From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: Islam and Science  
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:32:12 GMT


In article <1992Sep30.175426.16861@cs.yale.edu>, A. Satish Pai <Pai-Satish@CS.Yale.Edu>  writes:

> SP == myself, SA == Shakil.
> 
> SA>         That the heavens and the earth 	
> SA>         Were joined together (as one 	
> 
> SP> What are the "heavens" and the "earth"? I see nothing in descriptions of
> SP> the Big Bang that refer to heavens and earth like this. Is this supposed to
> SP> be matter and energy? Gas and solid? What does it mean? Please do
> SP> elucidate.
> 
> SA> So you need a written invitation from God with all the ABC's of the
> SA> creation of the universe spelled out for you with little color pictures on
> SA> the side?  
> 
> Wow, that would actually be nice, I might start believing in him for a change. 
> I often wonder why god doesn't actually do something like this, at least all 
> or most of us nasty atheists will be convinced by such a
> tour_de_force by him.  

I don't really think he sees it as his responsibility to explain
something which, to him, is obvious.  And ultimately, since he has the
power, he can bring all those to task who question the obvious.

> SA> Let's see now, what could possibly be meant by "earth?"  Um, well, see, I
> SA> think it is this spherical kind of thing that we sorta live on, know what I
> SA> mean?
> 
> Oh, _that_ earth... :-) The earth was joined with the "heavens"??? What are the
> heavens, now? Are you telling me that the earth was physically, in its
> entirety, "joined" to some "heavens" at some time?

If they were one and the same thing, a cloud of dust for example, then
it isn't particularly difficult to see that they were, in fact, joined.

> SA> The Qur'an was revealed at a time when people had no concept of any of
> SA> these things you refer to today, so it had to be explained in terms that
> SA> they would understand.
> 
> That of course raises the question of how we can know that we are at the right
> stage where we know what the terms used "really" meant. No doubt people 200
> years ago had an interpretation of the verse which they thought was right, and
> no doubt they thought that they were far more advanced than the people who 
> were there when the verse was revealed, who had no concept of any of the things
> that these people knew. Their explanation then would have been completely 
> consistent with whatever theory of creation was in vogue then. 

Was it?  Why don't you tell us what the theory of creation then was,
and how it was consistent with the Qur'an and how the theory has
changed, but is still consistent with it.  Pure speculation like you
show here without factual basis is no basis for a reasonable debate.

> How do you know just how to interpret the terms, if you say you don't want to
> interpret them literally? The "common-sense" that guides you in interpreting
> it may be wildly different from someone else's common-sense. Are there any 
> rules laid out for how to decide when the Quran is not being
> literal?

You are right.  Of course people can interpret things differently.
That's why, despite the millions of books saying that the erth is
round, and the host of evidence available to support that theory,
there is still a Flat Earth Society.  That is true for *any* book.
But there is a reason why the word "common" is in "common sense," and
that is usually what is employed in interpreting *anything*.

> [I have no doubt at all that if tomorrow the BB theory is proved wrong, it will
> be revealed that the verse is actually consistent with the new theory, whatever
> it is. 

Again, speculation of this sort is no basis for a factual debate.

> If you look hard enough, I'm sure one can find all of physics in any of
> the religious books. Or in "Alice in Wonderland", if it is interpreted in the
> proper way. It's a question of seeing what you want to see.]

Why don't you prove that to us by showing how that can be done with
"Alice in Wonderland?"

> SA> You don't go and explain the atomic model to a kindergarten kid without
> SA> using some of those little color pictures that I speak of above...
> 
> If the kid doesn't believe the colour pictures but wants some more explanations
> do you just tell him/her to take it or leave it, to believe it or not as s/he
> likes? Strange. 

If the kid cannot understand the obvious, I would send him/her to a
school for the mentally challenged... (how's that for a PC term? :))

> SA> Heavens and earth refers to the universe and the fact that it was all
> SA> joined together is rather consistent with Big Bang theory, wouldn't you
> SA> say?
> 
> No, this sort of "consistency" is not enough for me. A null set of statements
> is also "consistent" with any theory you care to pick. Show me something in the
> Quran that _directly_ points towards the Big Bang or any other cosmological
> model.  "Heavens and earth were joined together" could mean any number of
> things based on how you interpret "heavens" and "earth". I don't see why one
> should attribute anything more to it than a very simplistic view of creation,
> such creation myths are present in most cultures - "god made the heavens and
> the earth" is about the most obvious thing one can say considering that one
> sees the "heavens and earth" out there. To say they were joined earlier is also
> not a very great leap of imagination, philosophers over the ages have been
> discussing such things. Unless you show me why the Quran verses should be taken
> to indicate the Big Bang specifically, and not just some simplistic, "it was
> all one, then god created everything" theory, I won't believe it is anything
> other than the latter. When one talks about the Big Bang, there are several
> very specific ideas that one is talking about. Does the Quran mention any of
> them? Does it talk about the energy levels, the elementary particles, symmetry
> breakdown, anything at all? Does it mention the present microwave background
> radiation? Even metaphorically? 

