My favourite scientific contradiction in the Quran

[ManSinha]

If you think you are master of your own scripture and also equipped to question scriptures of other religions, then go ahead.

I am not a "master" by any stretch of imagination - I have, as they say, as many flaws as the ocean contains droplets of water - and yes to question what I disagree with is my right.

The Mahabharata war was seen by someone Sanjay’s) and told to Dhritarashtra. The tales of Shri Krishna, including the Gita, is in the category of smriti, which means ‘remembered’. The Vedas, on the other hand, is in the category of ‘Sruti’, which means ‘Heard’ in meditation space. The latter is infallible and is considered ‘aupaurusheya’ — not from humans. You may not know this difference.

I know the difference just fine - I have studied those texts from my childhood and am very conversant with them

Do you think that in matters of God, critical evaluation is so easy?

It has been made easi-er by the likes of the gurus who have distilled the knowledge down for us to try and study. There are plenty of those that you can choose from Sankaracharya, Kabir and Guru Gobind Singh for a very small sample. And you are going off on a tangent - no one is critically analyzing the divine. All I am questioning is books purported to be written by or in the name of the supreme being that contain questionable practices and instructions that fly in the face of commonly accepted morality. If you say "well morality was different when they were written" then you are making my case for me. They are not relevant anymore.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

it takes introspection and meditation to comprehend scripture

And this is a big problem. You're basically using flowery language (calling it "introspection" and "meditation") to describe the fact that the things in these texts are entirely up for interpretation. Meaning anyone can glean from them whatever they want. Can you imagine if the actual useful, technical disciplines operated in this way? For example, an electrician reads a manual on how to install a complex series of junction boxes, and in that manual is a bunch of lovely, poetic prose that only tangentially has anything to do with the task he must complete. May as well hang up the towel. And that's what religion has going for it. A bunch of stuff that sounds nice, but has no actual technical power or prowess. And you basically have no choice but to let each person have their own interpretation, lest your own be called into question and discarded along with ALL of them.

 

[atanu]

Where was Aurangzeb when he invoked the Qu'ran and ordered the slaughter of Sambhaji and Guru Tegh Bahadur?
Where was Muhammad Ghazni when he called Indians infidels and plundered their lands and made slaves of their people?

A book that allows its adherents to commit such unspeakable atrocities that you, of many people, should be well aware of - is not content to be respected IMO let alone revered.

Find me one sentence - one sentence in the Gita that speaks ill of others or asks people to strike down disbelievers

Your respect is misplaced IMO

I call it like I see it - if you want to be respectful - be my guest - but take your own advice - read through the entire scripture that you purport to revere and respect and then come on here and pontificate.

Have you read of Visvarupa of Shri Krishna? It is a fearful form. All is food to Him. Have you seen iconography of Mother kAli? Blood dripping from her tongue?

@ManSinha, we do not know everything. I mean well.
...

 

[ManSinha]

Have you read of Visvarupa of Shri Krishna

Yes - and not meant for human senses as said by Arjuna

ihaika-sthaṁ jagat kṛitsnaṁ paśhyādya sa-charācharam
mama dehe guḍākeśha yach chānyad draṣhṭum ichchhasi

Behold now, Arjun, the entire universe, with everything moving and non-moving, assembled together in my universal form. Whatever else you wish to see, observe it all within this universal form.

nabhaḥ-spṛiśhaṁ dīptam aneka-varṇaṁ
vyāttānanaṁ dīpta-viśhāla-netram
dṛiṣhṭvā hi tvāṁ pravyathitāntar-ātmā
dhṛitiṁ na vindāmi śhamaṁ cha viṣhṇo

O Lord Vishnu, seeing your form touching the sky, effulgent in many colors, with mouths wide open and enormous blazing eyes, my heart is trembling with fear. I have lost all courage and peace of mind.

Have you seen iconography of Mother kAli? Blood dripping from her tongue?

Yes and in the grand scheme of things it matters not for as the Lord says -

etad-yonīni bhūtāni sarvāṇītyupadhāraya
ahaṁ kṛitsnasya jagataḥ prabhavaḥ pralayas tathā

Know that all living beings are manifested by these two energies of mine. I am the source of the entire creation, and into me it again dissolves.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

A book that allows its adherents to commit such unspeakable atrocities, in the name of its author and creator that you, of many people, should be well aware of - is not content to be respected IMO let alone revered.

This is the way I see contradictions arise bith Scientific and Spiritual. I see no writings from God that allow any person to commit unspeakable atrocities. I see those writings warn us against doing such things, I see they ask us to find a unity of action in science and faith.

