Quran and Modern Science - Conflict or Conciliation?

[Phanerothyme]

How could they have been known? The technology did not exist to prove them. They could only have been theories. If there were theories in the Quran then some should have been proven false by now.

eh?

 

The point is the Quran does not conflict with established science.

If it sought to enshrine science within its covers, it may have done so. I think that the canon of scientific literature has done it somewhat better though.

 

It's not amazing or mystical, just curious that a holy scripture should be so preoccupied with a pursuit that ultimately leads to ever greater knowledge of the nature of the universe by freely asking questions and proposing logical solutions, rather than by accepting the divine revelation of a deity.

 

Once upon a time, science and religion were largely indivisible, but as the study of nature progressed, the path of inquiry bifurcated into the metaphysical and the physical.

 

If the Koran can provide us with a new angle on that division and even a way of bringing the two back together then I'm all ears.

 

Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind.

[4U2NV]

It’s only settled for you because the Quran says believe in one God and you being a Christian (I’m guessing from some of your other posts that you’re a Christian) have a big problem believing in just ONE God.

 

The Father (1), The Son (2) and The Holy Spirit (3), oh no it’s not 3 its 1 but no its 3 but 1. What example will you use? The Egg? Ice, Water, Vapour? Do you even understand it yourself?

How can a God die?

If he was a man then he's not god or a god or a son of a god.

Why'd he pray?

Who did he pray to? Himself?

 

Good points also to add to that

 

If Jesus is God, then who did He pray to?

If Jesus is God, why did He say the Father was greater than He?

(Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.) John 14.28

God cannot be tempted. Jesus was tempted. Jesus cannot be God.

God cannot die. Jesus died. Therefore, Jesus is not God.

(Christians are forever saying Jesus died for our sins)

[Zafar]

The whole question about science and religion is abit misleading and is very much based on European experiences between the Catholic 'dogmas' and those who argued they were simply wrong. Galileo being a good example.

 

How many other religions had 'dogmas' which were contradicted by facts I dont know, but there's nothing that springs to mind re Islam.

 

There's also the assumption that until the 'enlightenment' occurred in Europe there was no real science and knowledge.

 

I suspect there were probably grand civilisations in the past which undoubtedly made 'great' discoveries, civilisations, which we probably are totally unaware of today.

 

Z

[Phanerothyme]

The whole question about science and religion is abit misleading and is very much based on European experiences between the Catholic 'dogmas' and those who argued they were simply wrong. Galileo being a good example.

 

How many other religions had 'dogmas' which were contradicted by facts I dont know, but there's nothing that springs to mind re Islam.

 

Z

It was more of a case of a culture that promoted learning and enlightenment up to a point. There is still clearly a strong conflict between Christian creation myth and evolutionary science. In other areas of science, the Catholic church was, and still is, strong.

 

I don't think the Anglicans run any astronomical observatories but the Vatican does. And I don't think there are many other world religious institutions that have recently recorded a supernova.

[Zafar]

Quite true Phan.

 

One claim that particularly winds me up is that of Muhammeds 'revelation' of embryological development.

The Qur'an is merely repeating the teaching of the enormously influential Greek physician Galen. It is clearly plagiarising ancient Greek literature!

 

The account of the different stages in embryology as described by the Qur'an, ar-Razi and al-Quff is identical to that taught by Galen, writing in around AD 150 in Pergamum (Bergama in modern Turkey). Galen taught that the embryo developed in four stages.

 

This would have been pretty widespread knowledge 400 years later.

 

So to answer your original question Pink ninja, 'NO!' It doesn't convince me one iota.

 

Yes ofcourse Kay_Cee, there were public libraries from which the Prophet took books and plagerised the theories of ancient philosophers

 

The problem with your 'theory' is that the Prophet(pbuh) was illiterate and didn't have access to the writings of Greek philosphers!

 

Yes ofcourse Arabs once they had expanded into an empire and developed the trappings of civilisation picked up on the ancient greek texts (and thats one of the main reasons why those texts didn't disappear from history).

 

Galen's own theories, in accord with Plato's, emphasized purposeful creation by a single Creator ("Nature" - Greek phusis) - a major reason why later Christian and Muslim scholars could accept his views.

 

However, at the time the Quraan was revealed that access just wasn't there!

 

Lets for a second assume your 'theory' is true. If so you have to also remember that alot of Galens theories were totally wrong.

 

He did not recognise blood circulation, he also thought that bleeding vigourously propogated blood letting as a treatment.

 

If the Prophet Mohammed was as you put it 'plagerising' Galen then he would have also 'copied' some of these untrue 'theories' into the Quraan.

