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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:14AM
Believing literally in something that has been falsified is irrational.
So is believing something you have no actual reason to believe is true, if you care about truth and well-being. I think that most people would claim to care about both, would you not?
Otherwise, if a belief is helpful and hasn't been falsified, why not.
You assume that believing something that you don't know to be true can be helpful. Who is more likely to succeed in life (in terms of well-being, for instance): Someone who strives to believe in true things, or someone who is willing to believe false things if it makes them feel good? I value truth in and of itself, but I would still say that people who don't realize that drinking poison is a bad idea will likely meet their end quite quickly. Even if a false belief seems innocuous, it can affect your thinking in ways you might not even perceive, and make you willing to do harmful things you otherwise wouldn't.
Where are all these religious people who claim to believe something merely because it benefits them in some secondary way? Almost all would claim to believe it because they think it is the truth, not because it makes them feel good or something such as that.
Science does that as well (it's called a model).
Science has no beliefs, as it is not a thinking being.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 01 2015, @03:40AM
The ones that are able to believe false things which bring profit to them and make others happy.
At least by some very current definitions of success.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:01AM
Science has no beliefs, as it is not a thinking being.
Naturally, I meant scientists in the course of practicing science, but you knew that, didn't you?
So do you have iron clad proof for everything you believe? Do you believe that when you get to work in the morning that the building will still be there? It's a useful belief since it will keep you from being fired, but can you PROVE it?
At the most fundamental level, you cannot prove that any of your sensory experiences are real. You cannot prove that your memories are real. In fact, the former are likely distorted and not exactly what others (if they exist) perceive and the latter is well known to distort over time. But you choose to act as if it's all true.
In times of danger, many people have found that believing someone or some thing they can't see watching out for them has allowed them to calm down enough to think their way out of the situation. That seems pretty useful to me.
There is evidence that believing or even just imagining that someone is watching helps people to act in accordance with their morals and ethics. That, in turn protects their self esteem and protects them from harmful consequences.
Sincere belief in a placebo can cure real diseases, even ones we have no actual medication for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:21AM
> Someone who strives to believe in true things, or someone who is willing to believe false things if it makes them feel good?
Name one thing that you think is true that you can prove to be true.
Think carefully. Because you will have to start with proving that you aren't just a brain in a jar being fed neural stimulus to simulate the world you think exists.
More explicitly - we all operate on faith. Some people have just deluded themselves into thinking otherwise.
PS - not falsified does not equal false.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:06PM
We all operate on assumption, not faith. We assume that what we see and hear is reality, we don't have faith that it is.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:23AM
Believing literally in something that has been falsified is irrational.
So is believing something you have no actual reason to believe is true, if you care about truth and well-being.
There is a difference between believing and expecting others to believe, as well as there is a difference between defending religion as an efficient mechanism to strengthen societies by creating an internal bonding-effect while also generating a differentiator from other cultures. Imagine two societies, one with strong believes about paradise in afterlife, imagined rewards for sacrifices etc. and the other without those treats. Whose soldiers will fight more fiercely?
I'm not saying this is the best concept in the long run. Critical thinking leads to better science and therefore to better weapons, thus to a stronger (in military terms) society, and for the non-believers (because of their rational approach and therefore better results) to a better position within the society.
But consider that by evolution, for millions of years religious beliefs were rewarded (by stronger societies, better standings within the societies, etc.). Therefore, the potential and desire to beliefs is basically built in to all of us. (Well, most of us. There will be mutants where this trait was disabled.) So, imagine you are faced with the choice to believe (and get sheltered, pampered, live a purposeful life of hope) or not to believe (and lose one of the biggest [imagined] purposes in life, lose some of your hold in society, and some of your hope). There is no evidence against the existence of god, and there is no evidence in favour of gods existence. Now tell me, which cause of action is more rational?
To me it looks as if the distinction of what is rational and what isn't is not always that clear; it's only a bit difficult accept from the outside.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1) by nekomata on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:00PM
Imagine two societies, one with strong believes about paradise in afterlife, imagined rewards for sacrifices etc. and the other without those treats. Whose soldiers will fight more fiercely?
I would assume the ones that don't believe in an afterlife, since for them dying is more final. To quote Bender: "Afterlife? Pfft. If I'd thought I had to go through a whole 'nother life, I'd kill myself right now."
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:11PM
I would assume the religious one, because for the non-believers there is less incentive to sacrifice themselves by jumping on the grenade or volunteering for an important suicide mission. Most people are somehow selfish, and sacreficing themselves without any hope for a great afterlife is not very self-serving.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum