Presumptions about God’s wisdom in Muslim Arguments for and against evolution (2022-03-01) #

0:00:02 hello everyone and uh welcome to
0:00:04 blogging theology today i am delighted
0:00:07 to talk again to dr david solomon
0:00:10 jalagel you're most welcome back sir
0:00:14 it's a pleasure video again as always
0:00:17 well for those who don't know dr david
0:00:19 jalagel is a researcher with the prince
0:00:22 sultan research institute at king saud
0:00:25 university in saudi arabia he holds a
0:00:28 phd in arabic and islamic studies from
0:00:31 the university of the western cape
0:00:34 formally he was a lecturer in islamic
0:00:36 theology and legal theory at the dara
0:00:38 loom in cape town south africa where he
0:00:41 graduated and then received the highest
0:00:43 specialization in islamic law and the
0:00:46 highest specialization in arabic
0:00:49 david will be speaking today about
0:00:53 presuppositions
0:00:55 about god's wisdom in muslim arguments
0:00:58 for and against evolution
0:01:02 this is actually a really important
0:01:04 subject
0:01:06 and i think it's really worth attending
0:01:08 to so david would you like to introduce
0:01:11 us to this subject
0:01:13 yes thank you very much as you said my
0:01:16 topic is presumptions about god's wisdom
0:01:18 and arguments for and against evolution
0:01:21 we're not going to be exploring
0:01:22 evolution itself today or whether islam
0:01:25 accepts it or not we're going to focus
0:01:27 on one strategy
0:01:29 that is being used by people on both
0:01:31 sides
0:01:33 to argue
0:01:34 for or against evolution
0:01:36 in an islamic context
0:01:38 and to explore from a traditional
0:01:40 islamic understanding of wisdom how
0:01:42 valid this kind of argumentation is
0:01:45 so that is our focus here
0:01:49 so we first have to situate the topic
0:01:52 what are these wisdom-based arguments
0:01:54 and how they fit into the broader
0:01:56 concept of islamic theology and islamic
0:01:58 belief
0:02:00 so we can look there are three kinds of
0:02:02 questions that islamic theologians can
0:02:04 ask
0:02:05 the first kind of question is what is
0:02:07 god capable of and what is he incapable
0:02:09 of what can he do and what he can't hear
0:02:11 as god
0:02:13 then you have the questions on the
0:02:14 bottom what did god do and what didn't
0:02:16 he do what
0:02:18 we know were even capable of but what
0:02:20 did he actually do
0:02:21 and the third kind of question is what
0:02:24 would god do being god
0:02:26 and what would he stay away from because
0:02:28 he is god
0:02:29 so those are the three kinds of
0:02:31 questions that can be asked about god
0:02:34 and they fit into different aspects of
0:02:36 theology
0:02:37 the first set of questions what is god
0:02:39 capable of and what he is incapable of
0:02:42 focused mainly on god's essence
0:02:44 how we understand who god is and his
0:02:47 nature
0:02:48 how someone would ask wait a minute
0:02:51 what do you mean by what is god
0:02:53 incapable of how could you even ask such
0:02:55 a question
0:02:56 and you would answer well is god capable
0:02:58 of not existing can he decide not to
0:03:01 exist
0:03:03 or
0:03:04 my favorite example in christianity i'm
0:03:06 not we're not talking about that at all
0:03:07 but uh uh christians sometimes say
0:03:10 accuse muslims of limiting god uh
0:03:13 when christians deny muslims deny that
0:03:15 jesus is god so i say to them can god
0:03:18 become satan and i actually asked a
0:03:20 christian this yesterday and they
0:03:22 immediately changed the subject so uh
0:03:24 can god might only be capable of his
0:03:26 non-existence but can god be capable of
0:03:28 becoming satan a pure evil and that
0:03:31 question was uh avoided uh immediately
0:03:34 by the christian i'm not making a
0:03:36 political point i'm just giving another
0:03:37 example of
0:03:38 what
0:03:39 of this question that you've just
0:03:40 mentioned
0:03:41 yes and with regard to jesus as well if
0:03:44 jesus is a physical body and form
0:03:47 a muslim would say how can god become a
0:03:49 body in form that is created in existing
0:03:52 creation how can the creator become the
0:03:54 created thing
0:03:55 god can create anything he likes he can
0:03:57 do anything he wants to do but being
0:03:59 created is not what a creator is
0:04:02 so these kind of things are explored
0:04:04 with regard to god's essence
0:04:06 and so those kind of questions we're not
0:04:08 going to be giving them too much today
0:04:09 we're going to touch upon it in
0:04:11 situating the question
0:04:13 the second set of questions deal with
0:04:15 god's actions
0:04:17 once we determine what god can do and
0:04:19 what he cannot do well
0:04:21 in the realm of what he can do what did
0:04:23 he actually do
0:04:25 and of course if you say god can do x or
0:04:28 you can stay away from doing x how do
0:04:30 you know whether he did x or not you
0:04:31 need scripture for that so those are
0:04:33 purely scriptural questions
0:04:37 but then you have a third set of
0:04:38 questions what would god do or we're
0:04:40 saying because he is god doesn't that
0:04:43 dictate how we should behave god should
0:04:46 behave like god
0:04:47 so this is a kind of argument that would
0:04:49 be brought what is it that's suitable
0:04:51 for god to do being god not what he has
0:04:54 power to do
0:04:55 what would he do
0:04:56 and this set of questions is a third
0:04:59 possible set of questions that could be
0:05:00 asked
0:05:02 so when we situate the question we're
0:05:03 going to see where these wisdom-based
0:05:05 arguments fit into the three possible
0:05:07 kinds of questions that can be asked
0:05:09 so let's look at the first question what
0:05:11 is god capable of and what is he
0:05:14 incapable of
0:05:19 well first we have to decide because
0:05:20 this deals with god's essence
0:05:23 we have to define god against everything
0:05:25 else
0:05:26 and theologians define the universe as
0:05:28 everything else besides thought
0:05:32 now we i quote it al-razi but all sunni
0:05:35 theologians give this definition whether
0:05:36 they're ashamed madrid or cellophane
0:05:38 doesn't matter what school of sunni
0:05:40 theology comes from you have god in his
0:05:42 creation that's absolute transcendence
0:05:44 god does not manifest in creation
0:05:47 creation is not part of god so pantheism
0:05:50 and panentheism and things like that
0:05:53 those kinds of doctrines that put god
0:05:54 that put creation within the essence of
0:05:56 god islam rejects that at least within
0:05:58 the sunni paradigms it rejects such
0:06:01 ideas
0:06:02 god is completely separate and distinct
0:06:04 from his creation and everything else
0:06:05 besides him
0:06:08 is his creation so there's only god and
0:06:10 his creation
0:06:12 so that
0:06:13 so
0:06:19 and to define theology as a domain with
0:06:22 respect to this concept we have i
0:06:24 quoting uh yusuf assanusi who was a
0:06:28 late ashrae theologian he says every
0:06:31 accountable person must know what is
0:06:33 necessary impossible and possible for
0:06:36 our lord and they likewise must know the
0:06:38 same of the messenger so we frame
0:06:40 theology as knowing what is necessary
0:06:42 what god what god is capable of
0:06:45 what is impossible what is impossible
0:06:48 for god what he's incapable of and
0:06:49 everything else is what is possible for
0:06:51 god
0:06:53 so what is he capable of incapable of
0:06:55 and what is possible
0:06:57 and so what is this so that is the way
0:06:58 it's framed within many uh
0:07:01 suny theological
0:07:03 books and discourses
0:07:06 an important verse for this topic is
0:07:08 this one here god creates what he
0:07:10 pleases indeed god is capable of all
0:07:12 things and i'm going to go over this in
0:07:14 brief here
