@dmontetheno1 ↔ @shahanSean conversation
Delman@dmontetheno1
19 views
Aug 16, 2026
~2 min read
Advertisement
Delman@dmontetheno1
This is, in my opinion, the most reasonable view. It’s a pseudo-problem. The Qur’an repeatedly appeals to natural phenomena to direct its audience toward truth. It can describe the earth phenomenologically as flat or spread out without making a definite claim about cosmology.
Hasnain Naqvi@al_Sadrai
Here the Qur'ān is speaking from the observer's perspective, rather than describing the shape of the world in reality. This is because from the observer's perspective the world does indeed appear to be flat, and not spherical, because the scope of (1/4)
Sean W. Anthony@shahanSean
The Qur'an has a flat-earth cosmology .
In the late antique Near East, you either ascribed to the new Ptolemaic cosmology with a spherical earth because you recieved a Greek education (also wrong btw), or you adhered to a more ancient folk cosmology (wrong too).
In the late antique Near East, you either ascribed to the new Ptolemaic cosmology with a spherical earth because you recieved a Greek education (also wrong btw), or you adhered to a more ancient folk cosmology (wrong too).
Delman@dmontetheno1
I think you may be misunderstanding me. The Qur’anic earth is clearly flat. The question at hand is whether that is an objective claim or a phenomenologically descriptive one, intended to appeal to its audience’s senses and everyday experience of natural phenomena.
Sean W. Anthony@shahanSean
It's an objective claim. The question is entirely in your head.
Delman@dmontetheno1
The question entirely in my head was actually recently discussed with Nicolai Sinai for about 15 minutes. He seemed quite open to the possibility. I appreciate your very professional not at all weird response here, though. youtu.be/C8CXLEyKgHg?is…
Sean W. Anthony@shahanSean
It's in your head because of assumptions like:
- quranic cosmology reflects/is constrained by human perception (it's not; e.g., 7 heavens, God's throne, etc.)
- there's a "scientific" view of the cosmos that it somehow posseses but forgoes discussing
No need for combativness.
- quranic cosmology reflects/is constrained by human perception (it's not; e.g., 7 heavens, God's throne, etc.)
- there's a "scientific" view of the cosmos that it somehow posseses but forgoes discussing
No need for combativness.
Delman@dmontetheno1
never said the entirety of the Qur’an is phenomenological. I literally said this to MVP the other day. I’ve never argued that the Qur’an has a “scientific” cosmology. I’ve actively argued against that idea for years. I’m not being hostile here. You’re being condescending.
Delman@dmontetheno1
@PhDniX This is a good breakdown. I personally find options 2 and 3 unproblematic. I know the Quran’s goal is to persuade its audience, so I tend to read it as appealing to phenomenological experience rather than literal. Though I still personally wrestle with the seven-heavens motif 😬
Sean W. Anthony@shahanSean
My "not at all weird" but unintentionally "condescending" take -- unlike MVP, who's "lazy" apparently, unlike us -- is that I was responding to your post above, and it's still a good reason to reject the premise, IMHO, for reasons you concede in the QT
Sean W. Anthony@shahanSean
@al_firas27 @dmontetheno1 Don't mistake directness for condescension.