> That does not apply to outside-of-the-mainstream views.
It does indeed. Evidence that x is true is not the same as an explanation of how x occurred. For instance, we can see that an ancient city was burned down around a certain year, but not know for what purpose or by whom.
> History is a very ...(read more)
Refraining from a 'detailed' reconstruction seems quite reasonable. In history, you don't generally have to explain how something happens to assert that it did.
Holland is indeed something of a pop author, but once you've translated Herodotus it's hard to claim that you have no real expertise in hi...(read more)
Um... did you read the following sentence? She didn't abandon the idea at all. And there's at least one major work that argues for it: 'In the Shadow of the Sword.'
The idea as I know it comes from Patricia Crone, but it's been picked up by other historians like Tom Holland. Basically, it claims that Muhammad came from Jordan and the idea of Islam originating in Medina was an attempt to 'Arabize' the new religion.
I'm not sure it counts. Muhammad certainly existed. Most of the theology wouldn't have been made up as you describe. I'm really just talking about the origin story, since whether Islam actually came from Arabia isn't certain.
I admit it's possible for components of a religion to be taken from political propaganda (certain parts of the NT fit the bill), but inventing the idea as a whole... I can't see how that would work out. Except *maybe* in the case of Islam, but even then it was just grabbing on to the coattails of Ju...(read more)
It's a safe assumption that any religion with ancient roots was not made up by someone for political purposes.
Sure, but (without even mentioning how much it takes from mainstream Christianity) Mormonism is... 150 years old. How many Quakers do you see these days?
Would Snell's Law possibly explain it? Someone claimed to me that it makes light refract more with decreasing altitude.
Ah, I already Googled but I got confused because the first guy who came up on the search seemed to be talking about something else.
But I used a different phrasing and got the answer. FWI, Google isn't always reliable for refuting crackpots and Wikipedia is *very* unreliable. If I assumed that the...(read more)