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, @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.