What scientists REALLY say about the Quran - video interview with Alfred Kröner

[TheRationalizer]

Alfred Kröner was one of the scientists who were interviewed in the UAE during the 70's and 80's about the apparent scientific accuracy of the Quran. His comments were then edited, taken out of context, and used as an argument from authority that the Quran could only have come from Allah.

Having "world leading scientists" apparently saying the Quran can only have come from Allah was one of the most compelling arguments I encountered for becoming a Muslim before I had learned about being rational/objective about research, and during an emotionally low period in my life following a personal tragedy. I also know from chatting with people on youtube that these videos pose serious difficulties for some Muslims who are miserable with Islam and wish to apostatise.

I recently interviewed Alfred Kröner and this is what he said about the matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClHuG880pqU

Alfred wanted me to make sure as many people as possible saw this video in the hope that it would stop people from sending him emails asking about it, so if you can help that would be great!

TheRationalizer

[AdMan]

Good video.

I hadn't really seen how Muslims have been using quotes from scientists to help support the Koran as coming from Allah, but I think as Kroner says you can find "scientifically accurate" statements in virtually all of the major religious texts. You have to balance that against all the poppycock, of course.

Thanks for creating and sharing the video.

[A'isha]

I remember reading something about this claim in an old issue of Skeptical Inquirer.

Thanks for the video.

[TheRationalizer]

Here is a typical page
http://www.thisistruth.org/truth.php?f=OriginOfEarth

"This Is Truth" is the name of the video that was produced by compiling these out of context statements.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by TheRationalizer

Here is a typical page
http://www.thisistruth.org/truth.php?f=OriginOfEarth

"This Is Truth" is the name of the video that was produced by compiling these out of context statements.

I browsed that site a little and found this quote to be... revealing:

Quote:

Since God is the Creator of the physical universe and the source of revelation, there should be no contradiction between the two. If there appears to be, then we are either misinterpreting physical reality or misinterpreting revelation.

http://www.thisistruth.org/truth.php?f=FAQ#11

So basically they are twisting things around as they see fit, in order to make physical reality match "revelation."

And of course they are unwilling to consider a third option--that the book is not God's revealed truth at all.

[GrandMasterFox]

Originally Posted by AdMan

And of course they are unwilling to consider a third option--that the book is not God's revealed truth at all.

Well, never stopped jews, christians or scientologists, why should muslims be any different?

[Bikewer]

Wouldn't you think the cognitive dissonance would make their collective heads hurt?
"We must lie and deceive to spread the holy truth!"

[TheRationalizer]

Indeed. I have explained to Muslims before how something (Jinn/Demons) cannot be "made from fire", the response is either

A: It's the same thing but in a different world so acts completely differently.
B: I will wait for science to realise how this is possible

:-)

[Ferguson]

I do have to give muslims some credit on being the most "scientific" of theists who've tried to convert me. Muslims in my experience always argue from the "evidence" in the text like supposed descriptions of embryos, shape of the earth, future-non-animal means of transportation, female bees making honey, blah, blah.

Of course they're always rather tortured and absurd, but I prefer this kind of argument over the usual fundie christian method of "science is another religion, do you want to burn forever?" anti-intellectual fear-based argument.

Jews on the other hand have never tried to convert me, nor been shocked/offended by my atheism, making them my favorite brand of theist.

[TheRationalizer]

It was this scientific approach which attracted me to the subject of Islam in the first place. Investigating these claims taught me how to approach subjects objectively and rationally. Ironically the Islam led me to become an atheist.

[kedo1981]

The Koran is most likely right about the shape of embryos because Mohammed spent a great deal of his time slitting pregnant women open.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by kedo1981

The Koran is most likely right about the shape of embryos because Mohammed spent a great deal of his time slitting pregnant women open.

Thank you for your valuable sociological and historical insight into both Muhammad and Islam. This thread and the subject it addresses are infinitely enriched by your post.

[kedo1981]

I make it a point to offend at least one person a day, I hope you were it.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by kedo1981

I make it a point to offend at least one person a day, I hope you were it.

Not offended. Just facepalming.

[TimCallahan]

Something similar to the claim that modern science validates the Qur'an can be found by Googling "the moon split in two." This will lead you to a number of Islamic websites claiming that the American lunar landing discovered the evidence that the Prophet did indeed split the moon in two and re-fuse it, as a demonstration that he was a true prophet. The supposed scar of that event is the Ariadaeus rille. Lunar rilles are long, often straight faults. However, none of them, the Ariadaeus rille included, comes anywhere near to girdling the entire moon.

