SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the don't-just-date-get-married dept.
Brian Booker writes at Digital Journal that carbon dating suggests that the Koran, or at least portions of it, may actually be older than the prophet Muhammad himself, a finding that if confirmed could rewrite early Islamic history and shed doubt on the "heavenly" origins of the holy text. Scholars believe that a copy Koran held by the Birmingham Library was actually written sometime between 545 AD and 568 [takyon: 568 and 645 AD, with 95.4% accuracy], while the Prophet Mohammad was believed to have been born in 570 AD and to have died in 632 AD. It should be noted, however, that the dating was only conducted on the parchment, rather than the ink, so it is possible that the quran was simply written on old paper. Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime, but instead collected texts and scripts that fit his political agenda.
"This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran's genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven," says Keith Small, from the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library. "'It destabilises, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged," says Historian Tom Holland. "and that in turn has implications for the history of Muhammad and the Companions."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:22AM
> Which is irrational.
It is neither rational nor irrational, it is outside of rationality.
Furthermore there are plenty of rational reasons to hold such beliefs - they help organize social structure, for one. If the foundations of your society can't be disproven then that's one less weakness in the social fabric. Build it on top of something that might change, like scarcity economics, and everything collapses if it does change.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:07AM
It is neither rational nor irrational, it is outside of rationality.
Yes, claiming that random nonsense is true when you have zero actual reason to believe so transcends rationality. Somehow.
If you care about truth, it is quite irrational. If you're mostly concerned with what makes you feel good, maybe it's okay for you to believe in some nonsense, but keep away from me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:05AM
> Yes, claiming that random nonsense is true
Versus random sense? Or ordered nonsense?
If you think believing in something you can't prove is the same thing as claiming it is true, then you are no better than the religious fundamentalist declaring that anyone who doesn't think like they do will go to hell.
Faith and fact are orthogonal, not opposed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @08:56AM
Of course you think it's true if you believe it, that's what it means to believe something. That there's no evidential or logical reason to think it's true is why it's irrational.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @12:58PM
uhm...I think you are wrong though:
When I have an hypothesis I tend to believe its like that (otherwise I would not coin it). Then I test it.
Sometimes it turns to be false.
Religious beliefs are just stuck in the hypothetical phase for ever, as they are (mostly) not testable.
Its not irrational. Perhaps futile though in a scientific sense. But people may have valid and useful reasons to believe in something, independent of whether it is either falsifiable or true.
I think people here are to quick to think that irrational things have no worth. You might as well ban all music just because you cannot find a rational reason why I believe a certain song is good.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:13AM
Invisible Pink unicorns then. Those are exactly as falsifiable as any god in that they have the same basic property, which is a lack of evidence in favor of existence. Which is easily explained away -- they have magical hiding capabilities that no sensors can defeat.
We have developed a way of thinking on top of language that is imperfect in some way. For example, that sentence I just wrote is ambiguous -- is it language, thinking, or both which are imperfect? I could fix it to make it clearer, but as is it is, it's pretty malleable. There are harder things to fix though, and it is in these stings of words or thoughts or both, that we can find religion. We can stuff all kinds of garbage into the gaps we have in our ability to express things accurately, like pink unicorns -- that our language makes it possible to for such phantasms to spring into existence from a lack of evidence, seems rather rather strange to say the least. That such formulations should be the guiding light of billions seems even stranger still. I don't know how to fix language, or thought, or whatever it is that makes the ludicrous seem possible or even a certainty, but the fact that such insanity can be derived from our language systems suggests a fundamental flaw in our ability to communicate, maybe even think.
(Score: 3, Funny) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:27AM
Invisible Pink unicorns then.
Here you go! [deviantart.com]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:39AM
Hot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:12AM
> Invisible Pink unicorns then.
Yes, and if it suits you, so what?
> That such formulations should be the guiding light of billions seems even stranger still.
That's reductive. It isn't the pink unicorns that are the guiding light, it is all the of the mythology built up around them that is the guiding light. The thing about all that mythology is that just like the pink unicorns it is all man made consensus and will be discarded if it is no longer useful.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:44AM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @06:33AM
> The problem with this premise is that is that it presupposes rational action by people who are willing to set rationality aside.
