Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unscientific claims in religious scriptures

:{{la|Unscientific claims in religious scriptures}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unscientific_claims_in_religious_scriptures Stats])

:({{Find sources|Unscientific claims in religious scriptures}})

Apart from the probability of creating a lot of unseemly bickering on its talk page, I think this should be deleted because since one should not be surprised by scientific untruths in religious scriptures such a list is inherently pointless. TheLongTone (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Article contributor's response: wOw ! Our Dear TheLongTone believes that "one should not be surprised by scientific untruths in religious scriptures" and "such a list is inherently pointless". Well Dear, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, whose readers are Humans. Well, let Me tell You some interesting facts about the Humans: billions of us holds strong faith in "religious scriptures". Article Christianity says: "Christianity is the world's largest religion, with approximately 2.2 billion adherents, known as Christians." Article Buddhism says: "Estimates range from 350 million to 1.6 billion, with 350–550 million the most widely accepted figure. Buddhism is also recognized as one of the fastest growing religions in the world." Article Hinduism says: "Hinduism, with about one billion followers (950 million estimated in India), is the world's third largest religion, after Christianity and Islam." (To Me, it is a little surprising that Cited Source suggests Buddhism's followers count is stated to be lesser than that of Hinduism). Shall I list a few more. The estimated count of theists is already in billions. And, I Am assuming good faith that the Sources Cited in the above-mentioned WP Articles on Religion meets the standards of Wikipedia. All the theists are supposed to have faith in their religion, and I strongly believe it is no less surprising, or if may say, no less interest to be aware of the established scientific facts that contradicts with what has been stated in their religious scriptures. I believe that even if You see the Article as "pointless", You are a one individual person. And, being aware of the super-large readers' count (theist, atheists, and others) Wikipedia has, the Article is most definitely not "pointless" to Wikipedia's theist readers, and I also believe that the Article is not utterly "pointless" to agnosticists, atheists, anti-theists as well. I contest Your very use of the word: "pointless". I maintain that creating the Articles was not a "pointless" move, and keeping the Articles will also not be a "pointless" move. ← Abstruce 04:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete While the topic of relations between science and religion is very notable (and well-covered in many WP articles), a list of instances is a product of original research. And to meet the NPOV standards of WP we really should include instances where statements in scripture are in line with science. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Article contributor's response: Hi Kitfoxxe ! You says: "And to meet the NPOV standards of WP we really should include instances where statements in scripture are in line with science." So, You are actually advocating listing the "Scientific claims in religious scriptures" and sees that in accordance with the NPOV policy, but simultaneously sees listing the "Unscientific claims in religious scriptures" (with References) in contradiction with the NPOV policy ?! That is not a good way to go ! I must say that I truly doubt Your sincerity ! I won't contest Your creation of the article "Scientific claims in religious scriptures", but I think that it may not be of that much interest to readers as "Unscientific claims in religious scriptures" is. ← Abstruce 04:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

:::He is saying, if we have a list of unscientific claims, we would also need a list of scientific claims, or claims that are consistent with modern science. e.g. “I built the heaven with power and it is I, who am expanding it.” Qur’an,51:47, is often interpreted by Islamic scholars to refer to the Expansion of the universe.Martin451 (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

:::Article contributor's comments: Dear Martin, We cannot list "I built heaven with power...." because the Big Bang (and Big Chill & Big Freeze also) is still considered a theory and not an established scientific fact (hypothesis → theory → fact), so the quote, for now, doesn't fall under the title of the Article. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 02:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

::::I suggest you read Scientific theory before you start talking about the difference between theory and fact in scientific claims. Scientists use the word "Theory" in a different way to common usage, and often use theory when others would use fact. The expansion of the universe is recognised enough that this could be included in a list of scientific claims. However even if that one could not, then I am sure there are others, especially from Islamic scholars talking about the Qur'an.Martin451 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Kitfoxxe. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• May I respectfully ask You to share Your view-points also ?! ← Abstruce 04:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• The problem is that some of the alleged claims don't even purport to be descriptions of fact, but are prophecies. For example, "the moon shall not cause her light to shine" may have been written by a person who presumed that the moon does emit its own light, but all it actually claims is that at some future time, the moon will not cause its light to shine. Since the moon does not, in fact, cause light to shine, the statement is literally true albeit not in the way that the prophet meant it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

*Keep: I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unscientific_claims_in_religious_scriptures&diff=574694794&oldid=574682856 responded] to the concerns of the Users who does not support keeping the Article. Please have some patience, and I will continue to develop the Article. Yet, I AM ready to respond to any further concerns, if any ! Thanks !! ← Abstruce 04:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete:I think We could have developed a wonderful Article, but respecting some of the nice arguments made in the consensus, I think I don't want to text any more comments, here. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 02:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This is very much WP:Point of view and WP:Original Research (WP:SYNTH). It is also impossibly broad in its subject material, arguments from the bible alone could probably create many massive articles. First the bible is often regarded by Christians as not being literal, things like "The four corners of The Earth." are regarded as a metaphor by many, and not a strict interpretation that the world is flat, arguing a metaphor is unscientific is difficult.

:According to a strict interpretation of the bible, the Earth is 6000 years old. You may think this is unscientific, and point to evidence that the Earth is a lot older. The fossil record and geological data show this, but a Young Earth creationist would claim a different interpretation based upon a catastrophic great flood which made the fossils and sediments. You may claim radiocarbon data, but a YE creationist would point to examples where this is flawed, and that it does not work beyond 20,000 years. You could claim the light from the distant galaxies took billions of years to reach here, but a YE creationist would claim the speed of light was different in the early universe.