As to unspeakable atrocities committed under a name of religion, Baha'u'llah offered it this way; "'My captivity,' he wrote on another occasion, 'cannot harm Me. That which can harm Me is the conduct of those who love Me, who claim to be related to Me, and yet perpetrate what causeth my heart and My pen to groan.' And again: 'My captivity can bring on Me no shame. Nay, by My life, it conferreth on Me glory. That which can make Me ashamed is the conduct of such of My followers as profess to love Me, yet in fact follow the Evil One.'

So what you see is those that follow self interests in the 'Name' of all that is good, but are in fact doing the opposite of what was asked of them, they choose the darkness over the light. Just because they veiled themselves, does not mean another has to veil themselves from the Light and Truth that does shine from each of the Holy Scriptures.

Regards Tony

 

[ManSinha]

Baha'u'llah offered it this way; "'My captivity,' he wrote on another occasion, 'cannot harm Me. That which can harm Me is the conduct of those who love Me, who claim to be related to Me, and yet perpetrate what causeth my heart and My pen to groan.' And again: 'My captivity can bring on Me no shame. Nay, by My life, it conferreth on Me glory. That which can make Me ashamed is the conduct of such of My followers as profess to love Me, yet in fact follow the Evil One.'

There you go - quoting useless grandiloquent verses which have absolutely no meaning outside of the experience of the life of the individual - read up about the following people especially the period at the end of their lives

1. Chatrapati Sambhaji Raje
2. Banda Singh Bahadur
3. Bhai Taru Singh
4. Bhai Mati Das

and then come back and spin those fanciful words - it is one thing to be tossed in prison - what these individuals endured is far different - and there are scores more examples.

It is easy to say "They choose darkness" you are eluding the question - why did the all powerful "Allah" not stop them simply by changing their hearts? Answer me if you can. If you say - they will be dealt with by Allah in the afterlife - that is hogwash - there is no proof - just your pathetic way of trying to weasel out of an impossible situation.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

There you go - quoting useless grandiloquent verses which have absolutely no meaning outside of the experience of the life of the individual - read up about the following people especially the period at the end of their lives

1. Chatrapati Sambhaji Raje
2. Banda Singh Bahadur
3. Bhai Taru Singh
4. Bhai Mati Das

and then come back and spin those fanciful words - it is one thing to be tossed in prison - what these individuals endured is far different - and there are scores more examples.

It is easy to say "They choose darkness" you are eluding the question - why did the all powerful "Allah" not stop them simply by changing their hearts? Answer me if you can. If you say - they will be dealt with by Allah in the afterlife - that is hogwash - there is no proof - just your pathetic way of trying to weasel out of an impossible situation.

You have read a lot into what I did not say.

We choose to see light, or we choose to pursue the darkness. God gives us that free will, there is no compulsion in religion is a truth in the Koran.

I ask, what does your reply pursue?

Regards Tony

 

[ManSinha]

You have read a lot into what I did not say.

Like what?
And I noticed you did not answer my questions either - as usual when confronted with facts and reason - you run away or hide behind flowery grandiloquent gobbledegook which means less than nothing - why do you not admit the obvious - your professed faith has nothing new to offer based on what was available in Sanatana Dharma - and we shall leave it at that. Stay happy in your delusion if you will - but do not profess to preach to others (as you are prone to do)

there is no compulsion in religion is a truth in the Koran.

How do you explain Surah 3:85?

 

[danieldemol]

Because other than Lord Krishna - god does not talk to humans - he was the last one that spoke directly IMHO - and the evidence is overwhelming against a god dictated piece of content for anything else given all the errors and omissions and contradictions

At the risk of derailing this thread, you appear to be engaging in special pleading here. The Hindus historically had an open cannon till after the time of Queen Victoria. Which means that you have to date the sections of scripture to know what is from pre-Islamic times. Thus the failure of pre-Islamic Hindu scriptures to mention Islam explicitly is as much of an omission as the Quran's failure to mention Hinduism explicitly. If you are arguing that an All-Knowing God should have mentioned the major world religions that is, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying.

 

[danieldemol]

IMO:
I do not expect perfection in a Scripture revealed to humanity by God using a medium

So, I disagree, that this is reason enough to reject any claims to its divine authorship...

I have no problem with the idea that God inspires people through their own imperfect lense of the individual medium in question.

As such I suppose I could have re-worded the extract to better reflect my own individual ideas, however with respect to the idea that the scriptures are infallibly transmitted by an omniscient God the intro from the skeptic's website does a sufficient job of refuting the idea in question.

