Origins of the Quran/Islam - various academic perspectives

[sun rise]

That's total nonsense!
As I say, that means that a religious person cannot be a historian ..
I don't see any such thing in wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography

Personally I know of great histories about the rise of Islam, Islam in Spain and so forth written by Muslims. History includes what people believe and what that belief leads them to do.

What happens is that some promote scientism rather than science.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The fact that there is no supernatural methodology in the historical method shows that the supernatural is not even considered at all.

Is that right? Perhaps you'd like to show me some examples of what you are talking about..

 

[outhouse]

What happens is that some promote scientism rather than science.

Please provide an example. It should be easy for you to show an example.

 

[outhouse]

As I say, that means that a religious person cannot be a historian ..

Not what is being said.

Apologist are not historians, they are religious people writing religion. NOT history.


Some very good Christians and Jews are excellent historians.

 

[Shad]

Is that right? Perhaps you'd like to show me some examples of what you are talking about..

Go look up historical methods. The supernatural can not be verified at all thus is irrelevant. What matters is what people believed. For example many believed Alexander was a demi-god. However this belief does not make Alexander a factual demi-god as there can be no verification of his status, a union of a god and human producing an offspring nor evidence of said god in the mythology.

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~hexham/content/study/methods.html

 

[outhouse]

that people that already hold the conclusion that the Quran is NOT from God

History shows that not science. Its not a guess, it is knowledge.

Angels do not plagiarize other peoples religion, only people do that.


Angels do not tell mythology and tell people it was real history would they???

 

[Shad]

What happens is that some promote scientism rather than science.

And this is an example of people missing the point in that the supernatural is not a source that is useful in history which is different than what the people within the historical context believed.

1. God is the source of the Quran vs
2. People believe God is the source of the Quran.

I am talking about 1 not be acceptable while 2. is always considered. No historian worth their salt will conclude X is from God directly without a obvious religious bias involved.

 

[Shad]

History shows that not science. Its not a guess, it is knowledge.

History uses science when it comes to artifacts; dating, material used, etc. However this is secondary method used in combination with other methods. We need this to date many objects as per the Birmingham Quran.

 

[outhouse]

History uses science when it comes to artifacts; dating, material used, etc. However this is secondary method used in combination with other methods. We need this to date many objects as per the Birmingham Quran.

Understood.

My point in context was that we only need known history to show how he is wrong.

basically we don't need bullets in the gun to refute him, a sharp stick would be enough to topple his statements.

 

[Shad]

Understood.

My point in context was that we only need known history to show how he is wrong.

basically we don't need bullets in the gun to refute him, a sharp stick would be enough to topple his statements.

Always double-tab so you know they're dead, in this case the idea they support.

 

[sun rise]

Please provide an example. It should be easy for you to show an example.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientism has a good overview especially the section on usage by cranks of all kinds. From that page:

Six signs of scientism

Analytic philosopher Susan Haack lists what she considers six signs of scientism:[10]


1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.
2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.
3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific” imposters.
4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific method,” presumably to explain how the sciences have been so successful.
5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.
6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art.

Two more useful pages: https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/eleven-types-of-scientism/
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism

 

[outhouse]

2. People believe God is the source of the Quran.

And we all know people FACTUALLY believe a lot of mythology.


its obvious muhammads cousin who was a christian priest who did not like orthodox christianity, and WROTE religious text in Arabic based on the bible, mirrors what the koran is to a T.


And traditions place this heretical priest and muhammad together on many occasions. No angel required.

 

[sun rise]

And this is an example of people missing the point in that the supernatural is not a source that is useful in history which is different than what the people within the historical context believed.

1. God is the source of the Quran vs
2. People believe God is the source of the Quran.

I am talking about 1 not be acceptable while 2. is always considered. No historian worth their salt will conclude X is from God directly without a obvious religious bias involved.

I agree with #2 and along with that history covers the consequences of that belief. #1 is not provable or disprovable.

 

[outhouse]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientism

Sorry not credible.

 

[outhouse]

#1 is not provable or disprovable.

It is.

You would be insulting a god concept to claim number 1

Gods do not need to teach, plagiarized mythology.

 

[Shad]

I agree with #2 and along with that history covers the consequences of that belief. #1 is not provable or disprovable.

Which is why it is dismissed. History is soft with verification at times but doesn't ignore it completely.

 

[sun rise]

Sorry not credible.

You dismiss RationalWiki as not credible given its purpose. Clearly you are going to dismiss anything which you disagree with no matter what the source

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

 

[muhammad_isa]

History shows that not science. Its not a guess, it is knowledge..

Your arrogance is nauseating .. all you are doing is discrediting history as a subject. Fortunately, I'm not so stupid as to take much notice

I'm only discussing with you in a rational manner, but you continue to be extremely biased and illogical .. nevermind..

 

[outhouse]

You dismiss RationalWiki as not credible given its purpose. Clearly you are going to dismiss anything which you disagree with no matter what the source

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

What you don't realize, is that it helps me NOT YOU. In context it is talking about how YOU use it wrong.

I'm trying to help you, and you just do not understand the whole context of the page you produced.

It's an all-purpose, wild-card smear...It's the last refuge of the sceptic. When someone puts forward a scientific theory that they really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'.

 

[outhouse]

Your arrogance is nauseating

Om sorry you refuse knowledge. I'm sorry you refuse education and academic knowledge.

I could never get through to you no matter how good or factual my information is or was. I only reply to you, not to actually debate with you, JUST to point out the weakness of your arguments.




I could no more get a YEC Christian to accept the FACTS of evolution, then get you to accept academic knowledge.