The actual phrase in the Qur'an regarding the moon split in two is from Surah 54, Surah Al-Qamar ("The Moon") The first verse of the Surah (Q 54:1) says, "The Hour draws near; the moon is split in two." This is generally considered an end-times prophecy. However, according to Islamic legend, Muhammad, by his word alone, split the moon in two, to demonstrate to his tribe, the Qaraysh, that he was indeed a true prophet. Hence the need to "scientifically" prove the Prophet split the moon in two.

[Joey McGee]

Great work! The scientific argument for the Koran is very popular and heavily relied on. Apologists making these arguments get the loudest applause during debates and speeches. It's used to dissuade the skeptic, appealing to the respectability of science, therefore attention should be paid to it, claim by claim in detail.

Originally Posted by kedo1981

I make it a point to offend at least one person a day, I hope you were it.

This really isn't the forum for that kind of thing, I'm sure that was against a rule or two, and frankly you should apologize instead of gloat.

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by TheRationalizer

Alfred Kröner was one of the scientists who were interviewed in the UAE during the 70's and 80's about the apparent scientific accuracy of the Quran. His comments were then edited, taken out of context, and used as an argument from authority that the Quran could only have come from Allah.

Having "world leading scientists" apparently saying the Quran can only have come from Allah was one of the most compelling arguments I encountered for becoming a Muslim before I had learned about being rational/objective about research, and during an emotionally low period in my life following a personal tragedy. I also know from chatting with people on youtube that these videos pose serious difficulties for some Muslims who are miserable with Islam and wish to apostatise.

I recently interviewed Alfred Kröner and this is what he said about the matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClHuG880pqU

Alfred wanted me to make sure as many people as possible saw this video in the hope that it would stop people from sending him emails asking about it, so if you can help that would be great!

TheRationalizer

Thank you so much for making this effort!

It is absolutely critical that abuses like this are exposed.

Spread the word, folks!

Kudos to you, Rationalizer.

[kedo1981]

WOW! me thinks Joey is the second person I offended.
May I point out that my “offensive” remark is the only exempt at a plausible explanation of the “appearance” of the Koran’s scientific revelation?
Namely, the “Allah” inspired knowledge of the structure of a human fetus.
So yes my remark does belong on this thread, what have you contributed?

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by kedo1981

WOW! me thinks Joey is the second person I offended.
May I point out that my “offensive” remark is the only exempt at a plausible explanation of the “appearance” of the Koran’s scientific revelation?
Namely, the “Allah” inspired knowledge of the structure of a human fetus.
So yes my remark does belong on this thread, what have you contributed?

What you said was completely disgusting and had nothing to do with a "plausible explanation" and everything to do with a sick joke. Don't try and pass that off as legitimate and hide behind accusations of people being hysterically offended. That seems even more insulting if not deluded.

This is a serious, important issue. If we take it seriously, we're helping to end a pattern of religious propaganda and brainwashing. The internet is fueling a revolution in thought and individual people are having great success in communicating science and reason to others. There are exciting directions that could be taken. There are ideas out there for websites, videos and articles that could be even more effective. I don't see how your kind of humor has any place here.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by kedo1981

WOW! me thinks Joey is the second person I offended.
May I point out that my “offensive” remark is the only exempt at a plausible explanation of the “appearance” of the Koran’s scientific revelation?
Namely, the “Allah” inspired knowledge of the structure of a human fetus.
So yes my remark does belong on this thread, what have you contributed?

I doubt very highly that you made your post merely as an attempt to provide a "plausible explanation" for 22:5. And did you have a particular battle of Muhammad's in mind where this belly-slitting took place, or was this a general comment?

Be specific, now...Surah al-Hajj was transmitted partly immediately before the hijra, and partly after. Up through verse 24 (which includes the description of human development) was transmitted while Muhammad was still a persecuted merchant in Mecca, before he fled to Medina (the hijra). What battle did Muhammad take part in that predated the hijra, where he learned all these details from cutting open pregnant women?

Plus, your "explanation" completely ignores knowledge that would have been obvious from things like miscarriages, or (if the cutting open of women was a required prerequisite) things like the killing of Sumayya, the First Martyr, cut to pieces by the Quraysh during the persecutions of Muslims in the years leading up to the hijra.

Not to mention the fact that we don't even need any of those explanations, since there isn't even anything surprisingly modern about the descriptions in the Qu'ran - Aristotle's "The Generation of Animals" says virtually the same thing, right down to the "mixing of semen" thing from 76:2, and that predated the Qu'ran by a thousand years.