:This is just too impossibly broad and open to interpretation for such a simple claim as being "unscientific".Martin451 (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Article contributor's comments: Dear Martin, [http://realtruth.org/articles/090203-006-science.html do have a look, there]. Dear Friend, if a YE creationist may claim the speed of light was different in the early universe, then also a YE creationist would only be able to point towards a hypothesis. And, there is difference between the dictionary meaning of hypothesis, theory and fact. He wouldn't be able to play around ! But yes, going on with the Article, at some point of time, will lead to split of sections themselves as separate articles; the size of content may be dealt with but Edit warring could be more serious than ever, because not everyone is willing to understand the difference between scientific theories and scientific facts. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 02:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

::::The point is, an article stating "this is wrong, this is right" is far too simple for the subject material, especially when we have people arguing the meaning of individual words and passages, interpreting what was written many thousands of years ago and has lost part of its meaning in translation, and also changes in our language. We also have people arguing on the meaning of science, claiming accepted scientific theories are wrong, or just interpreting things differently, e.g. [http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/08/light-traveled-faster-in-the-early-universe-todays-most-popular.html João Magueijo] has suggested that the speed of light may have been a lot greater in the early universe. As I mentioned above, scientists don't use the dictionary definitions of hypothesis, theory and fact, and the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact is not as big as many people think. There are already articles on wikipedia detailing science and religion e.g. Science and the Bible that might be of interest to you.Martin451 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. We already have an article on the relationship between religion and science, which is the proper place for a thoughtful, NPOV discussion of the topic. Picking out and criticising individual passages just isn't the job of an encyclopedia. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete One is enought I Guess Ginosti (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete An article about the scientific knowledge of the inhabitants of the bronze age Levant, or on the Roman Catholic Church's views on science, etc, would be valid, but we already have similar articles. But this article is (a) badly titled, as most of the bible is "unscientific" because it's not a science book; (b) full of content based on misinterpretation or mistranslation - e.g. the word he claims means "corner" actually means "extremity"; (c) possibly original research; (d) biased, point-scoring, trivial, and unencyclopedic. (a) and (b) are not in themselves grounds for deletion but they don't help, and (c) and (d) are. Plus, as I said, it badly duplicates existing good content on the relation between science and religion. (Incidentally I don't think we would need to add instances where the bible does correspond to science, because Wikipedia already has plenty of "criticism of" articles, and NPOV can be handled in different ways.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete This article inherently involves too much interpreting beyond what the sources say. WP:SYNTHESIS will surely be prevalent here. Looking at the contents of the section on the shape of the earth - it already violates Wikipedia rules since the NASA site and the National Geodetic Survey does not even address the Bible at all and is already doing synthesis which constitutes original research WP:OR. Not only that, but since well educated theologians and scientists themselves have diverse interpretations of many of the ideas, this article will not provide any valuable insights and will provide too much debating and disagreements between interpretations of the scriptural texts and interpretations of what they really mean. Also this article would likely lead to people contributing more original research due to the article title itself. Furthermore, since this article would not represent the majorities of interpretations among experts who actually study these scriptures and verses, or science, this article would fall under WP:FRINGE. --Ramos1990 (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Only primary sources are given for the scriptures, and it is far from clear any that scientific claims (as opposed to metaphors) are being made in the passages quoted. Also this list fails WP:LISTN. -- 101.119.15.118 (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete -- The creator has collected three random facts and is using them to attack scriptures. Whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa is a matter of your standpoint. One should not expect the authors of works written 3000 years ago to be aware of Galileo's conclusion about 500 years ago that the other planets are going around the sun and thus the simpler model is to say that the earth is going around the sun. Biblical statements about the four corners of the earth need not be taken literally: if one regards the "earth" as referring to land (as opposed to sea), it could be literal. Furthermore, there are Biblical statements referring to the world being round. Some of the complints may be about the choice of an inappropriate word to translate one in the original, ignoring distinctions that have eben devised since some of the early transalations were made. The author is suffering from a bout of over-literalism. The prophetic books are frequently poetic and using metaphors, which are not to be taken literally. The authors wrote according to their understanding, as inspired by God: that does not mean that they were God's writing as if by God dictating text to them. I would challenge the creator to tell me how many things are actually wrong in the creation story in Genesis 1, ignorating the punctuation of the story by "the evening and the morning were the nth day": possibly birds appear too early, but that is about all. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete this violation of WP:NPOV because WP is neither pro nor anti anything, while this "article" is nothing but a screed from an anti-theological POV. This is also a violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX as well as WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND as it it an open invitation for endless and pointless WP:EDITWARRING. WP:SALTING is recommended. IZAK (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. There is probably scope for at least one good article about the relationship between scripture and science, and there are many fine scholarly works which could be used as sources. There's more than enough material in the RSs about the archaeological evidence for and against the Hebrew Bible to write a slew of articles on that alone.
  ON the other hand, even the title tells us that this page is a POV-pushing exercise. It's content is a pile of synthesis, and it relies on crass WP:OR interpretations of primary sources. It's says something sad about the state of WP processes that this sort of thing even requires a discussion before being shredded and burnt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.