What do we make of all the verses and ahadith that seem to imply that the earth is flat or that the earth does not revolve around the sun?

Consider the ayah in Surat al-Kahf:

Al-Kahf (Q18:86)

And the hadith:

How do we understand all this? It is easy to say that these are all ‘metaphorical.’ Perhaps they are in some sense, but that’s too hasty. Is there any other ‘recourse’?

Imagine two people have equally correct knowledge about the universe. Those two people can describe that knowledge in different ways, i.e., they can describe the universe in different ways. They can use different language, different images, different concepts to explain the same thing. Furthermore, they can use different terms even when they are describing things literally from their individual perspectives.

What do I mean by this? Well, a simple example is all the different terms that Bedouin Arabs have for “lion.” Or all the different terms that Eskimos have for “snow.” The way that an Arab talks about a lion and the way that an Eskimo talks about snow will be very different from how a zoologist or a meteorologist speaks about these things. It is not that the Arab or the Eskimo are speaking metaphorically while the zoologist/meteorologist are speaking literally. No, in this example, everyone is speaking literally but there are just certain concepts that are in the language and at the disposal of the Arab/Eskimo that are not found in the language and conceptual architecture of the zoologist/meteorologist. And vice versa. The assumption that people nowadays tend to make is that scientific language is the language that describes things as they really are. But we don’t have to accept that. In fact, we shouldn’t because scientific language is always changing. I explain the significance of this below.

The second layer is this: Imagine two people where one has correct knowledge about the universe and the other doesn’t but thinks he does. This adds another wrinkle. In the previous example, the Bedouin Arab relying on the accumulated knowledge of centuries and generations of Bedouins living in the environment of the lion arguably has a better understanding of lions than the foreign zoologist from outside that environment who travels to the location for a couple of months at a time, does his fieldwork, and goes back home. And of course zoology itself is a new discipline. So the language of the Bedouins will reflect their superior knowledge. But the zoologist will not necessarily accept this. In fact, the zoologist thinks that these Bedouins are fairly ignorant and their understanding of lions pales in comparison to his. And to prove that point, he will cite the Bedouin’s descriptions of the lion and claim that those descriptions are inaccurate. But on what basis can he claim that the Bedouin’s description is inaccurate? He can only do so on the basis of his own knowledge, which, in this example, we have stipulated is incorrect and certainly inferior to the knowledge of the Bedouins. Nonetheless, the zoologist is confident that these Bedouins simply do not know what they are talking about.

This is the folly and pitiful arrogance of modern science. First, scientific language is assumed to be the only accurate, literal, acceptable way to describe the world. Second, science assumes it knows what the universe is really like. Both these assumptions we easily reject out of hand.