Editors, em-bypass-2
4,744
edits
Scientific Miracles in the Quran: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Scientific Miracles in the Quran (view source)
Revision as of 16:23, 16 December 2019
, 16 December 2019→Presenting vague verses as very specific
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Prekladator (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Prekladator (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Deceptive tactics== | ==Deceptive tactics== | ||
===Presenting vague verses as very specific=== | ===Presenting vague verses as very specific=== | ||
Many verses of the Quran are vague, but apologists force very specific interpretations on them and then claim that the specific information is in the verse when in fact it isn't. | |||
===Mistranslations=== | |||
Sometimes when the verse looks similar to something scientific, but there is something in the verse that doesn't fit, apologists will mistranslate the problematic part to hide it. Mistranslation can also help make a vague verse look more specific. | |||
===Presenting parables as literal descriptions of nature=== | |||
The Quran uses parables. When the Quran says something like "the disbeliever is like a mountain that...". If the parable mentions something special about the mountain, it was mentioned because of the parable, not because it happens in mountains in nature. So if something in the parable is similar to something that is literally true, then it's a coincidence, not a miracle. | |||
===Ignoring alternative explanations=== | |||
If the Quran says something counter-intuitive about nature. For example that "mountains will move" and then science discovers that mountains are actually moving, it doesn't necessarily mean that the author of the Quran knew it. He could have just tried to make a shocking descriptions (of the Judgement Day). Mountain is something that is generally considered as not moving, so the author says it will move, to make the story interesting. Not because he knows that mountains are actually moving. | |||
And the counter-intuitive descriptions of nature are often in the context of description of the Judgement Day, so it can't be a description of our universe today. | |||
===Presenting Quranic descriptions of the Judgement Day as descriptions of the current universe=== | |||
The Quran describes many supernatural event that will happen on the Judgement Day. The Judgement Day didn't happen yet. So descriptions of the Judgement Day don't apply to our universe today (before the Judgement day). But the apologists take these descriptions and try to interpret them as descriptions of the current world. | |||
===Presenting descriptions of supernatural events as descriptions of nature=== | |||
The Quran describes many supernatural events that were done by Allah. If Allah did it, then it means it probably isn't something that just happens in nature regularly. But when the supernatural event resembles something that science discovered happens in nature, apologists will say that the Quran describes the natural phenomena. | |||
===Presenting description of an event as a description of a general rule=== | |||
If the Quran says that something happened one time, or will happen one time, then we can't say that the Quran predicted that in similar conditions the same thing will happen. For example, the Quran says that women will miscarry on the Judgement Day. Apologists then say that the Quran knew that stress can cause miscarriage. But the Quran didn't say it and didn't say the exact reason why the women will miscarry on the Judgement Day. | |||
===Quoting out of context=== | |||
The context often demolishes the miracle. Sometimes the context is a description of the Judgement day, or it is a parable, or it gives a specific meaning to the vague verse. The vague verses can often be interpreted specifically when they are compared with other verses, which then shows that the apologetic interpretation is wrong. | |||
===Assuming that the information wasn't known=== | |||
Sometimes the Quran says something related to science and it is right, but it's not new information. It is something that was already known. So it can't be a scientific miracle, but apologists present it as such. | |||
===Assuming Arabia was isolated from information=== | |||
Apologists stress that the 7th century was primitive and information from other places couldn't have gotten to Arabia. But how is it possible that Alexander the Great in 3rd century BC conquered territory from Greece to India and in the 1st century, the Roman Empire had relations with China, but in the 7th century, sill no information from outside got to Arabia? | |||
The same argument is also used for religious information about Judaism and Christianity. The Old Testament mentions Arabs on many places <ref>https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Arabian-Arabians-Arabs</ref>. How is it possible that the Jews knew about Arabs, but Arabs didn't know anything about the Jews and their religion? Not to mention that there were Jews living in the Arabian peninsula during time of Muhammad. | |||
===Assuming Muhamamd was isolated from information=== | |||
Some apologists stress that Muhammad lived in pagan environment in Mecca, so he didn't know the Bible. We know that Muhammad went to Syria on a business trip, so his reach wasn't limited to his little city. We also know that he spent a lot of time with Waraqa ibn Nawfal, who was a Christian. | |||
===Appeal to Muhammad's illiteracy=== | |||
Firstly it's not clear that he was illiterate and secondly illiteracy doesn't prevent a person from listening. | |||
{{Main|Muhammad and illiteracy|l1=Muhammad and illiteracy}} | |||
===Ignoring classical interpretations=== | |||
There are already accepted interpretations in the tafsirs (of Ibn Kathir, al-Jalalayn..). The tafsirs are basing their interpretation on comparing the verses with other verses and on interpretations of the early Muslims and scholars. So how can a new interpretation be better? The apologists usually don't put any effort into disproving the classical interpretations. As long as apologists don't prove that the classical interpretation is wrong, they can't claim that the miracle claim is definitely there. | |||
===Using impressive fancy words=== | |||
Sometimes apologists use a scientific word that sounds impressive to people who don't know science (and the meaning of the word), but in reality the meaning of the word is primitive. And this way apologists create a false impression in people who don't understand science. For example [[Isotropy in the Quran Miracle|the Isotropy miracle]]. | |||
===Complete gibberish=== | |||
This is the most helpless tactic. Apologists want to prove that some impressive scientific information is in the Quran, so they start with the Quran and then they make any kind of construction as long as the conclusion is that the scientific information is in the Quran. The most obvious example is [[Singularity in the Quran]] miracle, where the logic is "Allah swears by the stars and Allah is one (=singluar), therefore the Quran says that stars can become a singularity". | |||
=="Miracles"== | =="Miracles"== | ||
===Qur'an and the Big Bang=== | ===Qur'an and the Big Bang=== | ||