing that Eve is never mentionned in quran, it seems logical to deduce from that comparison that Adam had a mother and not a human father (perhaps a beautiful angel in human body 19-17 to 19-19).
.... is that a paradise on the sky or a paradisiacal garden on earth ?
This theory was proposed by Dr. Abd a-Sabour Shahin ( ), in his book 'My Father Adam' ( م.
-
Shalom Aleikhem huruf,
No.
Please post your claim as a separate thread. Once you post your claim, I will see if it is the same claim and therefore present my refutation accordingly.
Peace
-------------- Student of AllahI do not claim anything I just say that what the Qur'an says on that count is far from laughable. But of course any one can laugh at whatever he or she wants.
Salaam
-
1679 Have they not looked at the birds held in the atmosphere of the sky? No one holds them up except God. In that are signs for a people who believe.
Science
We know that the lift generated by the wings of the bird = 0.5 * density of the fluid medium(air)speed squaredsurface area of the wing* the lift coefficient of the wing. As long as the value of the products of all that remains constant, the bird will not fall as the downward pull of gravity (weight) will be balanced by the upward pull created by the lift producing wings. Clearly, Qur'an fails there while trying to impress an illiterate audience about how God holds them up.
Before you respond or react. Please try to understand that I am not trying to disprove Qur'an. I am merely giving you an example of how trying to make the Qur'an sound scientific can backfire. I can not take a Qur'anic verse about mountains being pegs seriously while simultaneously ignore the verse about the flight of a bird. There is a reason why these religious claims about scriptures and science doesn't end up in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals.
First of all I agree with the statement that we can't apply Quran as a scientific textbook. But Student of Allah, you are making a very unfair argument here. I even think you are aware of what you are doing, if not this may be enlightening to you. The verse you quoted here does not literally tell us God holds up birds in the air with some mystical force. That is the most extremely literal interpretation of that verse I have ever heard and I doubt very much you yourself are even convinced it should be taken that literally. You are deliberately ignoring the metaphorical interpretation in which this verse relates to Gods creation of this universe resulting in the atmosphere of this planet and Newtonian laws of physics as a product of that intelligent evolutionary design. Without atmosphere and Newtonian physics that bird would be unable to create lift, it wouldn't even be able to breathe or produce the kinetic energy to do so. All of those are according to Quran results of Gods evolutionary design of this universe. Maybe you were doing this to drive home your point of view, but there are less cheap ways to do so. Don't you agree? I could expand this criticism towards your narrative easily to your other examples but I think this one already illustrates it sufficiently.
Quran is not a scientific textbook, though it contains many clear signs relating to scientific understanding that are often remarkable in their compatibility with modern scientific understanding.
-
I suppose even a human who wrote a book called Quran over thousand years ago realized the wings of the bird is propelling them and keeping them into the air. People were not stupid.
The phenomenon which makes them able to remain in the air could be what "is that it is" refers back to. law of physics and that "is that it is" stands for and thus the Quran does not make humilation of itself. People may not have understood why the birds are kept in the air except that the wings are their tool to accomplish this, but the lesson is the wonders of nature.
Same is that the skies (everything away from Earth) that are kept away without pillars because the people were again not stupid and understood the effect of the law of gravity and that things would come down unless something kept them up and again we have "is that it is" who keeps things like they are instead of letting everything fall and crash back on the ground and "is that that it is" assures no pillars accomplish this and invites for the beholder to contemplate existence. A modern man may want to extend his contemplation on how the laws of nature are in existence such as gravity and who made everything revolve and cause gravity fields instead and why it seems illogical that it all begun this process out of nothing without guidance from a trigger entity that had an aim with it.
The pillars similitude does not impress people today but then they should remember it was written over thousand years ago and was intended primarily for them and the allegories still work for us to raise our thougts, but we may need to extend our philosophies.
All allegories are inviting to contemplate why all natural laws are in existence and reflect back to "is that that it is" and then ask yourself of it was not for it then how is everything in existence? Did it create itself?
Now you can instead reflect upon the phenomenon that the planets and other bodies revolve around their star instead of just crashing back to it. Even if science explains it is the revolving mechanism that does it you can always ask yourself how it all got into place so that it could begin its rotation. And why does gravity exist without just saying the objects generate gravity but why?
