I have seen this problem happening across all religions/sects. People use religious texts to validate scientific truths. Why cant religious texts confine themselves to religion alone and not delve into the scientific domain. I personally do not believe that religious texts contain scientific facts. If that was the case, why are interpretations being done after the scientists prove it. People validate this statement stating that the texts are obscure and all that. My point is that if any religious text contains unproven scientific facts, religious leaders should state them rather than claiming them after the scientific discovery is made..
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
dear headstrong, if you do not mind my asking, could you please tell me if you have read the quran in arabic?
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
No I have not and pardon me for asking this any reason for asking this ?
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
There are some verses which can be interpreted to show that science is discovering it now but it has been written long ago. It is interpreted after scientific discovery because before the discovery, the understanding of that particular verse is limited. We believe Qur'an to be the literal word of Allah, and science to be His actions. They both cannot contradict. We read the verses of Quran and then see Allah applying it in our daily lives. The word of Allah stands true even if the scientific discovery has not been made. It could very well be that the human intellect has not reached to a level where he could solve or rather discover some mysteries found in Quran. Allah cannot say anything which He cannot deliver. There's not a thing that science has discovered which contradict with the understanding of Quranic verses.
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
I have seen this problem happening across all religions/sects. People use religious texts to validate scientific truths. Why cant religious texts confine themselves to religion alone and not delve into the scientific domain. I personally do not believe that religious texts contain scientific facts. If that was the case, why are interpretations being done after the scientists prove it. People validate this statement stating that the texts are obscure and all that. My point is that if any religious text contains unproven scientific facts, religious leaders should state them rather than claiming them after the scientific discovery is made..
Say, Bible talked about cell phone technology. Would you have been able to interpret it 2,000 years ago?
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
Peace HeadStrong
The Holy Scripture of the Qur'an consists of certain styles of sentences - each are called 'sign' in Arabic. Ayah (singular), Ayaat (plural).
So what is a sign?
let's say I'm travelling to Karachi from Lahore by road ... In order to get there I follow the road signs. Some signs tell me which lane to get in, some tell me how far the place is I need to get to, but by reaching a signpost it does not mean I have reached my destination yet ... In the same way when we read and understand the ayaat of the Qur'an we must not confuse them with the destination of the meaning held behind them. So in this way although I agree with you science of the subject matter is not explained like a textbook, but to infer scientifically verifiable data can go against the signs of the Qur'an is false ... At least for a Muslim. In other words what is provable and proven to be true, it is impossible to show that the opposite is alluded to in the Qur'an.
Signs are of various categories and can occupy several at the same time:
Responses
Disclosures
Warnings
Encouragements
Narrative (Literal)
Metaphors
Instructions
Disclosures are a group of signs that provide information about what we previously did not know or realise. These can happen at subjective levels and objective levels. They can also be verifiable and non-verifiable.
Of the disclosures that are verifiable ... We see no problem in using science or relating to discoveries by science to show - as a sign - the verses are from God. As God must Know Truth.
Now the disclosure of Jinn ... We are told of their existing as unseen, so we cannot verify their existence, but for the creation of man, some aspects are verifiable and others are not. So let's study the verses (one of which is reproduced below) and see if it carries scientific compatibility ... And that is as far as we take it ... To realise that such information not being available in a previous era ... When the Qur'an was revealed is a 'sign' of its truth.
Surah 96: Sign (verse) 2
Sahih International translation
Created man from a clinging substance.
The word here is 'alaq ... It is like a planted growth that takes support and nourishment from the place it is appended to ... This is the dictionary definition. It has been used with reference to plants as well or even parasites ... Leeches clinging and drawing blood. It can also mean a congealing that a mixtures of liquids coagulates and sticks together.
If this statement is not scientific, (or let me say verifiable) then what type of statement is it? And by looking at the verse in this way ... What is inherently wrong in finding scientific congruency in the scriptures after the discovery is made scientifically?
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
You know the subject of this thread had initially taken me in a different direction … I thought it was asking about carbon dating old manuscripts … 
The thread title should read “Inspecting science into religious texts to demonstrate authenticity”
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
religious texts dont hold science or religious scholars would be top scientists. instead... they are the bottom of the rung in almost every religion.
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
religious texts dont hold science or religious scholars would be top scientists. instead... they are the bottom of the rung in almost every religion.