 

Unless ofcourse you simply believe that he was 'lucky' ?

 

Z

[Zafar]

It was more of a case of a culture that promoted learning and enlightenment up to a point. There is still clearly a strong conflict between Christian creation myth and evolutionary science. In other areas of science, the Catholic church was, and still is, strong.

 

I don't think the Anglicans run any astronomical observatories but the Vatican does. And I don't think there are many other world religious institutions that have recently recorded a supernova.

 

I think it was more than a case of culture. more like an issue of an institute which promoted its own infallibility. That is not the case for many of the other religions and particularly not Islam which has no concept of either a single 'church' nor an infallible pope like character.

 

Z

[Phanerothyme]

It may have espoused a rigid theocracy, but it also recognised that all knowledge was power. The Vatican maintains, somewhat cynically IMO, a strong interest in the sciences, and is in no small way responsible for contributions to the advancement of science even today.

 

The thing with science, being a 'self-correcting doctrine' is that it is radically different to what it was in 700CE. The Koran, I am given to understand, is unchanged since that time.

 

The Koran, to my mind, exhorts the reader to question and understand the universe. But it stops short of encouraging the reader to question the existence of god... and it would be an unusual Holy Scripture that did that (although it would win respect from me for doing so).

 

Islam reigned supreme in science all around the Mediterranean and throughout the middle east, until it too suffered a cultural stagnation and the onset of fanaticism, economic disparity and complacency. Islam has yet to rekindle that scientific tradition IMO.

 

But without an institutional nexus of some kind, it's unlikely to happen in the same manner or magnitude as the multi-million dollar vatican science budget, for example.

[Zafar]

It may have espoused a rigid theocracy, but it also recognised that all knowledge was power. The Vatican maintains, somewhat cynically IMO, a strong interest in the sciences, and is in no small way responsible for contributions to the advancement of science even today.

 

The thing with science, being a 'self-correcting doctrine' is that it is radically different to what it was in 700CE. The Koran, I am given to understand, is unchanged since that time.

 

The Koran, to my mind, exhorts the reader to question and understand the universe. But it stops short of encouraging the reader to question the existence of god... and it would be an unusual Holy Scripture that did that (although it would win respect from me for doing so).

 

Islam reigned supreme in science all around the Mediterranean and throughout the middle east, until it too suffered a cultural stagnation and the onset of fanaticism, economic disparity and complacency. Islam has yet to rekindle that scientific tradition IMO.

 

But without an institutional nexus of some kind, it's unlikely to happen in the same manner or magnitude as the multi-million dollar vatican science budget, for example.

 

Thats a fair point. The Quraan encourages learning and trying to understand the universe because one of the very first 'jihads' was to fight ignorance.

 

The is a very apt story about when the Prophets baby Son (Ibrahim) passed away and on the same day there was an eclipse. Many of the muslims felt that the eclipse of the Sun was a sign from God sending the Prophet his 'condolence'

 

If the Prophet as some claim had been a charlaton and an opportunist then logically most reasonable people would conclude that he would have said this was true etc.

 

Whereupon the Prophet is said to have announced, "An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being."

 

Ofcourse, for muslims who believe in God its a total waste of time questioning his 'existence'. Waste of time in the sense that there is so much to learn and such little time to learn it in.

 

Its very much true that all civilisations reach stagnation at some point (its a kind of universal truth), however, many religions including Islam did not have any conflicts with science or the seeking of truth. I do believe that much of the debate re science/religion is very Western European and rooted in the history of the 'Church'.

 

Z

[Rzaa]

eh?

 

What I meant by that was say for example it says in the Quran the world is flat or indicates the world is flat then this would prove to be in conflict with established science and such an error could not be attributed to God. We say (The Muslims) that the whole Quran is the word of God. The Bible may have the word of god in it but the whole thing is not the word of god (would not need new versions).

 

The Quran is a book for all mankind from when it was revealed till then end of time. The revelations to previous prophets were for those people for that time.

 

The Quran is not copied nor influenced by the Bible; it talks about some of the same events as the bible but does not mean it is copied. As previous prophets have had revelations (including Jesus) so did Mohammed.

 

Also can you attribute all the things in the Quran to an illiterate man who had never even left the Arabian Peninsula?

 

“He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports.”

(Bosworth Smith, MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM, London, 1874, p. 92.)

[Rzaa]

(Christians are forever saying Jesus died for our sins)

 

Which brings us to Oringinal Sin.

 

As if people don't have enough sins of their own now we have to atone for someone else’s?

 

Are new born babies also sinners? If they die do they go straight to hell? If no, then is there a time period allowed for then to accept Jesus as their savour? If so how long? Were does it say in the Bible?