Religious books and a description of the Origins of the Universe according to science?

[OupaPiet]

A few years ago, I ventured into the claim that the Quran gave a detailed description on how Allah created the Universe. Or let me elaborate a bit more.
An Islamic Scholar, Zakir Naik participated in a debate with Dr. William Campbell at the University of Chicago with the theme: 'the Bible, the Quran, in relation to science. In the year 2000
At that stage I was still an Atheist, and I was fascinated at what this scholar said, especially as he was making a mockery of the Christian Dr Campbell.

After I watched the video where about 3 000 audience was entertained by Dr Naik's antics, I decided to investigate all his claims for my own benefit.

I especially liked the statement Dr Naik said:
"If the God of the Bible gave an incorrect description on how He created everything, we can conclude with safety that such a God can not be God at all!"

Well, this was when I was introduced to the Quran, and I started to collect every book on the subject, learned about Dr Maurice Buchaile (Who incidentally was the source of Dr Naik's information) and other Muslim scholars such as Ahmad Deedad etc.

It took me about 3 years to work through the Bible, the Quran and these external information to get an answer.
Once I discovered how lies was preached and spread on what the Bible and Quran said etc. I realized that the Quran was in error, yet I could not prove the Bible wrong at all concerning its description about the Origins of the Universe.

Eventually I realized that this simple description corresponded exactly to what science knows today.
Actually, I was shocked to learn that science plagiarized Genesis 1 on the subject. But more on that at a later stage.

I think that bringing this journey which I walked 15 years ago to you, might do one of 2 things.
1. You will get information you never knew before and will make you to rethink claims made by Muslim scholars.
2. You will be able to refute the facts that I believe is evidence that the God of the Bible is the only God.

But before I start to give my story, Perhaps you would like to give me your point of view about the topic.
What do you think?
Does the Bible or Quran have any value to scientific descriptions?
Is it evidence that God authored the scriptures in question?
Or is this totally far founded and there is no ancient scripture describing science as we know it today?

 

[Thomas]

An Islamic Scholar, Zakir Naik ...

I'd check his references if I were you – seems he's a trouble-maker, wanted by the police in India for various criminal activities, he's a televangelist and an ideologue. He has strong opinions, but does not speak for all Islam, and has been refuted by Islamic scholars.

You find these people in every walk of life, unfortunately, but if you want to discuss your views, I'd shift away from such a controversial figure.

What do you think?
Does the Bible or Quran have any value to scientific descriptions?

No. Neither the Bible, nor the Quran, nor indeed any of the world's sacra doctrina, stand as 'scientific' documents. The debate of Scripture v Science is a false one and an irrelevance. The sacred scribes have no interest in science, nor can we say they write in the light of contemporary scientific knowledge – physics, cosmology, etc – that was not their point, nor a point of interest.

I'd go further to say our understandings of Newtonian physics is quite in depth, whereas our understandings in the fields of cosmology and quantum physics leave huge questions, which no doubt will be answered in due time, and might well stand everything we know on its head?

The Greeks wrote about the atom, but we ference them only in an historical context. They weren't right all the time.

Their science of optics was way off the mark, but their insights into psychology are still profound and relevant today.

Is it evidence that God authored the scriptures in question?

No. There is no evidence of authorship. It's a question of faith.

Or is this totally far founded and there is no ancient scripture describing science as we know it today?

I'd say that's closer to the situation, especially when 'science' as understood today is overwhelmingly empirical – you're talking about Western science.

For me, theology is a science, metaphysics is a science, they're just not in vogue.

 

[wil]

For me, theology is a science, metaphysics is a science, they're just not in vogue.

I can maybe see theology as science, true theological exploration as science. Of course theology as a science, would that not indicate Theo has been accepted?

But any religious path (Hindu, Christian, Islamic, etc) that focuses on it be awful hard to avoid confirmation bias, fighting to prove the postulates that scriptures pose

I do always enjoy the thought of scientists proving they can now create life from scratch, and G!d saying wait, "Wait, you first gotta make dirt outa nothing"

 

[Thomas]

I can maybe see theology as science, true theological exploration as science. Of course theology as a science, would that not indicate Theo has been accepted?

Well, as ever, it's an accepted science within its own parameters, same as the empirical sciences.

Problems arise when people use their Scriptures to prove science, or sciences challenges the idea of a deity on empirical grounds.

But any religious path (Hindu, Christian, Islamic, etc) that focuses on it be awful hard to avoid confirmation bias, fighting to prove the postulates that scriptures pose

Same is true in any field of study.

I do always enjoy the thought of scientists proving they can now create life from scratch, and G!d saying wait, "Wait, you first gotta make dirt outa nothing"

LOL, They gotta create life from scratch, yet ...

 

[wil]

So in a world where G!d exists theology is science?