I don't think anyone is arguing the reverse ... The discussion is about whether religious scriptures should be stated as holding congruency with established science ... Not whether they can be used as a science revelation before it's time ... Although I do believe some people like the Arab polymaths in the past did exactly that ... Because they had a strong grasp of science and scripture. For example the Qur'an mentioning that the sun and moon are on their own fixed course inspired early Muslims to become astronomers, they needed to map the motion of such bodies and devised the astrolabe as a result. So although the Qur'an did not tell us how to build an astrolabe or how to measure the motion of the sun and moon, it did encourage us 'as a sign' to walk in that direction. The Qur'an tells us to ponder over creation. The fact is these days we don't even ponder over the verses ... The reason for the religious people not being scientifically inclined today is of two man causes. Materialism/consumerism ... Brighter minds choose to go into professions rather than religious clergy due to a greater emphasis on wealth rather than ethics. And secondly due to secularisation - science and religion are no longer studied alongside each other ... Whereas in the past that was the case ... So these days religion's flag bearers are cut off from science and other domains and are already lower than average in capability to pick themselves out of the consumer rut and hence settle as clergy on payrolls.
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
whoosh..
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
I have seen this problem happening across all religions/sects. People use religious texts to validate scientific truths. Why cant religious texts confine themselves to religion alone and not delve into the scientific domain. I personally do not believe that religious texts contain scientific facts. If that was the case, why are interpretations being done after the scientists prove it. People validate this statement stating that the texts are obscure and all that. My point is that if any religious text contains unproven scientific facts, religious leaders should state them rather than claiming them after the scientific discovery is made..
Agreed. This bothers me a lot because it really takes away from the scientists who devote their entire lives to study a phenomenon. If a discovery contradicts religious texts, it is simply dismissed. If it doesn't, then all credit is given to religious scholars and texts. Not fair because those scientists are probably more interested in the way God/nature works and have more to show for than those who just eat and breathe religious texts.
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
Agreed. This bothers me a lot because it really takes away from the scientists who devote their entire lives to study a phenomenon. If a discovery contradicts religious texts, it is simply dismissed. If it doesn't, then all credit is given to religious scholars and texts. Not fair because those scientists are probably more interested in the way God/nature works and have more to show for than those who just eat and breathe religious texts.
Actually I would argue the reverse is more prevalent ... Where has a discovery contradicted (hmm let's raise the bar high) an Islamic text and that discovery was dismissed?
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
No I have not and pardon me for asking this any reason for asking this ?
Thank you dear HeadStrong for your kind reply. In my view the quran makes better sense if one is aware of real world realities and the language of the quran. This way one can see the real truth instead of what others say about something because they may or may not be as aware of things as they should be what they are talking about. Not only that but also in this world full of deceit where each person tries to fool the others for personal gains, trust is a very difficult on what others may tell us.
You will agree that whatever we do not know ourselves for sure we need to have some tough criterion to judge by. Particularly when it comes to guidance of Allah.
Thanks again, regards and all the best.
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
religious texts dont hold science or religious scholars would be top scientists. instead... they are the bottom of the rung in almost every religion.
Dear brother queer, a very silly statement by you if I may say so. I mean when did you study the quran in context of real world realities that you found out that it is anything less than word of Allah?
It is not a valid excuse that mullahs did not do this or that so scriptures are useless. Do you only do whatever else you do just because others tell you? You do want to live and do your own thing every other way then why not also go out and do your own research on such an important issue as much as you can? If anyone does not do that himself such a person in my view has no validity in his claims.
My point is that all of us need to detach scriptures, mullahs and religions and then examine scriptures on their own and see what we get. If you studied scriptures that way then you will see the real truth in light of real world realities.
Mullahs and religions=make beliefs and useless rituals have buried the scriptural truth under tonnes of their rubbish. By mullahs I means professional priests put in place by rulers and establishments and backed by the money lenders or money dealer or business for profit people etc etc. They did that only and only for pushing the deen=way of life revealed by God out of their way in the very name of God. This is written in the quran and in the Bible as well as hindu scriptures themselves.
So long as we humans act like donkeys laden with books and do not make proper use of them to know about things we are faced with , we cannot claim anything for sure let alone give our verdicts on scriptures we never even bothered study them in their original tongues.
Science we talk about has its proper place with scriptural base because on its own it does not tell us answer to our real questions which only and only can be answered by scriptures. However to know scriptures we need help of science. It is a special relationship between revelation and real world realities based upon our own life experiences. Sense of making sense of things is chief in matters of judgement but once we have judged the truth about things through getting information about them and putting it together in a way that they make sense then we know for sure where we stand exactly. This awareness is missing from our sight which is why we are not living as a proper human community based upon guidance of our creator and sustainer. The day we become aware of things this way then we will come to know what is really going on before our eyes.
regards and all the best
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
Dear Theorist, you may find the following link helpful because it explains a lot of points that are important for us to know.
http://www.jangforum.net/index.php?PHPSESSID=q49fqk4jktgcutk3tfcg1t6fv3&topic=5206.0
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
Actually I would argue the reverse is more prevalent ... Where has a discovery contradicted (hmm let's raise the bar high) an Islamic text and that discovery was dismissed?
