Origins of the Quran/Islam - various academic perspectives

[outhouse]

a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.

 

[Augustus]

a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.

You have perverted the meaning of perverted

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nonsense. Mo could of actually believed what he said was from God but it wasn't. People even today hear voices in their mind which they assume is God but is just a mental illness..

Oh .. sure. The Qur'an is a product of somebody's mental illness?
Just by chance, it makes alot of sense to billions of people? Ha!

 

[muhammad_isa]

.. History does not accept supernatural explanations so these academics that believe the Quran is from God are not part of the discussion at all as they do not hold to the historical standards used by other academics mentioned in this post.

So basically what you are saying is that historians who believe in Almighty God cannot be trusted.
That rules out an awful lot of people

 

[outhouse]

So basically what you are saying is that historians who believe in Almighty God cannot be trusted.

I have religious friends who believe very close to what I do.

Apologist however do not produce credible conclusions

 

[Shad]

So basically what you are saying is that historians who believe in Almighty God cannot be trusted.
That rules out an awful lot of people

Depends on the project. In this case the project is about scripture which is important to a set of believers. There is a conflict of interest.

 

[Shad]

Oh .. sure. The Qur'an is a product of somebody's mental illness?

I merely pointed out an opinion you never considered in your false dilemma. It could be inspiration attributed to God but really only the person's own thoughts. It could be commentary rather than the literal word of God.

Just by chance, it makes alot of sense to billions of people? Ha!

You are assuming billions of people are even rational when it comes to their religion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are assuming billions of people are even rational when it comes to their religion.

I'm sure that some of them might be irratiional, but I think you'll find that most have them do not have a split-personality

 

[paarsurrey]

Augustus, I find your posts here to be exemplary and helpful. Given how often we see news reports today denied by people, historical scholarship in an area with deeply held beliefs is doubly hard.

I agree with you.
Regards

 

[Shad]

I'm sure that some of them might be irratiional, but I think you'll find that most have them do not have a split-personality

Irrational is not about split personalities. I was pointing out that your argumentum ad populum is fallacious as no amount of people believing in something makes it true.

 

[paarsurrey]

Irrational is not about split personalities. I was pointing out that your argumentum ad populum is fallacious as no amount of people believing in something makes it true.

It is a valid point.
Regards

 

[Shad]

It is a valid point.
Regards

Mine or Isa? If Isa then it isn't. Christians outnumber Muslims thus Christianity is correct. Polytheists outnumbered Monotheists centuries ago thus monotheism is incorrect. Children believe in Santa Claus thus Santa Claus is real. If not just ignore my examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

[muhammad_isa]

Irrational is not about split personalities. I was pointing out that your argumentum ad populum is fallacious as no amount of people believing in something makes it true.

No .. you're changing the argument now .. I never said that a religion was likely to be right because of the number of followers .. another discussion entirely!

You were talking about historians who were religious were being irrational in believing in G-d, and therefore their testimony was not reliable. It simply isn't true.

 

[Shad]

No .. you're changing the argument now .. I never said that a religion was likely to be right because of the number of followers .. another discussion entirely!

I used religion as an example but I also used Santa Claus. You missed the point. You are assuming believers are rational with no basis at all. I am pointing out that people that already hold the conclusion that the Quran is from God already hold a presupposition which is rejected n the historical method. This causes a major conflict of interests in which believers will never accept a conclusion which is not supernatural. This hinders they role in such a project.

You were talking about historians who were religious were being irrational in believing in G-d, and therefore their testimony was not reliable. It simply isn't true.

When it comes to the conclusion they will never be reliable as they hold a view rejected by the historical method as pointed out above. As a Muslim will you accept a conclusion which states Islam and the Quran are man-made thus the religion is man-made?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are assuming believers are rational with no basis at all.

No .. I think that what you are trying to say is that an otherwise rational person becomes irrational when it comes to religion .. I simply don't agree with you. You are probably right to an extent .. but I feel sure that a significant percentage of people are ENTIRELY rational when it comes to religion.

I am pointing out that people that already hold the conclusion that the Quran is from God already hold a presupposition which is rejected n the historical method. This causes a major conflict of interests in which believers will never accept a conclusion which is not supernatural. This hinders they role in such a project.

Irrelevant .. the same can be said for those that do NOT believe in G-d. ie. that people that already hold the conclusion that the Quran is NOT from God already hold a presupposition which is rejected in the historical method.

The historical method, as you call it, has nothing to do with a person's belief. However, a person who lies, whatever their belief, is not reliable I'm sure you would agree

As a Muslim will you accept a conclusion which states Islam and the Quran are man-made thus the religion is man-made?

I most certainly would IF this conclusion was shown to be correct

 

[Shad]

No .. I think that what you are trying to say is that an otherwise rational person becomes irrational when it comes to religion .. I simply don't agree with you. You are probably right to an extent .. but I feel sure that a significant percentage of people are ENTIRELY rational when it comes to religion.

No. I said it depends on the project. A Muslim working on the origins of say Norse religions will have a bias as these religions are false according to their religion. However this bias is accepted in the historical method thus compatible. When it comes to Islam their bias creates a conflict of interest.

Irrelevant .. the same can be said for those that do NOT believe in G-d. ie. that people that already hold the conclusion that the Quran is NOT from God already hold a presupposition which is rejected in the historical method.

Wrong as the historical method does not accept supernatural sources thus such a view is compatible with the historical method. You want the historical method to treat your religion differently and adjust its principles based on your faith. This is special pleading

The historical method, as you call it, has nothing to do with a person's belief. However, a person who lies, whatever their belief, is not reliable I'm sure you would agree

I am not questioning the methods. I am question people that hold a presupposition that the Quran is from God which creates a conflict of interest. No normal Muslim can accept the Islam and the Quran are man-made based on other man-made religions as that would be blasphemy in most forms of Islam. I only know a few Muslims that do not believe the Quran is from God but rather merely a product of Muhammad without supernatural aid. However I doubt many common Muslims would consider these people still Muslim.

I most certainly would IF this conclusion was shown to be correct

Considering the historical method already concluded the supernatural is not an acceptable answer you should leave Islam. (calling your bluff here) After all you agree with the principle itself which is used to create a conclusion. There will never be a conclusion within the historical method that makes a conclusion "God did it" correct.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There will never be a conclusion within the historical method that makes a conclusion "God did it" correct.

I think that you are referring to 'scientific method' .. I don't see what that has to do with history, personally..

 

[Shad]

I think that you are referring to 'scientific method' .. I don't see what that has to do with history, personally..

I am not. The historical method does not include a single principle which allows for the supernatural as a valid and sound conclusion. This is something you agreed to by claiming you will follow a conclusion produced by the historical method. Since "God" is not a valid conclusion I called your buff.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..The historical method does not include a single principle which allows for the supernatural as a valid and sound conclusion..

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

 

[Shad]

That's total nonsense!

No it isn't as the supernatural can not be verified at all. Thus it is rational.

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

Never said that. I was specific about the project in which the person is involved in as per my Muslim historian studying Norse mythology.

I don't see any such thing in wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography

Notice your source lists methods used rather than methods not used? The fact that there is no supernatural methodology in the historical method shows that the supernatural is not even considered at all. The supernatural is studied by theology not history.