From: Pai-Satish@CS.Yale.Edu (A. Satish Pai)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Islam and Science
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:28:25 GMT
	<1992Sep30.175426.16861@cs.yale.edu>
	<1992Sep30.203212.19138@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven CT 06520, USA
Originator: pai@opal.CS.Yale.Edu


SP == myself, SA == Shakil Ahmed.

SP> I often wonder why god doesn't actually do something like this, at least
SP> all or most of us nasty atheists will be convinced by such a tour_de_force
SP> by him.

SA> I don't really think he sees it as his responsibility to explain something
SA> which, to him, is obvious.  

*Everything* is obvious to him, if he is omniscient as claimed. In that case,
by your reasoning he shouldn't have explained _anything_ at any time, not even
in revelations to prophets. 

SA> And ultimately, since he has the power, he can bring all those to task who
SA> question the obvious.

"The obvious" to you is not so obvious to other people. If god has to punish
people who ask questions of something they do not understand he must be rather
insecure, besides being totallly cruel. Certainly doesn't sound like a god 
that is compatible with the spirit of science! 

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

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

True. But it's obviously not common to the two of us. In any case, I don't
believe that for matters such as this, majority rule is applicable. Science
would be nowhere if theories were designed by taking a vote from everyone.

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

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

But you wouldn't understand anything unless you had total faith in the 
religion of Alice_In_Wonderlandism! Once you believe in it, you will see
everything. No smiley. 

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...

SP> If the kid doesn't believe the colour pictures but wants some more
SP> explanations do you just tell him/her to take it or leave it, to believe it
SP> or not as s/he likes? Strange.

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

Oh, great! So now we have a situation where someone has honest doubts about
the metaphorical language used to explain something in the Quran, but then
the doubters are labelled "mentally challenged". Anything on which I don't
agree with you suddenly becomes "obvious" and I'm being dumb to not "under-
stand" it. Wonderful. What other methods of debate do you have up your sleeve?

[Do you really believe the atomic theory is "obvious" for an average kinder-
garten kid?]

SA> Again, the Qur'an is not a science book, 

And it's best to leave the situation like that, without going in and trying
to dig out science from it, IMHO. 

SA> but it does contain many references to scientific truths.  

No doubt it has some scientific truths. Most books probably do, whether
fiction or otherwise. The specific claim being debated was that the BB theory
is present in the Quran. I haven't seen it yet. 

SA> You are expecting to find all the answers in the one verse that I quoted.

Well, quote the others and we'll deal with them. 

SA> You ignore the dozens of other references I provided, but did not quote.
SA> If you're seriously interested in this, then you will check those
SA> references.  Otherwise, I have to conclude that you are interested only in
SA> ridiculing something you have not read or checked.

Since you claimed the BB theory is present in the Quran, I think you ought
to show us the verses and your explanation of why you think they indicate the
BB theory. 

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

Look, I can't read every book around to try and show that they _don't_ have
this or that marvellous theory. It's up to you to show that the theory is 
present in the book. By default I will assume that the BB theory is not in
my cookbook nor in my atlas, unless someone shows me something to the contrary.

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

I have read what you posted. My criticism was directed only at that, at your
explanations. I have neither read the Quran in its entirety, nor do I plan to
on the vague promise of finding indications of the BB theory in it. 

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

SP> I tried above. 

SA> And "tried" is the word!

In vain, yes. :-(

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

First the BB theory was in or supported by the Quran. Then the Quran was
_consistent_ with the BB theory. Now it seems that nobody has yet _found_
anything that contradicts the BB theory. How much weaker can you make your
assertions? 

-Satish

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: Pai-Satish@CS.Yale.Edu                       | A. Satish Pai
UUCP:     ...!{uunet,harvard,decvax,ucbvax}!yale!pai   |
Bitnet:   Pai@YaleCS                                   | +1 203 432 1217 [Off.]
Mail:     Box 2158, Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520  | +1 203 776 7069 [Res.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,