Again with the reductive analysis. Do you refuse to read fiction? Do you think there is nothing of value to be learned from fiction because its not fact?
> How much more slowly has our knowledge advanced because of faith?
All that presupposes that
(a) all that effort directed by the religious impulse didn't bring any benefits
(b) all that effort directed by the religious impulse would have been applied 'rationally'
> I would suggest it is vast and that the "man made consensus", far from being a positive force in human history, has only served to retard our understanding of the world.
Man made consensus is all that there is in the world. Well, at least as far as man is concerned. You are just deluding yourself by thinking everything is neatly separated between fact and faith. I was that way as a teenager once too, but then I asked myself - why is there such a universal human impulse towards religion, so much so that even atheists spend the majority of their lives taking things on faith? Why would a species evolve such a defining characteristic if it wasn't a useful survival trait? Come to grips with that question - don't even bother trying answer it here, I'm not asking for myself - and you will start to understand the human condition much better than you do now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @12:56PM
Do you think there is nothing of value to be learned from fiction because its not fact?
What have you learned from fiction that you could not have learned from fact?
All that presupposes that
(a) all that effort directed by the religious impulse didn't bring any benefits
(b) all that effort directed by the religious impulse would have been applied 'rationally'
If any of that effort had been applied rationally we would be at a net positive compared to right now.
why is there such a universal human impulse towards religion, so much so that even atheists spend the majority of their lives taking things on faith? Why would a species evolve such a defining characteristic if it wasn't a useful survival trait?
Just because it is a useful survival trait does not mean it is necessary. Personally I believe that faith is a side effect of the human condition. Humans are inquisitive and seek to learn more about themselves and their surroundings, this leads us to ask questions and to do our best to answer them. Religion sprang from a time where there were many questions and very few answers. In short, I think we made up religions to make us feel better about questions we cannot answer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:38PM
> What have you learned from fiction that you could not have learned from fact?
A hell of lot about the nature of people. The kind of stuff that would have taken lifetimes of living to learn in person.
> If any of that effort had been applied rationally we would be at a net positive compared to right now.
Really? Any? Here we are having an argument about being rational and you are resorting to hyperbole. Funny that.
> Just because it is a useful survival trait does not mean it is necessary
Strawman. The stripes on a zebra are not necessary, blue eyes are not necessary.
What I am getting from your post is denial of your own irrationality.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:51PM
I sense there's a lacuna in our modern culture, because children are no longer told the old-fashioned fairytales (not the modern sappy bowdlerized versions), nor the morality tales from the holy books e.g. the Bible. Instead, they get to position themselves in society, and find their own path in life, with Disney and a US$ 900 flamethrower, apparently. Goodluckwiththat...
I've inherited a "Reader's Digest" fairytale book from my grandfather, with translations fairly true to the original, and beautiful illustrations of beheadings, battles, children left to die from hunger etc.; somehow I think many modern *parents* would find it too scary to read aloud.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:36AM
How about something rational and good for the human race in the long term, like the straightforward "Don't be a Dick". Pretty much anything that just tends towards "Be nice to people" better than any organized religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:14AM
It is super appealing to the unsophisticated mind, but don't be a dick is insufficient whenever there is a conflict between two groups of people. Its great a as guideline, but it is woefully inadequate for dealing with real problems.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 01 2015, @03:16AM
It is neither rational nor irrational, it is outside of rationality.
And yet, you just spent an entire post rationalizing it...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:16AM
By that logic, anyone who studies religion must be religious.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:24PM
By that logic, anyone who studies religion must be religious.
Nope. Those people realize they are studying something irrational.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by kanweg on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:11AM
"Furthermore there are plenty of rational reasons to hold such beliefs - they help organize social structure, for one. "
Why not build a society on something that is true?
Bert
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:13PM
Because those things which we can have evidence on are not sufficient to build a society on them?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday September 01 2015, @09:01AM
Man goes on to prove that black is white and promptly gets himself killed on the next level crossing. -- Adams.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday September 01 2015, @09:04AM
Zebra crossing. Darned autocorrect...
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:51PM
It is neither rational nor irrational, it is outside of rationality.
I have to agree with with the other guy. Any such choice is inherently quite irrational. After all, you could be using your brain cells instead for something that matters rather than something that doesn't.