0:07:16 what is possible for god theologians say
0:07:18 he has power to do everything
0:07:21 whatsoever
0:07:22 as long as we don't determine that thing
0:07:24 is a logical impossibility
0:07:27 and i'll go into what that means
0:07:29 very soon but as long as we're not going
0:07:31 to determine something is a logical
0:07:32 impossibility nonsense for instance then
0:07:35 god is capable of all things there's no
0:07:37 exception to what he's capable of
0:07:39 and
0:07:40 this verse says god is a creator of all
0:07:42 things he is maintaining all things
0:07:45 this means everything else besides god
0:07:47 himself as you've already said is his
0:07:49 creation
0:07:50 so how of this we're going to discuss uh
0:07:53 biological evolution what would the
0:07:55 argument for biological evolution be
0:07:57 solely within the within the framework
0:07:59 of this kind of question
0:08:01 the question would be does god have the
0:08:03 power to bring about the diverse species
0:08:06 on earth through a gradual process of
0:08:08 divergence and change which is evolution
0:08:10 or is he incapable of doing so what is
0:08:12 god capable of what is he incapable of
0:08:15 is he capable of doing evolution or
0:08:18 manifesting that as a pattern in the
0:08:19 world or is it something he is incapable
0:08:21 of
0:08:23 now within sunni theology if we say that
0:08:25 god is all-powerful and does what he
0:08:27 pleases they would have to all agree
0:08:29 that he is capable of doing it it
0:08:31 doesn't have whether he did or not just
0:08:33 the capacity has to be there
0:08:36 because it is not one of the logical
0:08:38 impossibilities what is a logical
0:08:40 impossibility some people would say how
0:08:42 could you say
0:08:43 anything is out of god's power
0:08:46 but we must understand logical
0:08:48 irrational impossibilities all are
0:08:50 nonsense
0:08:50 Music
0:08:52 all statements of rational
0:08:53 impossibilities can be reduced to a
0:08:55 nonsensical statement
0:08:58 al-razzali says this himself he's a
0:09:00 major theologian in uh sunni theology
0:09:03 says what is not reduced to this what is
0:09:05 not reduced to nonsense is not
0:09:08 impossible and what is not impossible is
0:09:11 within the divine power so
0:09:14 absolute omnipotence is a is held by
0:09:17 sunni theologians when it comes to what
0:09:18 god is capable of he is capable of
0:09:20 everything a square circle is not part
0:09:24 of everything why what is a square
0:09:26 an object with four angles for instance
0:09:28 you would do just to give it a basic
0:09:30 definition and a circle has zero angles
0:09:33 now in language we can construct the
0:09:35 sentence this is a square circle
0:09:37 why can we say square circle because the
0:09:39 word square can be used as an adjective
0:09:42 like red red books red is an adjective
0:09:44 book is a noun i can use square as an
0:09:47 adjective
0:09:48 a square book i can use circle as a noun
0:09:52 so grammatically i can put the words
0:09:54 together square circle but it's absolute
0:09:56 nonsense how can it be a four angle zero
0:09:59 angle object
0:10:00 the fact that my language can allow me
0:10:02 to construct these sentences
0:10:04 isn't limiting god's power it's just
0:10:06 that i can construct
0:10:07 verbal garbage the words fit together
0:10:10 grammatically but they don't actually
0:10:11 mean anything
0:10:12 so basically when they say the rational
0:10:15 impossibility is not allowed for god
0:10:17 they really mean god is actually capable
0:10:19 of all things
0:10:20 and a perfect example of how people use
0:10:23 logical impossibilities to confuse
0:10:26 religious people
0:10:28 is the old silly argument that says god
0:10:30 cannot be omnipotent logically you say
0:10:32 how and they asked the famous question
0:10:35 can god create a rock that he cannot
0:10:38 lift
0:10:40 and so if you s whichever way you answer
0:10:42 it they will give you
0:10:43 a problematic reply if you say yes god
0:10:47 can create anything to say if you can
0:10:48 create a rock he cannot lift then there
0:10:50 is something that god cannot live
0:10:53 they say well no no no he can't create
0:10:55 that well then there's something god
0:10:56 can't create so either way he's not
0:10:58 omnipotent
0:11:00 but you must understand that a rock is
0:11:02 just an object and lifting is just
0:11:04 putting the object in one place or
0:11:06 another right
0:11:07 so basically the question they're really
0:11:09 asking using the word rock and lifting
0:11:11 as substitutes to confuse us
0:11:13 is is god capable of being incapable now
0:11:17 you see it's a contradiction in terms so
0:11:19 it's nonsense yeah they say if you say
0:11:21 he is capable of being incapable then
0:11:23 he's incapable of something
0:11:25 because you said he's capable of being
0:11:26 incapable and if you say he's not in k
0:11:29 he's not capable of being incapable then
0:11:32 there's something he's not capable of
0:11:33 he's not capable of being incapable so
0:11:35 you realize it's a contradiction in
0:11:36 terms of exactly not answered this
0:11:38 question yeah
0:11:39 yeah it's a trick
0:11:42 that often uh tricks people uh but it is
0:11:44 actually a nonsense question it is the
0:11:47 very structure of the question is absurd
0:11:50 yeah yes exactly so those are the things
0:11:53 we mean by rational impossibilities
0:11:56 so then
0:11:59 we need to talk about how god interacts
0:12:02 with the universe within this model if
0:12:04 god is capable of all things and we see
0:12:07 that the world has causation
0:12:09 processes are happening in the world
0:12:11 which is what science looks at the
0:12:12 natural processes how they relate to
0:12:14 each other we can see there are three
0:12:16 different divine action models now i've
0:12:18 gone into detail about this in another
0:12:20 presentation i've given on blogging
0:12:22 theology yeah specifically about this
0:12:24 but just to contextualize the present
0:12:26 discussion we can see there are three
0:12:28 different positions that have been held
0:12:30 by three different schools of sunni
0:12:32 theology the first one is occasionalism
0:12:35 which is held by the what's known as the
0:12:37 asheride school
0:12:38 and also later mataridites uh muslim
0:12:41 scholars as well that's where god
0:12:43 creates the object that is the cause the
0:12:45 object that is the effect
0:12:47 and he creates the effect at the same
0:12:49 time so he creates cotton and he creates
0:12:51 fire that whenever he puts crates or two
0:12:53 together god of his just decides on his
0:12:57 own to create
0:12:59 ash
0:12:59 in place of some of the cotton and so we
0:13:02 see the causal relationship in the world
0:13:03 but with god it's he creates ash on the
0:13:06 occasion of fire contacting mclaren
0:13:09 so he creates everything directly
0:13:11 nothing has innate metaphysical potency
0:13:13 metaphysical level it doesn't have
0:13:15 potency
0:13:16 concurrentism is an early maturity
0:13:20 position
0:13:21 discussed by ramon harvey and i've
0:13:22 discussed that also in my other
0:13:24 presentation the object that is the
0:13:26 cause directly brings about the effect
0:13:29 with god compelling it
0:13:31 at the time of action
0:13:33 so he creates by compelling potency
0:13:35 already inherent in the created
0:13:37 substance
0:13:38 instrumentalism is ebentania's position
0:13:41 which is part of the
0:13:43 school of theology
0:13:44 that's where god creates causal power in
0:13:46 one object receptivity in the other and
0:13:49 brings about the consequent effect
0:13:50 immediately at the time of action
0:13:52 so god creates through potency he
0:13:54 directly manifests in his creative
0:13:56 substance
0:13:57 these are different ways of accounting
0:13:59 for two things two things one that god
0:14:02 is maximally active that he creates
0:14:03 everything everything is creation and
0:14:06 that everything else depends on him
0:14:07 nothing else is completely autonomous
0:14:09 nothing else has autonomy
0:14:11 so the what i wrote in yellow is
0:14:12 actually what's more important that's
0:14:14 the basic belief the basic belief of
0:14:16 sunni muslims
0:14:18 and what is in white above that are
0:14:20 different ways of navigating and
0:14:21 accounting for this the point of
0:14:23 agreement here is very significant for
0:14:25 contextualizing our question of
0:14:27 evolution
0:14:28 many anti-evolution arguments
0:14:31 that we hear people say evolution is
0:14:33 false or it goes against religion
0:14:35 many arguments they give
0:14:37 focus on the idea that evolution
0:14:40 undermines god's creativity
0:14:42 by assuming natural causes in the
0:14:44 development of the species
0:14:46 likewise they object to the way the
0:14:48 theory gives chance a dynamic role in
0:14:51 the evolutionary process
0:14:54 this permits god the power to impose
0:14:56 whatever causal pathway he wishes these
0:14:58 divine action models that we see
0:15:00 do not allow for such arguments those
0:15:02 arguments
0:15:04 would be considered invalid because god
0:15:06 is the creator of the cause and effect
0:15:08 he is the one that brings about the
0:15:09 causal relationship
0:15:11 if you see something as random or in the
0:15:13 world and say this random aspect has
0:15:15 something to do with it well god brought
0:15:17 that about his will and it's by his
0:15:19 strict determination even though we
0:15:20 perceive it as random everything is
0:15:22 happening by god's determination
0:15:24 so it allows god to manifest patterns
0:15:26 that he wishes to manifest for us we
0:15:28 might perceive it as chance we might
0:15:30 perceive it as cause and effect but
0:15:32 everything is by god's determination but
0:15:34 this is a type of argument that is used
0:15:36 this is not the type of argument i'm
0:15:37 gonna be discussing tonight these are
0:15:39 not wisdom-based arguments the arguments
0:15:41 that say that
0:15:42 evolution has to be false because it
0:15:44 gives causality to nature
0:15:47 are more metaphysical arguments
0:15:50 and i would say within the sunni uh
0:15:51 strict sunni context those metaphysical
0:15:53 arguments don't have much strength
0:15:54 because
0:15:56 muslims give full metaphysical power to
0:15:58 god under any case no matter what is
0:15:59 manifest in the world
0:16:02 can i just say
0:16:04 so to add a quick point about um there's
0:16:06 a
0:16:07 scientist and theologian uh professor
0:16:08 john polkinghorn
0:16:10 professor of mathematical physics at
0:16:12 cambridge university he's also an
0:16:13 anglican priest as well um
0:16:16 he argued in distinction to what you're
0:16:18 proposing that at the quantum level as a
0:16:20 mathematical physicist um that there is
0:16:23 this randomness as he calls it and he
0:16:26 believes that god has um given freedom
0:16:29 to that aspect that part of the created
0:16:31 order basically to do its own thing
0:16:33 separate from god's uh
0:16:35 causing
0:16:36 anything so he sees a kind of
0:16:38 epistemological an ontological
0:16:40 difference there whereas in the sunni
0:16:42 position in the three divine models
0:16:44 everything uh is is uh god as you say is
0:16:47 maximally active
0:16:48 uh in everything and there isn't this
0:16:51 realm where god is not indirectly
0:16:53 causing events whichever model you use
0:16:56 and that i think that is a real big
0:16:57 difference between a lot of christian
0:16:58 theology and a lot of sunni theology on
0:17:02 god's action in the world
0:17:04 yes definitely so even if we observe
0:17:07 quantum uncertainty
0:17:09 i'm not saying it's not there well i'm
0:17:11 saying but from the metaphysical side of
0:17:13 it because science studies the natural
0:17:16 relationships
0:17:17 if there is randomness and uncertainty
0:17:19 in the natural relationship that's what
0:17:20 the scientists are studying how things
0:17:22 need to relate to how do photons relate
0:17:24 to
0:17:25 the quantum gates for instance what is
0:17:27 the relationship we observe it
0:17:29 what these divine action models to try
0:17:30 and look at is how god relates to the
0:17:32 event and from a sunni perspective it is
0:17:35 god decides everything whether photon
0:17:37 goes left or goes right that's god's
0:17:39 action
0:17:40 it's very distinctive this very
0:17:41 distinctive model of divine action i
0:17:44 think in in religious in the religious
0:17:46 discourse yeah
0:17:48 yes and as you see even though there are
0:17:49 three different models they are very
0:17:51 similar in their
0:17:53 yeah final outcome
0:17:55 yeah
0:17:56 excellent point
0:17:59 so we finish with what god is capable
0:18:01 what is incapable of and we can safely
0:18:03 say that
0:18:04 metaphysically within a sunni
0:18:06 perspective metaphysical questions are
0:18:07 not going to have much relevance to the
0:18:09 theory of evolution being true or false
0:18:11 because it may be true it may be false
0:18:14 but whether god is capable of bringing
0:18:16 about that pattern in nature that we
0:18:18 would observe
0:18:19 well god is capable of it
0:18:21 then that there would be no dispute
0:18:22 there that god is capable of bringing
0:18:25 about any pattern over time or unfolding
0:18:27 any set of events over time
0:18:29 that he wishes
0:18:31 and so that would not be the type of
0:18:33 argument we're discussing tonight and
0:18:34 it's also not one that muslims would
0:18:36 find very compelling regardless where
0:18:37 they accept evolution rejected they
0:18:39 wouldn't find those kind of metaphysical
0:18:41 arguments compelling at least not within
0:18:42 the sunni paradigm the other
0:18:44 paradigms that exist as well
0:18:46 that might have a different outcome
0:18:49 so the second set of questions that we
0:18:50 talked about the second possible set of
0:18:52 questions is what god did do
0:18:54 and what didn't he do what did he
0:18:56 actually do
0:18:57 for example did he do evolution did he
0:19:00 let animals evolve did he how did god go
0:19:02 about it
0:19:04 okay so we've already determined that
0:19:05 god can do all things so like this is
0:19:08 now this next question
0:19:10 of course we can say everything we
0:19:12 observe in the universe is something
0:19:13 that god did if you go outside and you
0:19:16 see a tree in your backyard we know did
0:19:18 god create a tree in the backyard yes
0:19:20 we don't need to go to scripture for
0:19:22 that that's observed a direct doctor we
0:19:25 believe in directly observed evidence
0:19:27 the quran tells us look and see
0:19:29 the science and nature so obviously what
0:19:30 we see in nature is real it's not an
0:19:32 illusion
0:19:34 so when you see a tree in your backyard
0:19:35 you can say with confidence god created
0:19:37 the tree it's not a theological position
0:19:39 it's not a position of religious belief
0:19:41 but it's something you can believe is
0:19:42 truth this is known as the scene
0:19:45 as shahada in arab as a scene
0:19:49 however god can also do things he is
0:19:51 capable of doing things that we do not
0:19:53 observe he does not have to make
0:19:54 everything subject to our observation he
0:19:57 can conceal some of those things from us
0:19:59 like the angels or the existence of
0:20:01 heaven and hell at present or events of
0:20:03 the past that don't leave traces in
0:20:05 history or in archaeology or in fossils
0:20:08 we can't talk about them because we
0:20:10 don't know anything about them they're
0:20:11 lost to the past what will happen
0:20:13 tomorrow in the future
0:20:15 we don't know these are all things that
0:20:17 are collectively known as the unseen
0:20:20 and you know in the quran it says that
0:20:21 the believer is one who believes in the
0:20:23 scene and the unseen
0:20:25 yeah the quran says that that's right
0:20:27 right at the beginning by the beginning
0:20:29 of the quran itself after al-fatiha you
0:20:31 get this amazing who are you know this
0:20:33 book is for those who believe in the
0:20:35 unseen um it's
0:20:37 it's directing yeah sorry yes within the
0:20:39 very first few verses of the quran right
0:20:41 after the fatigue the very first few
0:20:43 verses of
0:20:44 you have that verse
0:20:46 so such questions if they're not
0:20:49 subject to our observation directly or
0:20:51 indirectly
0:20:52 such questions can only be answered by
0:20:54 scripture
0:20:55 if reason says god is capable of doing
0:20:57 it he's capable of putting a tree in
0:20:59 your backyard and you haven't seen your
0:21:01 vector
0:21:02 and you're not going to get to see it
0:21:04 and if you the only way you can know for
0:21:06 sure what's in your backyard because god
0:21:08 could do it either way is if god says in
0:21:10 the quran i put a tree there then you
0:21:12 have to believe it if he says i didn't
0:21:14 do it you have to reject it
0:21:17 and if he is silent about it until you
0:21:19 get empirical data
0:21:21 you have no knowledge about it and if
0:21:23 it's part of the unseen you can never
0:21:24 know about it and of course i have with
0:21:26 blogging theology
0:21:28 a separate uh program of two hours long
0:21:30 that deals specifically with the topic
0:21:32 of what to do for these kind of
0:21:33 questions it's called theological
0:21:35 hermeneutics
0:21:36 how do you
0:21:38 interpret the quran
0:21:40 and sunnah in order to derive
0:21:42 theological theologically binding
0:21:44 doctrine matters of belief so those are
0:21:47 interested can visit that uh please do
0:21:50 so
0:21:51 a superb program we do watch it we're
0:21:53 going to be investigating the third set
0:21:55 of questions what god would do and what
0:21:58 wouldn't he do
0:22:01 so this is what we're saying we're not
0:22:03 saying whether god is capable of
0:22:05 something or not we're not saying what
0:22:06 the quran said he did or didn't do we're
0:22:09 saying in the absence of all of that can
0:22:12 we still say something about what god
0:22:14 did and didn't do because
0:22:16 because he is god because we understand
0:22:19 god to be a certain way
0:22:20 and this is your wisdom-based arguments
0:22:25 wisdom-based arguments seek to establish
0:22:27 a theological position on a matter based
0:22:30 on what god would or would not do in his
0:22:32 creation
0:22:34 therefore wisdom-based arguments posit
0:22:36 that god's wisdom dictates a particular
0:22:39 course of action
0:22:40 god would only do it a certain way
0:22:43 despite his omnipotence making him
0:22:45 capable of alternatives you're saying
0:22:47 look i admit god is capable of doing
0:22:50 it a different way
0:22:51 he has the power to do it and i look at
0:22:54 the scripture and it doesn't say
0:22:56 anything about it but i still know the
0:22:58 answer no because he's gone
0:23:01 and god wouldn't do it that way or he
0:23:03 would have to do it that way because
0:23:04 he's wise because he's perfect because
0:23:07 he's merciful this is why these
0:23:09 questions relate to his allah's
0:23:10 attributes or the tributes of god more
0:23:12 than anything else not necessarily the
0:23:14 tribute of power and will because those
0:23:16 are very much connected to his creative
0:23:18 act in his essence the other attributes
0:23:21 when you say god is merciful god is wise
0:23:24 god is perfect whatever other attributes
0:23:26 you're gonna attribute to god you say
0:23:28 these define his behavior or how he's
0:23:31 going to act and from these we know
0:23:33 things about god even if it's not
0:23:34 explicitly stated in the quran
0:23:36 and even if it's not even if we know god
0:23:38 has the power to do it some other way
0:23:40 this is when people argue in that style
0:23:43 that style of argumentation
0:23:45 is the wisdom-based argument style
0:23:48 and we're going to explore wisdom within
0:23:50 a sunni uh paradigm to see
0:23:53 what type of arguments of this nature
0:23:56 are valid and what type are invalid and
0:23:58 we're also going to explore arguments
0:23:59 for or against evolution that have been
0:24:02 really proposed by people
0:24:03 in the present day on that basis of that
0:24:06 kind of argumentation
0:24:08 so
0:24:10 importantly before we go into critiquing
0:24:12 the arguments that are being suggested
0:24:13 in this capacity to know what divine
0:24:16 wisdom is according to the three sony
0:24:18 theological schools
0:24:20 so how is wisdom defined by the three
0:24:22 sony theological schools
0:24:24 well we can i have a few thinkers here
0:24:26 the first thinker i'm mentioning is
0:24:28 he's an ashrae a very famous theologian
0:24:31 he says
0:24:32 knowledge of the order of affairs
0:24:35 and the capability to arrange that is
0:24:38 how he defines wisdom how he understands
0:24:40 god's wisdom to be
0:24:42 so to him it's an attribute of god's
0:24:44 action
0:24:45 wisdom is an attribute of the action
0:24:47 that he carries out
0:24:49 you notice wisdom is not defined
0:24:51 externally to god like wisdom is out
0:24:53 there
0:24:54 and
0:24:55 we define god's wisdom by an external
0:24:57 standard of wisdom there's a standard of
0:24:58 wisdom we understand and we apply it to
0:25:00 god no this standard wisdom emanates
0:25:03 from god's action
0:25:05 so it's not external to god's action it
0:25:07 is his action actualizes the wisdom it's
0:25:09 not the other way around
0:25:11 that's very important because the
0:25:12 ashurites like to emphasize more than
0:25:14 anything else ashurites want to
0:25:16 emphasize god's free will
0:25:18 they're extremely important in this
0:25:19 theological school more than it is to
0:25:21 any other suny theological school
0:25:23 so wisdom cannot be an external factor
0:25:26 or criterion that is any influence over
0:25:29 god's action
0:25:30 god's actions are wise but it's
0:25:32 manifested by the
0:25:34 wisdom is manifested by the action
0:25:36 al-imam al-matari the founder of the
0:25:38 matridge school
0:25:40 says defines wisdom as correctness
0:25:43 by placing everything in its proper
0:25:44 place
0:25:46 so through ali
0:25:48 wisdom is an attribute of god's essence
0:25:50 just like his power and his will
0:25:53 and his knowledge
0:25:55 wisdom is an attribute of essence
0:25:58 the correctness by placing everything in
0:25:59 its proper place
0:26:01 is an essential tribute to god
0:26:04 for him for anesthesia who is a later
0:26:07 maturity
0:26:08 he defines it as an action having a
0:26:10 motivatory outcome so he's looking at
0:26:13 the again it's similar to the asteroid
0:26:15 tradition and that it deals with actions
0:26:17 but in this case
0:26:19 it's the outcome of the action
0:26:21 that is where you see the wisdom not in
0:26:23 the fact that god is acting but the
0:26:25 outcome reaction is it to him isn't a
0:26:27 tribute of god's essence in the sense
0:26:29 that there is a standard of wisdom
0:26:32 the action isn't the one is action isn't
0:26:34 defining the wisdom the wisdom more or
0:26:36 less is defining the action the action
0:26:38 has to have a auditory outcome so you're
0:26:41 dealing more of an external standard of
0:26:43 wisdom here and god by
0:26:45 by his necessary being by the way he is
0:26:49 brings about this kind of action
0:26:51 so it's very distinct
0:26:53 uh from the ashrae model where it's
0:26:55 because god acted it that it's wise the
0:26:58 wisdom emerges from the action now
0:27:00 wisdom here is defining what kind of
0:27:01 action it will be
0:27:05 theologian and a student of intemia
0:27:08 defines wisdom as doing what is
0:27:10 appropriate in the appropriate manner at
0:27:12 the appropriate time
0:27:15 and to jim it's an attribute of god's
0:27:17 perfection within simplified theology
0:27:19 they emphasize god's perfection more
0:27:21 than anything else
0:27:23 and perfection relates to wisdom which
0:27:25 relates to the actions and we will
0:27:26 discuss that as we'll go along as we
0:27:29 look at each school in more detail
0:27:33 the first school again the asteroid
0:27:34 school in more detail gods will look at
0:27:36 god's will what does it mean for god to
0:27:38 have will will is specifies what god
0:27:40 wants from the various possibilities god
0:27:43 can choose to create x or you can say
0:27:45 i'm not creating x he can create a
0:27:47 rabbit or not create a rabbit for
0:27:49 instance
0:27:50 so the will specifies what god wants
0:27:53 from the various possibilities does he
0:27:54 want to do this or do that or do this or
0:27:57 not do this
0:27:58 the specification therefore is a
0:28:00 function carried out by the attribute of
0:28:02 will what does it mean for god to have
0:28:03 will it means that he has his function
0:28:05 of specifying what he is going to do and
0:28:07 what he's not going to do and that is
0:28:08 his free will
0:28:10 what is god's wisdom the manifestation
0:28:12 of god's actions in the world when god
0:28:14 acts the pattern that emerges from his
0:28:16 actions
0:28:17 is wisdom
0:28:20 so god freely chooses to act according
0:28:22 to the dictates of his wisdom everything
0:28:24 is defined by god's own standards god
0:28:27 defines what is wise by his actions so
0:28:30 it's absolute free will that is a
0:28:32 hallmark of course of ashurite theology
0:28:36 in matridism so in ashrae theology i
0:28:38 describe it as it is god's will to do
0:28:41 what is wise
0:28:42 in matridism we would say god's wise
0:28:45 purposes determine his will
0:28:49 god's will again his exact same
0:28:51 definition specifies what god wants from
0:28:54 the various possibilities we've already
0:28:55 gone into what that means specification
0:28:58 is carried out by god's divine purposes
0:29:01 it's god's divine purposes
0:29:04 that specify what is going to be his
0:29:06 will
0:29:07 god's wisdom is he a tribute that guides
0:29:09 and limits those purposes the limits
0:29:11 those will
0:29:12 so a point of maturity is inconceivable
0:29:15 for god to do anything except what is
0:29:16 wise
0:29:17 because wisdom is an attribute of god
0:29:19 it's part of what god is
0:29:22 so god will only manifest wise actions
0:29:24 because he is once
0:29:28 within syllabism we say god's wisdom
0:29:30 enables his will they don't see will as
0:29:32 having they cannot operate without
0:29:34 wisdom it has no meaning of its own
0:29:36 without wisdom god's will again they
0:29:38 agree on this specifies what god wants
0:29:41 from the various possibilities
0:29:43 but specification doesn't happen on its
0:29:45 own
0:29:46 it requires a factor to make one
0:29:48 possibility preferable to another
0:29:52 how
0:29:53 if the will determines i'm going to do x
0:29:55 and not y on what basis am i making that
0:29:57 determination there must be a a factor
0:30:00 that does that god's wisdom is the
0:30:03 attribute that distinguishes what is
0:30:04 best and most appropriate on what basis
0:30:07 because it's more perfect god's
0:30:08 perfection demands that god only acts
0:30:11 wisely without wisdom
0:30:14 will is impossible
0:30:16 even tell me about him would argue since
0:30:18 no option could be distinguished from
0:30:20 the other there is no way to say this is
0:30:22 what god wants to do unless there is a
0:30:25 tribute of wisdom to inform that
0:30:28 decision
0:30:30 so these are three different
0:30:32 ways of understanding wisdom its
0:30:34 definition and three different ways
0:30:37 of understanding how wisdom relates to
0:30:39 god's will and his actions
0:30:47 so now we're going to ask more broader
0:30:50 questions on the basis of these three
0:30:52 schools of theology
0:30:54 what does the world teach us about god
0:30:56 and his wisdom when we look at the world
0:30:58 what can we learn about god and his
0:31:00 wisdom
0:31:01 what is important because science looks
0:31:02 at the world to determine what's
0:31:04 happening in the world so
0:31:05 we have to see this relationship
0:31:10 what does the universe tell us about dog
0:31:13 where how do we get from worldly
0:31:14 knowledge
0:31:15 to knowledge of god that's the direction
0:31:18 the flow of information is one direction
0:31:19 we look at the world and we arrive at
0:31:21 something we some knowledge about god
0:31:24 i say this is the kalam tradition which
0:31:26 includes the asherides and matarinas
0:31:29 those two schools and you've probably
0:31:31 heard of the kalam cosmological argument
0:31:32 well here's one version of that
0:31:35 all things in the universe are by nature
0:31:37 contingent
0:31:38 which means their existence and
0:31:40 non-existence are both possible
0:31:42 we can see that anything that could be
0:31:44 other than the way it is
0:31:47 is necessarily contingent it does not
0:31:50 have to be that way so it doesn't have
0:31:51 to exist at all
0:31:53 the second premise is all contingent
0:31:55 things need a determining factor again
0:31:57 you've heard that determining factor
0:31:58 regarding god's willing
0:32:00 to determine their existence over their
0:32:02 non-existence
0:32:04 that determining factor must ultimately
0:32:06 be necessary an utterly independent goal
0:32:09 why because if the determining factor
0:32:12 you say well yes the color of the box is
0:32:14 green but it was determined by the
0:32:16 painter
0:32:17 well who determined the painter
0:32:19 well the painter
0:32:21 has mommy and daddy determine the
0:32:23 painter well who determined the mummy
0:32:24 and daddy and you go back you go back
0:32:26 and you go back you have to ultimately
0:32:27 say there has to be some existence
0:32:30 something must exist that doesn't that
0:32:32 is not contingent
0:32:33 something must exist that is necessary
0:32:35 that doesn't
0:32:36 have the qualities of contingency that
0:32:40 it isn't bigger or smaller greener or
0:32:42 whiter or whatever it is it is something
0:32:44 absolutely necessary and completely
0:32:46 distinct and different than all the
0:32:47 created existence we see
0:32:49 because it is
0:32:51 not a possibility and it doesn't contain
0:32:54 possibility it is necessary so you're
0:32:57 saying that so just to clarify you're
0:32:58 saying that science scientists
0:33:01 only investigate contingent
0:33:04 things things whose existence or
0:33:06 non-existence are both possible science
0:33:08 as science does not uh
0:33:11 examine investigate discuss or is even
0:33:14 aware of perhaps
0:33:15 necessary and independent
0:33:18 reality i.e god the absolute so it's
0:33:20 strictly limited to a particular horizon
0:33:23 of discourse to do with the contingent
0:33:25 is that would that be fair enough might
0:33:27 be some people like richard dawkins
0:33:29 would argue against that but you are
0:33:30 right in reality that's all they're
0:33:32 capable of science is impotent
0:33:35 it's impotent to discuss anything else
0:33:38 because science only looks at the
0:33:39 observable world it only looks at
0:33:42 natural cause and effect the changing
0:33:44 world around us
0:33:45 and because it limits itself in its
0:33:47 practice to that domain it cannot
0:33:50 investigate these things some scientists
0:33:53 get a bit uppity and think they can but
0:33:55 they're making a mistake they're going
0:33:57 into what's called ontological
0:33:58 naturalism a philosophical school which
0:34:00 rejects metaphysics by
0:34:02 by assuming certain metaphysical
0:34:04 positions ironically
0:34:06 because it is by definition something
0:34:08 that is beyond empirical observation
0:34:11 uh yeah okay thank you
0:34:13 so science cannot do that with its own
0:34:15 within its own parameters it's incapable
0:34:17 of doing that
0:34:19 so this is now you see a green spot
0:34:21 behind the uh picture
0:34:26 yeah why did david drago put a green
0:34:28 spot back there to show how simple this
0:34:31 argument actually is
0:34:33 this particular argument does not
0:34:34 require complexity
0:34:36 it doesn't require a complex world
0:34:39 if you can imagine that your mind is out
0:34:41 there and the entire universe
0:34:45 is that green spot
0:34:49 that green spot is sufficient to prove
0:34:51 that god exists
0:34:53 how
0:34:54 does it have to be there no does it have
0:34:56 to be green no does it have to be round
0:34:58 no does it have to have the brightness
0:35:00 that it has no could it be a different
0:35:01 color yes could it be brighter or darker
0:35:03 but
0:35:04 there's so many different ways you could
0:35:06 argue that it didn't have to be there or
0:35:08 have to be the way it is which means the
0:35:10 green spot is screaming out i am
0:35:12 contingent
0:35:14 so i require something else to bring me
0:35:15 a balance now that's something else is
0:35:17 either going to be contingent or
0:35:18 necessary so ultimately this will bring
0:35:20 you to code
0:35:21 and within the clamp cause argument is
0:35:23 considered so simple and easy to achieve
0:35:26 that a child who has reached creative
0:35:28 discretion child who can think ration
0:35:30 not yet in puberty
0:35:33 is able and is expected to be able to
0:35:35 carry the cell even if its parents are
0:35:36 atheists
0:35:38 now whether they will be held
0:35:39 accountable for that and be punished in
0:35:41 the hereafter before they reach puberty
0:35:43 is that this question that actually
0:35:44 sunni muslims have had
0:35:46 abu hanifa and the hanafi's and the
0:35:47 ashraes and the debate that issue
0:35:50 but the idea that they should be able to
0:35:52 achieve this level of reasoning well
0:35:54 before puberty is is agreed upon it's a
0:35:57 very simple argument and i believe you
0:35:59 have hamza carameli did a whole
0:36:00 presentation on blogging theology he did
0:36:03 and i'm very pleased to say he's coming
0:36:04 back to do further programs on this and
0:36:06 other related matters and what you're
0:36:08 saying what he's saying overlap
0:36:09 considerably yes
0:36:11 that's very good
0:36:13 very interesting look forward to seeing
0:36:15 his other programs
0:36:16 now that is from the kalam perspective
0:36:19 now the set of fights have a slightly
0:36:21 different way of looking at things
0:36:24 they argue a child is born without
0:36:26 knowing though
0:36:27 but with an innate tendency fitrah
0:36:30 towards god
0:36:32 that's not knowledge of god a baby if
0:36:34 you could give a baby ability to talk or
0:36:36 read its brain waves you will not have a
0:36:38 concept of a fully formed concept of god
0:36:40 if we're gonna take
0:36:41 but it has an innate
0:36:43 longing this innate longing given you
0:36:45 describes it as it's innate longing for
0:36:48 its mother's milk it doesn't have to be
0:36:49 taught that
0:36:52 it has it's just like it has that
0:36:54 there's a need to love god so love of
0:36:56 god comes from tamiya before knowledge
0:36:58 of god
0:37:00 a very interesting way of looking at
0:37:02 things
0:37:03 that innate longing towards god is there
0:37:06 so as the mind matures the need to love
0:37:08 god leads to knowledge of god without
0:37:10 the need for any kind of
0:37:12 proof at all
0:37:14 he does say you will be seeing it in the
0:37:15 signs of nature as a child looks around
0:37:18 and sees a world around the child it'll
0:37:20 recognize
0:37:21 without been
0:37:22 having to think too hard
0:37:25 because of that innate nature it'll pull
0:37:27 the child to the conclusion that this
0:37:29 world is created by god
0:37:31 so there's no need to any kind of formal
0:37:33 reason
0:37:34 and so
0:37:34 foreign difference is how early it
0:37:36 happens for him it just develops like
0:37:39 something that slowly comes into focus
0:37:41 and develops very much earlier i don't
0:37:43 he doesn't give a year nobody can give a
0:37:44 year every child is different but for
0:37:47 for matries and actually so guess around
0:37:50 maybe six seven or eight depending on
0:37:51 the child for maintenance it's gonna
0:37:53 happen much earlier than that maybe for
0:37:55 the chalking discuss it or express it
0:37:57 that awareness will emerge in the
0:37:59 child's mind
0:38:00 so it's gonna happen much earlier within
0:38:02 his within his understanding and this by
0:38:05 the way has been
0:38:06 empirically investigated by researchers
0:38:08 at oxford i think it harbored as well in
0:38:10 recent uh research and this has been
0:38:12 shown to be empirically universally the
0:38:14 case throughout our species this is not
0:38:16 a whether or not the the parents or the
0:38:18 household is secular or atheist or hindu
0:38:21 or buddhist or muslim
0:38:22 there is a universal uh innate tendency
0:38:25 towards god or towards the transcendent
0:38:28 that has been observed and and the
0:38:29 conclusion is uh by the eminent people
0:38:32 at oxford that this is innate in our
0:38:34 species it's so it is so uh
0:38:37 even tamiya has been proven right by
0:38:39 recent scientific research
0:38:42 and i think the actuaries in maturities
0:38:43 would say we're proving us right too
0:38:45 we're just talking about the
0:38:47 exactly the how it actually happens and
0:38:50 is a little bit different but yeah they
0:38:51 both all basically agree that a child
0:38:53 will reach this yes yeah isn't it but
0:38:55 yeah it looks like even tamiyas has an
0:38:56 advantage with regard to the current
0:38:58 research that's being done
0:39:00 it looks like it more supports
0:39:02 instantaneous uh way of looking at
0:39:04 things
0:39:05 that there is something very there is a
0:39:07 drive at least
0:39:08 somehow in the way our brain functions
0:39:10 that brings us there very quickly
0:39:12 absolutely and
0:39:16 now so
0:39:18 here we have
0:39:19 does that mean is that everything
0:39:20 because as you know the that doesn't
0:39:22 give us all the knowledge we want of god
0:39:25 to know that there's a necessary being
0:39:27 that has a power and will and knowledge
0:39:28 to create because knowledge of course
0:39:30 has to be there in order to make
0:39:31 determinations and will has to be there
0:39:34 in order to decide and power us be there
0:39:35 otherwise there'll be no object of power
0:39:38 but
0:39:39 we see we understand god to be more than
0:39:41 just that very abstract and very simple
0:39:44 understanding there's more to it
0:39:47 and the calam cosmological argument even
0:39:49 the future argument doesn't get you all
0:39:50 the way there no
0:39:52 so there is also a role for another role
0:39:54 for the universe and from the kalam
0:39:57 tradition you see the universe is a
0:39:59 current it has a beginning of for
0:40:01 instance or changes over time it's
0:40:03 temporal and it's contingent
0:40:05 it's not necessary that shows that god
0:40:07 exists the necessary being but then once
0:40:10 we know the necessary being exists
0:40:13 then we see that the universe is complex
0:40:16 orderly balanced and harmonized we see
0:40:18 these processes and these
0:40:20 aspects and qualities of the universe we
0:40:22 observe and that lets us know that god
0:40:25 is wise so the universe itself tells us
0:40:27 god is wise you have to look in the
0:40:28 quran say is god wise you know
0:40:32 god says he's once no you don't need to
0:40:34 go that far
0:40:36 god's wisdom emerges also from looking
0:40:38 at nature
0:40:39 but it's a different type of
0:40:41 argumentation
0:40:42 once you have god's existence firmly in
0:40:45 your mind from your fitrah or from your
0:40:47 intellectual proof however it happens
0:40:51 then you see that nature has certain
0:40:53 qualities it's complex it's ordered its
0:40:55 balance is harmonized we see
0:40:57 purposiveness in the universe
0:40:59 we see that purpose in this
0:41:01 we know it's created it's created in
0:41:03 this purpose of this means the creator
0:41:05 manifests purposiveness in his creation
0:41:08 it's orderly it has a creator that
0:41:10 creator manifests the order because he
0:41:12 he's the one who did it
0:41:14 so then we can see that god is wise god
0:41:16 is perfection god is merciful many other
0:41:19 attributes we can see
0:41:21 coming through from this way of looking
0:41:22 at it so nature does inform us it
0:41:24 doesn't just inform us that he exists it
0:41:26 informs us of many of god's qualities
0:41:28 that we can see as well
0:41:30 and from the kalam perspective you see
0:41:32 of the command cosmological argument
0:41:35 manifests the existence and the nature
0:41:37 and orderliness of the universe manifest
0:41:40 his wisdom and other attributes
0:41:42 the cellophane position is extremely
0:41:44 similar but slightly different because
0:41:45 of the accomp role of fitra that human
0:41:49 innate longing
0:41:51 drives us to knowledge of god in our
0:41:52 childhood so we know we exist then when
0:41:55 we get older and we are more mature we
0:41:57 can observe the universe and contemplate
0:41:59 the science of god in the universe even
0:42:01 more and by contemplating the science of
0:42:03 god in universe we see that the universe
0:42:05 is complex orderly balanced and
0:42:06 harmonized and in the same way we arrive
0:42:09 that god is wise the only difference
0:42:11 between the celebrity kalam version is
0:42:14 how we arrive at god's existence in the
0:42:15 first place it's slightly different yep
0:42:20 okay
0:42:21 now
0:42:23 now we look at the three different
0:42:24 schools and see can we go in the
0:42:25 opposite direction can we make the flow
0:42:27 of information going the other way
0:42:30 if i start off saying god is wise can i
0:42:34 sit there without anything else and say
0:42:35 in certain things about the way the
0:42:37 world is
0:42:39 that from knowing that god is wise once
0:42:41 i've arrived at the knowledge of god's
0:42:43 wisdom that i can say that this means
0:42:45 that i can predict certain things about
0:42:47 the nature of the world from that
0:42:48 premise
0:42:50 with an astronaut uh definition of
0:42:52 wisdom being it's it's embodied in god's
0:42:54 actions as you said god's manifest
0:42:56 wisdom through his actions
0:42:58 he's not dictated
0:43:00 his wisdom doesn't dictate his actions
0:43:01 his actions might uh basically dictate
0:43:03 what is wisdom so for them no
0:43:05 it doesn't go the other direction
0:43:08 god's wisdom is known through his
0:43:10 actions not the other way around
0:43:12 what god has done is wise and we can
0:43:15 often discern the patterns in his wisdom
0:43:18 by observing the world and realizing
0:43:20 that he's wise
0:43:21 but we will not be able to predict any
0:43:23 details about the world solely from that
0:43:25 premise
0:43:26 so we can learn from we can drive god's
0:43:28 wisdom from seeing the world but we
0:43:30 cannot predict things about the world by
0:43:33 by accepting the fact that god is blind
0:43:36 okay
0:43:38 from the matari perspective
0:43:40 they say that the universe must exhibit
0:43:42 order and precision
0:43:44 since the universe because otherwise
0:43:46 universe would exist in vain they say
0:43:48 since the universe is not exist in vain
0:43:50 it's a deliberate action of god
0:43:52 and we know that god places here to
0:43:54 worship him he says he says he created
0:43:56 us to worship him
0:43:58 the universe must therefore have a
0:44:00 minimum level of coherence and precision
0:44:03 for us to be able to come to know him in
0:44:05 worship
0:44:07 so a universe that's completely chaotic
0:44:09 and incoherent would not fulfill the
0:44:10 purpose of allowing us to exist to have
0:44:13 reason to see the world and come to
0:44:15 acknowledge god's existence
0:44:16 and if our purpose is to worship god
0:44:19 then a wise god would have to create a
0:44:20 universe where that is possible it
0:44:22 doesn't have to be our universe it
0:44:24 doesn't have to look like this it
0:44:25 doesn't have to have raining water and
0:44:27 growing trees though it has to have a
0:44:29 level of coherence so rational beings
0:44:31 could be created in it that reflect upon
0:44:33 god
0:44:34 so that they would say is something that
0:44:36 wisdom can tell us has to be the case
0:44:38 for you it's something we observe in the
0:44:39 universe anyway it doesn't tell us
0:44:40 anything we can get already but it says
0:44:42 his wisdom dictates that has to be part
0:44:44 of the universe so yes
0:44:46 the universe could have been different
0:44:47 than it is but that would have to be
0:44:49 there that a certain level of order and
0:44:51 precision would have to be there in any
0:44:53 possible world that god created for us
0:44:57 for the solophytes who focus on god's
0:44:59 perfection god's perfection would
0:45:01 require a coherent creation very similar
0:45:04 to the magic position because god's wise
0:45:07 and just it requires a certain level of
0:45:09 coherence in his action
0:45:12 because he would have to be acting in a
0:45:14 coherent and consistent manner
0:45:17 yeah so these are different because of
0:45:19 different ways of looking at wisdom ways
0:45:21 of defining wisdom the three schools
0:45:23 have a different understanding of how
0:45:25 the flow of information could go the
0:45:27 other way they're very general the uh
0:45:29 understandings they have are extremely
0:45:31 general but they but the asteroids will
0:45:34 say no we cannot take it the other
0:45:36 direction fermat three dice and
0:45:37 cellophanes they can within these limits
0:45:41 what none of what they all agree on now
0:45:43 we say sunnis falls here we can predict
0:45:47 the universe must be precisely x y and z
0:45:50 can we
0:45:51 do something more for specific can we
0:45:54 predict specific details of our world
0:45:57 based only on knowing god is wise we say
0:45:59 god is wise what can i say about the
0:46:00 world and predict about the world
0:46:03 strictly on the basis of knowing the
0:46:04 goddess ones
0:46:06 now
0:46:07 they all agree this is you cannot do
0:46:09 that by knowing god is wise dictate
0:46:11 specific details of what the world is
0:46:14 and its nature and its events and
0:46:16 happenings and we'll quote different
0:46:18 scholars i will mention what different
0:46:20 scholars of the three suny schools have
0:46:22 said in this regard
0:46:23 al ghazali says the meaning of the wise
0:46:27 is the knower of the reality of things
0:46:30 the capable
0:46:31 of precision in making them accord
0:46:33 precisely through his will
0:46:35 from this where is the need of god
0:46:37 considering best interests
0:46:40 god doesn't have vested interest
0:46:42 as for a wise man among us
0:46:45 he takes his best interest into
0:46:47 consideration looking out for himself to
0:46:49 achieve distinction in the world and to
0:46:51 achieve reward in the hereafter or to
0:46:53 repel misfortune from himself all of
0:46:55 these things are impossible to conceive
0:46:57 but for god god has no needs he's
0:46:59 basically saying and because god doesn't
0:47:01 can do anything any way he wants to do
0:47:03 it uh you can't predict specific things
0:47:05 of nature and say because god is wise he
0:47:08 has to do it this way no god is not
0:47:10 dependent he has no limitations or needs
0:47:12 so that would make type of argumentation