 

[danieldemol]

No. I meant ‘opposers of different religion/s’ who themselves cannot see beyond literalism.

I can understand petty objections from atheist-materialists since their perspective is materialist — they imagine the body to be the source of consciousness.

But I have also seen the religious find fault in each others’ scriptures. In my opinion, mature spiritual persons will ask for explanation rather than demean another scripture. In every scripture there are things that are not understandable from a materialistic perspective and it takes introspection and meditation to comprehend scripture...

I don't see it as demeaning to scriptures to discuss any apparent flaws. If they do have some hidden meaning the only way to find it is by objecting to it's outward interpretation anyway. Also there may be evidence that an inner meaning was never intended by the author. It would not be in the interests of open, honest and thorough investigation of scripture to suppress such honest enquery.

Furthermore, who here has read any scripture in full?.

I have to echo @ManSinha here, you speak for yourself. I have read the Quran from cover to cover, as well as the Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Like what?
And I noticed you did not answer my questions either - as usual when confronted with facts and reason - you run away or hide behind flowery grandiloquent gobbledegook which means less than nothing - why do you not admit the obvious - your professed faith has nothing new to offer based on what was available in Sanatana Dharma - and we shall leave it at that. Stay happy in your delusion if you will - but do not profess to preach to others (as you are prone to do) How do you explain Surah 3:85?

By understanding what it is saying to me about our spiritual selves. The Quran shows us that Muhammad in reality brings all the Religions since time began and Baha'u'llah supports this concept. Muhammad is the voice, the Word Recited, that God gives in every age, through all of Gods Messengers, in All of God's Names.

As such when we turn to all of Gods Messengers we fulfil this verse in out hearts; "And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers."

As such Islam is practiced in every age God gives the Chosen Messenger. As we know Islam is an Arabic word meaning "submission" and in the religious context means "submission to the will of God"

Regards Tony

 

[danieldemol]

As for the mysterious letters in Quran, it's honestly for our pleasure and reflection. It's not necessary to know the meaning to be guided.

Thanks for sharing your interpretation Link,

I do prefer metaphorical interpretations of the Quran, because they seem to admit at least implicitly that if interpreted outwardly the scriptures contradict science in certain places, which alleviates the danger of science denial to a degree.

But I have to wonder if metaphor was always intended, or whether it came about after as a result of people's attempts to rationalise the scriptures. For example, if the sky here refers to an esoteric mystery, why would the unbelievers speak as though they were initiates of the mystery (ie why would the unbelievers refer to a fallen piece of the sky as "clouds"?)

Also, this brings us back to the point raised in the intro about the fact that the Quran makes no obvious distinction between it's metaphors and common unscientific misconceptions of the peoples of seventh centruy Arabia, so if this contradiction is just a metaphor, how do you know that when the Quran contradicts science elsewhere with it's reference to people being raised from the dead etc that it is not also a reference to some esoteric mystery?

Kind regards.

 

[Notanumber]

I see Allah warns of our ignorance by stating the consequences of it.

Yet we still post our ignorance of such topics, saying we know more than God Given and inspired Scripture.

We are living with those consequences and in our ignorance, are fulfilling the scriptures that have warned us this will happen.

Regards Tony

Does he need to be so mean spirited?

 

[atanu]

I don't see it as demeaning to scriptures to discuss any apparent flaws. If they do have some hidden meaning the only way to find it is by objecting to it's outward interpretation anyway. Also there may be evidence that an inner meaning was never intended by the author. It would not be in the interests of open, honest and thorough investigation of scripture to suppress such honest enquery.

Yeah. I said that I am sure you will guide this thread to a thread of learning -- steering it clear of 'my versus your' theme.

I have to echo @ManSinha here, you speak for yourself. I have read the Quran from cover to cover, as well as the Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq.

This is not unexpected. I asked, "Furthermore, who here has read any scripture in full?" I am glad that you have read Holy Quran fully. Yet, although my query was not directed at any particular person's erudition, both of you took it personally and re-directed the question at me.

I also welcome your pointer to me as to my erudition. I acknowledge that I am not well-read. I, from heart, believe and try to act as per the following verses (and many other verses) of Shiva Mahima Strotram (Praise of Lord Shiva).

Shiv Mahimna Stotram - Text 2
Your greatness is beyond the reach of mind and speech. Who can properly praise that which even the Vedas describe with trepidation, by means of’ ‘neti-neti / not this, not this’? How many qualities does He possess? By whom can He be perceived? Yet whose mind and speech do not turn to the form later taken by Him (saguna).