And I am not willing to argue at all. It doesn't matter what I say, you will come up with one interpretation after another that goes in your favor. There is always a work around for religious people to twist things to make it their own.
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
Agreed. This bothers me a lot because it really takes away from the scientists who devote their entire lives to study a phenomenon. If a discovery contradicts religious texts, it is simply dismissed. If it doesn't, then all credit is given to religious scholars and texts. Not fair because those scientists are probably more interested in the way God/nature works and have more to show for than those who just eat and breathe religious texts.
And I am not willing to argue at all. It doesn't matter what I say, you will come up with one interpretation after another that goes in your favor. There is always a work around for religious people to twist things to make it their own.
Peace Theorist
A work around is not a dismissal. I was asking for specifics so we can engage in a discussion based on facts ... I will be the first to admit dismissal on certain subjects ... so long as you can back up with which scientists said what and how much of his/her life was spent studying that phenomenon.
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
Peace Theorist
A work around is not a dismissal. I was asking for specifics so we can engage in a discussion based on facts ... I will be the first to admit dismissal on certain subjects ... so long as you can back up with which scientists said what and how much of his/her life was spent studying that phenomenon.
Nope, don't want to discuss it. There is Google. Use it. I am not going to provide you names of scientists who did what and for how long. Besides, I don't want another ban.
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
Say, Bible talked about cell phone technology. Would you have been able to interpret it 2,000 years ago?
Question is, did The Bible talk about cell phone technology? And that's OP'S point. Religious "interpreters" use circular logic to claim Everything that has been accomplished has been written in "Insert your Holy Book" here.
And some (or most) claim ONLY their Holy Book" is the one that correctly predicted ALL scientific discoveries and inventions.
Mind numbingly dumb may be the appropriate conclusion for such "headstrong" claims.
Re: Scientific validation of religious texts
Peace HeadStrong The Holy Scripture of the Qur'an consists of certain styles of sentences - each are called 'sign' in Arabic. Ayah (singular), Ayaat (plural). So what is a sign? let's say I'm travelling to Karachi from Lahore by road ... In order to get there I follow the road signs. Some signs tell me which lane to get in, some tell me how far the place is I need to get to, but by reaching a signpost it does not mean I have reached my destination yet ... In the same way when we read and understand the ayaat of the Qur'an we must not confuse them with the destination of the meaning held behind them. So in this way although I agree with you science of the subject matter is not explained like a textbook, but to infer scientifically verifiable data can go against the signs of the Qur'an is false ... At least for a Muslim. In other words what is provable and proven to be true, it is impossible to show that the opposite is alluded to in the Qur'an. Signs are of various categories and can occupy several at the same time: Responses Disclosures Warnings Encouragements Narrative (Literal) Metaphors Instructions Disclosures are a group of signs that provide information about what we previously did not know or realise. These can happen at subjective levels and objective levels. They can also be verifiable and non-verifiable. Of the disclosures that are verifiable ... We see no problem in using science or relating to discoveries by science to show - as a sign - the verses are from God. As God must Know Truth. Now the disclosure of Jinn ... We are told of their existing as unseen, so we cannot verify their existence, but for the creation of man, some aspects are verifiable and others are not. So let's study the verses (one of which is reproduced below) and see if it carries scientific compatibility ... And that is as far as we take it ... To realise that such information not being available in a previous era ... When the Qur'an was revealed is a 'sign' of its truth. Surah 96: Sign (verse) 2 Sahih International translation Created man from a clinging substance. The word here is 'alaq ... It is like a planted growth that takes support and nourishment from the place it is appended to ... This is the dictionary definition. It has been used with reference to plants as well or even parasites ... Leeches clinging and drawing blood. It can also mean a congealing that a mixtures of liquids coagulates and sticks together. If this statement is not scientific, (or let me say verifiable) then what type of statement is it? And by looking at the verse in this way ... What is inherently wrong in finding scientific congruency in the scriptures after the discovery is made scientifically?
Lot of text. Here is the highlight
"In other words what is provable and proven to be true, it is impossible to show that the opposite is alluded to in the Qur'an."
What a low bar you have set, sir. It is not enough to show beyond reasonable doubt that the Quran simply has not predicted all the scientific inventions. Now scientists must show that the OPPOSITE OF ALL INVENTIONS are alluded to in the Quran?
Seriously?