From: A. Satish Pai <Pai-Satish@CS.Yale.Edu> 
Subject: Re: Islam and Science  
Originator: pai@opal.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven CT 06520, USA
	<1992Sep30.045627.9543@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:54:17 GMT


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. 

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?

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. 

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?

[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. 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.]

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. 

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? 

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. 

SP> From a cosmological point of view there are no heavens and earth, just
SP> stars and some gas - the planets are really inconsequential. The use of
SP> these terms implies a very geocentric view.

SA> These stars and gas are part of the universe, right?

Right, but I wasn't quibbling about that - I just think it is strange for god
to be adopting such a localized geocentric view of "heavens and earth" when
talking about the cosmos. But then it is not for us to question his motives, I
suppose. :-( At best it seems inelegant, at worst it seems the description may
be inaccurate. 

SA>         Unit of Creation), before 	
SA>         We clove them asunder?  	

SP> Why the phrase "clove them asunder"? "Cleave" means to split, cut off, or
SP> sever. I see no support in descriptions of the Big Bang that there was some
SP> sort of giant cutting off of the material of the cosmos at any time.
SP> Rather, it seems to have been a (rather violent) expansion with subsequent
SP> formation of stars, galaxies etc. by gravitational forces. No cleaving of
SP> any sort. If anything, things (elementary particles) are coming together to
SP> form new things, not splitting apart.

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. 

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. 

SA>         Not then believe?
 
SP> Why should we believe this? There are a few statements being trotted out
SP> along with the insistence that we believe them. This is hardly the way to
SP> get someone to believe in something, I think.

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...)

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

I tried above. 

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? 

SP> PS: I have another question here, by the way. It is my understanding that
SP> Islam is very strictly monotheistic. Why then does god refer to himself in
SP> the plural by using "We" in the above verse? Is this just a linguistic
SP> device?  Is there any explanation for it?

SA> Yes, it's called English.  You see, in English we have something known as
SA> "the royal we."  That is why the translator chose to use that phrase.

Oh. I wanted to know if the verse was in plural in the original Arabic. 

-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.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------