Again, the Qur'an is not a science book, but it does contain many
references to scientific truths.  You are expecting to find all the
answers in the one verse that I quoted.  You ignore the dozens of
other references I provided, but did not quote.  If you're seriously
interested in this, then you will check those references.  Otherwise,
I have to conclude that you are interested only in ridiculing
something you have not read or checked.

> SA> I never claimed it was a *description* of Big Bang theory.  All I claimed
> SA> was that it is *consistent* with Big Bang theory.  Maybe I should start
> SA> using some of those little colored pictures too...
> 
> It means next to nothing if you take something that says very little in the
> first place, interpret it in all sorts of fantastic ways, and then claim it is
> consistent with this or that. I see no reason why one should interpret "heavens
> and earth" as being anything other than the literal implication - a primitive
> view of the universe. 
> 
> You have 2 lines of a verse here, which is being claimed to be "consistent"
> with modern cosmological ideas. I'm sure you could dip into any book of
> mythology and find much more that is "consistent" with the BB theory. It just
> doesn't mean much to find such "consistency"... It is not significant, IMHO.
> You may differ, and I think this is at the root of this argument - how much
> significance to attach to such things. 

IMHO you should actually read what it is you are criticizing before
you attempt it.

> SA> If everything was together at one instance in time, and then there are
> SA> seperate entities, it is not particularly difficult to see that the word
> SA> "cleave" can apply rather well here.
> 
> I don't know, but "cleave" isn't the word I would choose to describe the 
> accretion of matter into stars or other bodies under gravity. It's more a 
> coming-together rather than a splitting apart, and this happened well after
> the initial expansion. Well, I don't want to quibble over the meanings of 
> individual words here, I've explained why I don't think the whole thing is
> significant above. 

What word you choose may be relevant to your poetic abilities, but
does not change the meaning of the phrase.

> SA>    We made them from water 	 Every living thing.
> 
> Sorry, I didn't realize the line with "water" referred to the living beings.
> So that means there were essentially only two lines of the verse that
> purportedly refer to the Big Bang. Do you have any others??? This seems rather
> slim evidence for any knowledge of the BB theory in the Quran. 

You either missed the whole thread of articles on this (much of it was
on SCP -- dunno if it was cross-posted) or you're deliberately
ignoring the other references.

> SA> Did I ask you to believe this?  All I said is that this is what the Qur'an
> SA> says.  I distinctly remember saying that whether you want to believe it or
> SA> not is your problem.
> 
> True, you didn't ask me to believe it. I was talking about the verse itself. 
> It sure seems like the verse is aimed at making unbelievers believe by repeated
> rhetorical questions of the form, "Will they not then believe?". I was just
> remarking that this is not a particularly efficient way of convincing people.
> (Sure hasn't convinced me...)

Again, whether you're convinced or not isn't my problem.  My
difference with you lies in your critcisms of something you clearly
have not read.

> SA> Perhaps you can explain why you read something different from what I
> SA> posted?
> 
> I tried above. 

And "tried" is the word!

> SA> Good.  Because the original claim was that the Qur'an is not compatible
> SA> with science.  A claim like that needs to be substantiated.
> 
> Regarding this original claim, perhaps you'd at least agree that if one
> believes in the Quran, one will tend not to explore ideas in science that 
> _seem_ to be in contradiction to what the Quran says, and to that extent 
> you will not have a totally unbiased approach... (I hasten to add that this
> in no way means that non-Islamic scientists are totally unbiased!!!) For
> instance, take the same verse above - surely a believer will not tend to 
> explore any cosmological creation theory that does _not_ have heavens and
> earth joined together, for instance the Steady State theory? I don't know
> how much the Quran talks about physics or chemistry and related matters,
> but wherever it propounds a view of how the material world works, is it not
> making it difficult for scientists who believe in it to explore opposing 
> views? 

Nope.  You see, scientists are free to investigate whatever they want.
What I am saying is that they haven't found anything that
*contradicts* the Qur'an yet.

-- Shakil Ahmed
=======================================================================
Dept. of Computer Science     INTERNET: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu
P.O. Box 2158, Yale Station   BITNET  : ahmed-shakil@yalecs.bitnet
New Haven, CT 06520-2158      UUCP    : {ucbvax,harvard,...}!yale!ahmed
=======================================================================