[kedo1981]

Well I guess you told me.
I mean after all, we’re on a forum that’s’ main mission is to promote understanding of religion--------------wait a minute, no we’re not.
Islam is a lie!
The Koran was not “transmitted” it was made up!
Mohammed was at least as brutal as any other power grabbing mad man of his day!
The only reason Islam still survives is that it’s willing to be more brutal than other ones it supplanted (as was Christianity and all the rest) .

I don’t care what battles he was or was’nt in, in a brutal time with a brutal people when arguments were settled by the edge of sword, it’s a helluva lot more likely that he saw the spilled remains of unborn children that setting around reading about it in ancient Greek.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by kedo1981

Well I guess you told me.
I mean after all, we’re on a forum that’s’ main mission is to promote understanding of religion--------------wait a minute, no we’re not.
Islam is a lie!

Understanding something is not the same as believing in it.

In order to fight ignorance, you have to know what the other person is wrong about, and what you're right about.

Quote:

The Koran was not “transmitted” it was made up!

Yes, but it wasn't all made up at the same time, nor did it spring into existence out of nowhere.

Knowing when each component was revealed, by who, under what circumstances, and what tafsir says about it is pretty important when discussing the Qu'ran and its historicity and claims. As I just showed you.

Quote:

Mohammed was at least as brutal as any other power grabbing mad man of his day!

Actually, he was less brutal than the other power-grabbing madmen of his day in a number of ways (though that's a relative statement; by our standards, he we certainly plenty brutal).

But that has nothing to do with the claims or the debunking thereof that the Qu'ran is a particularly accurate scientific document. Which is the topic of this thread.

Quote:

The only reason Islam still survives is that it’s willing to be more brutal than other ones it supplanted (as was Christianity and all the rest)

That has even less to do with the subject of this thread.

Quote:

I don’t care what battles he was or was’nt in, in a brutal time with a brutal people when arguments were settled by the edge of sword, it’s a helluva lot more likely that he saw the spilled remains of unborn children that setting around reading about it in ancient Greek.

How many spilled remains of unborn children did Aristotle see when he came up with virtually the exact same descriptions?

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by kedo1981

it’s a helluva lot more likely that he saw the spilled remains of unborn children that setting around reading about it in ancient Greek.

Assuming that you meant "than sitting around reading about it in ancient Greek" you're stretching. He'd only have to be introduced to it through the Greek scholars he knew, the most likely being Nafi ibn al-Harith. I'm at a loss as to where you're going with this, other than madly trying to justify your misstep.

I'm not trying to be snarky about grammar, I'm trying to imply that you're not trying very hard.

[TheRationalizer]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Great work! The scientific argument for the Koran is very popular and heavily relied on. Apologists making these arguments get the loudest applause during debates and speeches. It's used to dissuade the skeptic, appealing to the respectability of science, therefore attention should be paid to it, claim by claim in detail.

Thanks. Having spent so much time looking at each claim during my "dark deluded days" I know them each fairly well and have addressed a few on my channel...

• Two waters do not mix - Exposing Dr Zakir Naik (Oxford university)
• The Earth's geoid shape - Exposing Dr Zakir Naik (Oxford university)
• Exposing Zakir Naik - Water evaporation
• The Quran and the speed of light : Islamic miracles investigated

There are a few addressing Islam in general aren't related to miracle claims

• The fallacy of Muhammad's illiteracy
• Sex slaves, the beautiful Quran, and Jesus's mother's vagina

I just wish I had more free time to make more. So much material, so little time!

[Jono]

I'm trying to get a grasp of the relevance of the discussion but... I must say you guys are messing it up.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by TheRationalizer

Thanks. Having spent so much time looking at each claim during my "dark deluded days" I know them each fairly well and have addressed a few on my channel...

• Two waters do not mix - Exposing Dr Zakir Naik (Oxford university)
• The Earth's geoid shape - Exposing Dr Zakir Naik (Oxford university)
• Exposing Zakir Naik - Water evaporation
• The Quran and the speed of light : Islamic miracles investigated

There are a few addressing Islam in general aren't related to miracle claims

• The fallacy of Muhammad's illiteracy
• Sex slaves, the beautiful Quran, and Jesus's mother's vagina

I just wish I had more free time to make more. So much material, so little time!

Excellent stuff man!

Dr. Zakir Naik, I was appalled to see videos of him online explaining why 9/11 was an inside job. One person made a video called "Critical analysis of Dr. Zakir Naik on 9/11" but there definitely needs to be a lot of debunking going on with the CT stuff too with these types of dudes.