So could astologyology be the science of studying astrology?

 

[moralorel]

A few years ago, I ventured into the claim that the Quran gave a detailed description on how Allah created the Universe. Or let me elaborate a bit more.
An Islamic Scholar, Zakir Naik participated in a debate with Dr. William Campbell at the University of Chicago with the theme: 'the Bible, the Quran, in relation to science. In the year 2000
At that stage I was still an Atheist, and I was fascinated at what this scholar said, especially as he was making a mockery of the Christian Dr Campbell.

After I watched the video where about 3 000 audience was entertained by Dr Naik's antics, I decided to investigate all his claims for my own benefit.

I especially liked the statement Dr Naik said:
"If the God of the Bible gave an incorrect description on how He created everything, we can conclude with safety that such a God can not be God at all!"

Well, this was when I was introduced to the Quran, and I started to collect every book on the subject, learned about Dr Maurice Buchaile (Who incidentally was the source of Dr Naik's information) and other Muslim scholars such as Ahmad Deedad etc.

It took me about 3 years to work through the Bible, the Quran and these external information to get an answer.
Once I discovered how lies was preached and spread on what the Bible and Quran said etc. I realized that the Quran was in error, yet I could not prove the Bible wrong at all concerning its description about the Origins of the Universe.

Eventually I realized that this simple description corresponded exactly to what science knows today.
Actually, I was shocked to learn that science plagiarized Genesis 1 on the subject. But more on that at a later stage.

I think that bringing this journey which I walked 15 years ago to you, might do one of 2 things.
1. You will get information you never knew before and will make you to rethink claims made by Muslim scholars.
2. You will be able to refute the facts that I believe is evidence that the God of the Bible is the only God.

But before I start to give my story, Perhaps you would like to give me your point of view about the topic.
What do you think?
Does the Bible or Quran have any value to scientific descriptions?
Is it evidence that God authored the scriptures in question?
Or is this totally far founded and there is no ancient scripture describing science as we know it today?

All I know is that we are not as smart as we think we are. I have recently become addicted to solving ancestral mysteries for families. If I could somehow figure out a way to make a nice profit out of the practice, I would definitely quit my job and start investigating. It all started with me finally figuring out most of my wife's family mysteries. I had a name, and that was it. And now I have found many lost family members and united families. Why do I mention this? Because most of the facts I encountered were found because I read between the lines and learned to make sense of family legends.

This is the same with history and religions. If I had my own room to use as a study, it would look like a Hollywood detective office. Many of the stories, legends, and religious writings humans have written seem really crazy. But now and then they point us towards the truth. At the very least they give us hints about what really happened. Studying these stories does leave me with many questions. (Why is the serpent the most popular deity in religions? Why did pyramid construction around the world start around the same time? Why does almost every culture have a flood story? And oddly enough, why do so many cultures speak of encounters with a bigfoot type creature?).

While trying to keep an open mind, I do find that from a religious standpoint I do find the biblical accounts of the creation of the universe to be the least ridiculous of them all. But when I look into the different sciences, I see a different story from what I learned in college. It looks like the universe began similar to how the Bible said it did. But when it comes to life on earth, I would have to say the Bible is leaving us with questions. But to be fair, so is the theory of evolution. It looks like life began as complicated life forms and began VERY fast. Then there was an extinction event. Then life quickly flourished. Then another extinction event. And then life flourished again and so on. This evolutionary tree of life that Darwin mentioned? It doesn't exist. There is no tree with species branching off of it. It looks like life HAPPENED but didn't evolve. We see species of an elephant that lives and DOES NOT change over thousands of years. Then it goes extinct. Then another species of elephant shows up. It lives for thousands of years. Then it dies off. So if I objectively look at the history of our earth, we are missing a gigantic puzzle piece for solving the mystery of the history of life on earth.

I don't expect anyone to agree with my opinions. But it appears that many of you have open minds and some interesting backgrounds. So I'm sure you're used to hearing odd takes on life. All I know is that I have never met a human being with all of the answers and that hundreds of years from now people are going to laugh at how ignorant and stupid we are today.

 

[Thomas]

So in a world where G!d exists theology is science?

What is science?

From https://www.etymonline.com/word/science
From about the 14th century, it can be said to be "knowledge acquired by study; information."
Theology ticks that box.

Two centuries earlier: "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" from the Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness."

The Oxford English Dictionary notes that the oldest English sense of the word now is restricted to theology and philosophy!

A more specific definition, of a "collective human knowledge" – especially gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning. The modern (restricted) sense, of a "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation" appears arounf the 18th century, although commonly applied to philosophy.

The predominant modern use, "natural and physical science," generally restricted to study of the phenomena of the material universe and its laws, is by mid-19c.