Be of one in is that that it is
-
First of all I agree with the statement that we can't apply Quran as a scientific textbook. But Student of Allah, you are making a very unfair argument here. I even think you are aware of what you are doing, if not this may be enlightening to you. The verse you quoted here does not literally tell us God holds up birds in the air with some mystical force. That is the most extremely literal interpretation of that verse I have ever heard and I doubt very much you yourself are even convinced it should be taken that literally. You are deliberately ignoring the metaphorical interpretation in which this verse relates to Gods creation of this universe resulting in the atmosphere of this planet and Newtonian laws of physics as a product of that intelligent evolutionary design. Without atmosphere and Newtonian physics that bird would be unable to create lift, it wouldn't even be able to breathe or produce the kinetic energy to do so. All of those are according to Quran results of Gods evolutionary design of this universe. Maybe you were doing this to drive home your point of view, but there are less cheap ways to do so. Don't you agree? I could expand this criticism towards your narrative easily to your other examples but I think this one already illustrates it sufficiently.
Quran is not a scientific textbook, though it contains many clear signs relating to scientific understanding that are often remarkable in their compatibility with modern scientific understanding.
Yes, indeed it seems like a very literal interpretation, yet still a kind of interpretation that many atheist-scientists would hold.
In any case, an atheist would find it silly to involve a god who holds up birds in the sky or who spreads clouds and makes rain fall, when the physical mechanisms are quite well known (in terms of the known physical world). It seems unnecessary to involve a god when things already seem to work on their own, as per the natural laws.
The point is however that this view, held by the science conscious atheist, presumes a "religious god". By this I mean that the atheist refutes the involvement of a god as God is described by the usual religions... i.e. some super natural creature with human like qualities. Obviously there is no need for a Man in the Sky if things already work thanks the the natural laws. The atheist is adopting the image of God found in the Religions and then rejects this image (rightly so I have to say). But this is, in my mind, a case of false dilemma. Either we have a God as per Religion, or we don't have God at all. This is black and white scenario is quite limited. This leads to the mindset which dictates that since we understand many natural laws and related phenomena, then there is no need for God. It is assumed God is a separate being, imagined to run things like a master of puppets pulling the strings from outside the natural world and outside the normal network of cause and effect.Some people then compromise and see world where God put the natural laws in action and then remains God who can interfere in the business of the world. This is just a scientific smelling version of the Religious version of the world. It still assumes and views God as a separate Guy in the Sky. The theist would naturally reject this as well, finding such a scenario unnecessary.
I believe that at the core of the human problems, is the image of God. Obviously, our image of God determines what we think of God, e.g. to what extent God is necessary or not in our world. We come to a conclusion, but it all depends of our image of God. It is assumed, in the general typical discussions among people, that if God exists, then God would be like the Religions describe "him" (whether openly or not). Naturally, we would normally not see the need for a pink unicorn in the sky, unless of course you're indoctrinated and entrained in a Religion.
So, whatever science finds out (as long as it is true) is part of reality (as we perceive it) and nothing real can contradict God and God cannot contradict reality, in this case what science finds (if it is true). If birds fly thanks to a mix of drag, lift, weight, surface areas, whatever etc, then this is how God holds them up. If clouds move due to sun energy, currents of air, temperature, densities etc, then again, this is how God moves the clouds. Why would we look for some Guy in the Sky who orders clouds around or has gazillions of hands to hold bird up? That would be madness. Why not let existence/creation/nature be the evidence/proof/sign that God is. "Since I am, therefor I know God is, by definition". Why not relax and simply say that "oh, so this is the mechanism behind this natural phenomenon... ok, so this is how God "does" it". Let everything be the proof of that God exists, and stop trying to paint the face of God.
Also, our view of reality is just one model, or one way of seeing it. Just because we know about lift, wings, weight, gravity and air, doesn't mean that 'God doesn't do it'. We assume a lot about what "to do" means when it comes to God.
I'm not sure I'm getting my point across. I just think that we assume too much about what God is and how God let's things happen. We also often think backwards when trying to prove or disprove God.
And in any case, it is futile to try to convince people about the existence of God. Whose God anyway are we talking about? Also some things are not possible to describe with the words we have today, especially in scientific terms... but even this claim, in the sentence I just wrote, is useless to make... cannot be proven or falsified.
Peace folks.
-
I still remember brother Ahmad Bilal's suggestion of 'skyman'. rotfl
Be of one in God