Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday September 01 2015, @12:43AM   Printer-friendly
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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:23AM

    by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:23AM (#230669) Journal

    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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by nekomata on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:00PM

    by nekomata (5432) on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:00PM (#230805)

    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

      by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:11PM (#230808) Journal

      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