So, I guess in the modern, restrictive sense, 'science' means that which can be validated by empirical study and demonstration. Somehow, everything else is no longer science, but at best speculation and at worst, superstition.

Somehow, having dazzled ourselves with technology, we assume that 'science' moreover holds the higher ground, that 'science' is the benchmark of truth ...

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

What strikes me is how often scientists readily admit that breakthroughs follow no scientific process whatsoever, but occur 'out of the blue' in flashes of insight, intuition and inspiration – agreed, the scientists needs the background to make the leap, but the obvious conclusion to the issue is there's more to being human than good lab practice.

So could astologyology be the science of studying astrology?

I'd say 'no longer', because it's basic premise has been thrown into doubt. But that's provisional on my part, I don't know enough.

The same cannot be said for theology, however.

 

[OupaPiet]

All I know is that we are not as smart as we think we are. I have recently become addicted to solving ancestral mysteries for families. If I could somehow figure out a way to make a nice profit out of the practice, I would definitely quit my job and start investigating. It all started with me finally figuring out most of my wife's family mysteries. I had a name, and that was it. And now I have found many lost family members and united families. Why do I mention this? Because most of the facts I encountered were found because I read between the lines and learned to make sense of family legends.

This is the same with history and religions. If I had my own room to use as a study, it would look like a Hollywood detective office. Many of the stories, legends, and religious writings humans have written seem really crazy. But now and then they point us towards the truth. At the very least they give us hints about what really happened. Studying these stories does leave me with many questions. (Why is the serpent the most popular deity in religions? Why did pyramid construction around the world start around the same time? Why does almost every culture have a flood story? And oddly enough, why do so many cultures speak of encounters with a bigfoot type creature?).

While trying to keep an open mind, I do find that from a religious standpoint I do find the biblical accounts of the creation of the universe to be the least ridiculous of them all. But when I look into the different sciences, I see a different story from what I learned in college. It looks like the universe began similar to how the Bible said it did. But when it comes to life on earth, I would have to say the Bible is leaving us with questions. But to be fair, so is the theory of evolution. It looks like life began as complicated life forms and began VERY fast. Then there was an extinction event. Then life quickly flourished. Then another extinction event. And then life flourished again and so on. This evolutionary tree of life that Darwin mentioned? It doesn't exist. There is no tree with species branching off of it. It looks like life HAPPENED but didn't evolve. We see species of an elephant that lives and DOES NOT change over thousands of years. Then it goes extinct. Then another species of elephant shows up. It lives for thousands of years. Then it dies off. So if I objectively look at the history of our earth, we are missing a gigantic puzzle piece for solving the mystery of the history of life on earth.

I don't expect anyone to agree with my opinions. But it appears that many of you have open minds and some interesting backgrounds. So I'm sure you're used to hearing odd takes on life. All I know is that I have never met a human being with all of the answers and that hundreds of years from now people are going to laugh at how ignorant and stupid we are today.

Thanks for your input.
And I can see that you read a lot and are curious about the questions of origins.

And I think what I am going to tell you will enhance your thinking to other dimensions.
Just a small note, once I gave you my story, I will also give you my observation on the age of LIFE on earth. But that for later.

Yes, Zakir Naik is a snake and a liar, but when I was watching 2006 to his video dd. 2000, at Univ. Chicago, Zakir Naik was perhaps the most popular Muslim scholar in the Muslim world. He had more acclaim than Ahmad Deedad from South Africa, and that says a lot!

I decided, that time as an atheist, that I will take one small claim he made about science, and I will see if the Quran really says what he claimed.
This will be sort of a mini test to begin with.
I remembered how Naik explained that the Sun is a radiating light, and the Moon only a reflecting light. How amaizing was the Quran, and how poorly did the Bible describe the 2 different sources of light of the Sun and the moon.
I checked his references in a Quran I received from the Islamic Propagation Center International (IPCI) and funny enough I could not find what he said.
I then visited an Islamic Bookshop, and bought all the books discussing anything about the Bible, Science, and science in the Quran. I remember the Indian Muslim smiling as he rang up hundreds of dollars of books. I even bought the Hadith al Bukhari.

One of these books in particular caught my interest, and after reading most of it, I realized that this was the source of Naik's information.
It was maurice Buchaille, 'The Bible and Quran in relation to Science'. Even the name of the book was the same as the topic of Zakir Naik's debate with Dr Campbell.

And I got the references about the Moon reflecting the light from the Sun. (where Naik claimed that the Bible say the Moon has its own source of light).
I read Buchaille's book, and he continuously made the reference that the Quran is this incredible source of science that speaks about the reflection of light from the Sun, and how we will: "Search in vein for this scientific descriptions in the Bible"
Then he continued for 133 pages before he cane out with the following words after explaining that the word used for the Sun's light is a blazing torch, and the Moons' light a mere lamp!

"I was disgusted when I read these words from Maurice Buchaille on page 133.
"Agreed, this might be a verbal distinction ...(calling the light of the Sun a blazing torch and the Moon's light a lamp)...
But how as a man living in the desert 1400 years ago, supposed to explain the difference between the light of the Sun and the Moon, without getting confused!"

I was furious for being lied to with such blatant disregard to the intellect to all the people in Zakir Naik's audience, and everyone who will watch his videos that did not have the curiosity I had, of the pure luck to have found Buchaille's stupid book.

Anyhow, the story does not end here, it was the beginning of something incredible that would change my life forever.

I decided to go and check what the Bible said about the light of the Sun and Moon.

More later.

 

[wil]

Within the belief that God exists we have theology, the discussion about the belief God exists

So if we believe in elves we can have elfology, or if we believe in astrology we can discuss the nuances that differ in astrological beliefs

None of it makes it true, it is just discussion amongst believers, nothing wrong with that, I still don't buy it as science, even if it were to use scientific method within its paradigm

 

[Thomas]

Within the belief that God exists we have theology, the discussion about the belief God exists

So if we believe in elves ...

No. That's a flawed argument, my friend, and long ago done and dusted.

As long as humanity wonders, and as long as humanity wonders about that which lies outside the realm of empirical determination, then there is a place for philosophy, theology, metaphysics, ontology, and so forth.

As long as we insist everything must and can only be determined empirically be be 'real' or 'true', we're cutting ourselves off from a wider debate.

 

[wil]

Agree, I think you have convinced me it is not all science thou

 

[Aupmanyav]

As long as humanity wonders, and as long as humanity wonders about that which lies outside the realm of empirical determination, then there is a place for philosophy, theology, metaphysics, ontology, and so forth.

Does anything lie outside the realm of empirical determination?

 

[Thomas]

Does anything lie outside the realm of empirical determination?

I think so.

 

[Thomas]

Agree, I think you have convinced me it is not all science thou

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Just saying maybe I do not hold such a narrow definition of science as is the common norm.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Does anything lie outside the realm of empirical determination?

Yes .. we cannot observe what somebody else is thinking.
We cannot observe whether a tree experiences pain.

We can only make assumptions, based on our worldview.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science put probes into vegetation and brain and recorded reactions.
The day may not be very far when science merges machines and brain.

 

[wil]

Just saying maybe I do not hold such a narrow definition of science as is the common norm.

Words without meanings are meaningless eh?

The purpose of language is communication which achieved by everyone using the same definitions right? Otherwise we will argue what G!d, Christ, Trinity and science means for 2000 years! Lol

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

But before I start to give my story, Perhaps you would like to give me your point of view about the topic.
What do you think?

There is no doubt that the Quran is the Word of God and that the Bible is a sure spiritual guide.

The most amazing description I have seen to date, on the topic of creation, comes from the Baha'i Writings by Abdul'baha called the "Tablet of the Universe". It quotes the Quran in a few places.

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

bahai-library.com

It is a provisional translation.

The immensity of creation is mentioned from an Islamic tradition.

".....Consider the following well-known tradition and examine its meanings indicative of the vastness of the cosmos and its awesome limitless expanse: 'God, exalted be He, fashioned one hundred thousand, thousand lamps and suspended the Throne, the earth, the heavens and whatsoever is between them, even Heaven and Hell -- all of these in a single lamp. And only God knows what is in the rest of the lamps.' The fact that philosophers and sages have posited limits and restrictions for such matters is to be explained by the limitations of people~s minds and perceptions and the blindness of the followers of allusions, whose natures and intellects have been rendered dull and inanimate by the interposition of many veils...."

Imagine, all we currently know and can know of the creation that surrounds us, is but One Lamp of 100,000,000 lamps!

In other words, infinite.

The other great thing is, that all the worlds of God have their own creatures.

Regards Tony

 

[Thomas]

Words without meanings are meaningless eh?

All words have meanings? Whether people using the words understand the meanings is another point.

The purpose of language is communication which achieved by everyone using the same definitions right?

Ah, there's the rub!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Imagine, all we currently know and can know of the creation that surrounds us, is but One Lamp of 100,000,000 lamps!

Abdul Baha failed to mention the true expanse of the universe. 200 billion galaxies, on an average a 100 million stars in each galaxy, and Abudl Baha stops at just 100,000,000. Of course, he had no inkling about the expanse of the universe and neither as to how it got created. Where is heaven and where is hell (I thought Bahais do not believe in Heaven or Hell), and how come earth is the throne? Just a tiny planet of a tiny sun in a tiny galaxy. Well, what else can be expected of a person who never studied income earth is the throne? Just a tiny planet of a tiny sun in a tiny galaxy. Well, what else can be expected of a person who never went to a school!