Shiv Mahimna Stotram - Text 32
O Lord, if the black mountain be ink, the ocean the inkpot, the branch of the stout wish-fulfilling tree a pen, the earth the writing leaf, and if taking these the Goddess of Learning writes for eternity, even then the limit of Your virtues will not be reached.

...
​

Best

 

[stvdv]

I have no problem with the idea that God inspires people through their own imperfect lense of the individual medium in question.

As such I suppose I could have re-worded the extract to better reflect my own individual ideas, however with respect to the idea that the scriptures are infallibly transmitted by an omniscient God the intro from the skeptic's website does a sufficient job of refuting the idea in question.

Yes, many religious people make claims as "my scripture is perfect without any flaw". This is so easy to prove wrong (you only need to find 1 flaw; and it's kind of hard "not to see them"), that I can't understand such religious people, having google, still make this "not smart" claim.

Always when there is a medium involved, there is impurity (esp. in Kali Yuga). And even more when there is more delay then 1h writing it down.

Even when God would come to earth, we still hear it with our own impure mind, so the message won't be pure. Unless God would write it down.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Unless God would write it down.

Still people would refute the accuracy of the Word, first people would have to accept that it is God writing it and I am yet to see mankind enmasse, accept that is the case

It is really a no win situation

Regards Tony

 

[ManSinha]

perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying.

Yes you are - totally so - that is exactly my point - scriptures only mention what came before - proof that they are not from an all knowing god who would deign to predict the future - which is why I am so harsh on the gobbledegook peddled by the likes of @Tony Bristow-Stagg and @Trailblazer

Thus the failure of pre-Islamic Hindu scriptures to mention Islam explicitly is as much of an omission as the Quran's failure to mention Hinduism explicitly

But that is partly the point @danieldemol - there were people living along the Indus river worshipping their chosen deities at the time Muhammad preached his message and there is no mention of them. Hence my question of the Qu'ran's claim. It is not before - rather it is contemporary to the time when the Qu'ran was compiled.

The Gita does not predict anything - if you read it, it is all about the devotee and his/her lord - I mentioned Lord Krishna tongue-in-cheek

 

[ManSinha]

As such when we turn to all of Gods Messengers we fulfil this verse in out hearts; "And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers."

As such Islam is practiced in every age God gives the Chosen Messenger. As we know Islam is an Arabic word meaning "submission" and in the religious context means "submission to the will of God"

As usual you are running away from the obvious - it is openly a condemnation of those that would refuse to acknowledge Islam - which actually includes you @Tony Bristow-Stagg - so you better watch out "Allah" may be coming for your immortal soul. And don't bother replying - you never address the issue - merely sidestep it with flowery nonsense - I am done talking with you on here.

Still people would refute the accuracy of the Word, first people would have to accept that it is God writing it

That is a load of hogwash - as I indicated - not all people are as gullible as you would have them be - some actually have the wherewithal to question unreasonable claims. God does not have a body so god does not write anything. That is a faith based belief and dare I say an unreasonable one. Now if you say god-inspired I might cut you some slack but not for the grandiose flowery nonsense you peddle.

 

[Link]

Thanks for sharing your interpretation Link,

I do prefer metaphorical interpretations of the Quran, because they seem to admit at least implicitly that if interpreted outwardly the scriptures contradict science in certain places, which alleviates the danger of science denial to a degree.

But I have to wonder if metaphor was always intended, or whether it came about after as a result of people's attempts to rationalise the scriptures. For example, if the sky here refers to an esoteric mystery, why would the unbelievers speak as though they were initiates of the mystery (ie why would the unbelievers refer to a fallen piece of the sky as "clouds"?)

Also, this brings us back to the point raised in the intro about the fact that the Quran makes no obvious distinction between it's metaphors and common unscientific misconceptions of the peoples of seventh centruy Arabia, so if this contradiction is just a metaphor, how do you know that when the Quran contradicts science elsewhere with it's reference to people being raised from the dead etc that it is not also a reference to some esoteric mystery?

Kind regards.

A verse in isolation will always have multiple interpretations and meaning. However, if you let words contextualize words as you do with everyone else, with Quran, there is only one interpretation possible with all verses.

The only difficulty with Quran in this regard, is due to the sorcery on it. See for example Suratal Hijr, just read it from the start and keep mindful of the words sky in beginning and later. Once that has an impact, the rest of the Quran reminds of it in many places.