0:47:14 would make no sense and imam al-mataridi
0:47:16 observes
0:47:18 if those sectarians people of other
0:47:20 sexes gave consideration to what we have
0:47:23 mentioned of proofs
0:47:24 they would have known their intellects
0:47:26 limited ability to know human wisdom
0:47:30 he sort of like philosophers and other
0:47:32 sectarians that rely on reason a lot say
0:47:34 if they look at their own troops they
0:47:35 would see that even human wisdom is hard
0:47:37 for humans to figure out
0:47:40 let alone being able to comprehend the
0:47:42 lord's wisdom
0:47:43 so he very much emphasizes god's wisdom
0:47:46 but says you can't second guess god
0:47:48 based on your understanding of that
0:47:49 which basically is what he's saying
0:47:51 likewise a later maturity scholar
0:47:53 anesthesia says
0:47:55 god has created an incalculable
0:47:57 abundance of things
0:47:59 from which no one in his creation
0:48:00 derives benefit or gets to see or even
0:48:02 examine like the hidden regions of the
0:48:05 earth the interiors of the mountains
0:48:07 are the bottoms of the oceans god is
0:48:10 transcendent above taking benefit from
0:48:12 anything
0:48:12 nevertheless he did not create the rooms
0:48:15 in vain so god has wisdom he's saying
0:48:17 god has wisdom in these things even
0:48:19 though we don't see it we can't even
0:48:21 imagine it now the fact that necessity's
0:48:23 arguments are a bit outdated because
0:48:25 today we know that we can we definitely
0:48:27 have an understanding of the interiors
0:48:28 of the mountains and we are exploring
0:48:30 the uh composition of the center of the
0:48:32 earth and see the function that the
0:48:34 mantle and the poor have in allowing
0:48:36 life to exist on earth for instance and
0:48:38 we definitely know what's at the bottom
0:48:39 of the oceans
0:48:40 we send submersibles down there but the
0:48:43 fact that his argument is dated the
0:48:45 examples he gives are outpainted proves
0:48:47 his point
0:48:48 we now see many wisdoms and benefits in
0:48:50 there but he in his time could not see
0:48:52 them
0:48:54 so limited human knowledge does not mean
0:48:56 saying just because we get no benefit
0:48:58 out of the center of the mountain the
0:49:00 core of the earth or the bottom of the
0:49:01 sea and we never even get to see those
0:49:03 things doesn't mean god created them in
0:49:05 vain now today we know better we've
0:49:08 proven his point
0:49:09 there are other things we don't know
0:49:11 about other things so they what is the
0:49:13 wisdom in that it can't be that way
0:49:15 but again we should take lessons we
0:49:17 don't know and that's what nest of his
0:49:19 point is we can't second-guess god again
0:49:23 in the in the cellophane theologian says
0:49:25 comparing god's actions to the actions
0:49:28 of his servants that's you and me
0:49:30 is one of the falsest of analogies
0:49:33 likewise is comparing his wisdom to
0:49:35 theirs or his attributes to theirs
0:49:38 it is acknowledged that the lord knows
0:49:40 that his servants will fall into
0:49:41 unbelief injustice and wrongdoing and he
0:49:44 is capable of not creating them or
0:49:46 creating them upon one heart
0:49:48 to do what he loves and is pleased with
0:49:52 and he can prevent them from
0:49:53 transgressing against each other
0:49:55 but his infinite wisdom keeps him from
0:49:57 doing so and requires that he creates
0:49:59 them the way they are now you see there
0:50:01 is a linkage god's wisdom requires that
0:50:04 sirisela fight way of thought
0:50:06 okay it was ashurite to never use that
0:50:08 phrase but just because god's wisdom
0:50:10 requires that he creates the world in a
0:50:12 certain way doesn't mean we can know the
0:50:15 details of what that way is because we
0:50:17 don't have access to that
0:50:18 so we don't have that level of knowledge
0:50:20 to make those determinations
0:50:22 even though it's determined
0:50:23 yes exactly
0:50:25 so again we can't second guess god even
0:50:27 though the cellophanes would argue would
0:50:29 use that kind of language again that
0:50:32 god's wisdom requires that it's the way
0:50:34 it is
0:50:35 which is definitely that's a big
0:50:37 distinction between the fights and
0:50:38 asteroids
0:50:40 but still you can't dictate to god what
0:50:42 that wisdom is again we would have to be
0:50:44 god to be able to do that
0:50:47 so
0:50:49 and even is another salafi
0:50:51 reflects necessity's statement when he
0:50:53 says
0:50:55 if god's wisdom is not evident to us we
0:50:58 can't see it
0:51:00 in something we see we can't imagine
0:51:02 what it is that does not mean god's
0:51:04 wisdom is not there
0:51:06 our ignorance of his wisdom does not
0:51:08 negate its existence
0:51:11 do we not see that though though god's
0:51:13 wisdom is hidden from us and the
0:51:15 creation of snakes scorpions wrath and
0:51:18 insect vermin from which we know nothing
0:51:21 but harm this does not negate that god
0:51:23 created them nor does it mean that there
0:51:25 is no wisdom in them that remains hidden
0:51:29 since the absence of knowledge does not
0:51:31 equate to the knowledge of absence a
0:51:33 very good axiom to keep in our life the
0:51:35 absence of knowledge does not
0:51:37 mean the knowledge of absence yeah and
0:51:40 so again he's saying the same thing and
0:51:42 his examples are outdated and the beauty
0:51:44 of his examples
0:51:46 and they prove his point
0:51:48 today no ecologist would say that
0:51:51 uh snake scorpions rats and insects have
0:51:53 no function
0:51:56 if insects disappeared our
0:51:58 ecology our ecosystem would cease to
0:52:00 exist on earth it'll be dead
0:52:04 this this kind of argument i think every
0:52:06 ecologist and um naturalist is wincing
0:52:08 when they heard but harry had been even
0:52:10 out and say this argument at all but the
0:52:12 fact that he couldn't see the but he's
0:52:14 saying i cannot see the wisdom in these
0:52:15 nasty animals
0:52:17 well that but i know that wisdom is
0:52:19 there
0:52:20 so yes his examples are outdated and
0:52:22 that only goes to prove his point
0:52:27 so this means that the flow of
0:52:28 information
0:52:30 from knowing god's wisdom to determining
0:52:32 he's all here is either absent if you're
0:52:34 an asher right there is no flow in that
0:52:36 direction or it's extremely limited to
0:52:38 knowing that the universe has to be
0:52:39 generally coherent
0:52:41 and cons and
0:52:43 and intelligible but anything more than
0:52:45 that you're now second guessing god and
0:52:47 that's agreed upon by all sunnis
0:52:52 god's wisdom and the question of
0:52:53 efficiency
0:52:54 this is an argument that is not popular
0:52:56 among muslim creationists or
0:52:58 evolutionists
0:52:59 it's not really used by muslim thinkers
0:53:01 but it's extremely popular in christian
0:53:04 literature
0:53:05 with regard to evolution
0:53:07 they say it's that
0:53:09 it's a wasteful way of doing things for
0:53:11 instance evolution is wasteful
0:53:14 now
0:53:15 this steals a problem analogy as we've
0:53:17 heard some of the people we've mentioned
0:53:18 mentioned the false analogy
0:53:21 that wisdom-based arguments are very
0:53:22 susceptible to false analogies when we
0:53:25 compare god to us basically when you're
0:53:28 looking at an argument from efficiency
0:53:30 what are you arguing
0:53:31 let's look at an engineer the top uh
0:53:33 picture here engineers must be efficient
0:53:36 in their design to maximize their
0:53:38 intended goals while utilizing the
0:53:40 minimum amount of resources
0:53:42 tasks must be completed to the fullest
0:53:44 extent with a minimum of time space and
0:53:46 energy expenditure that's how you make a
0:53:48 profit
0:53:50 i want to achieve my goal with the least
0:53:52 expense
0:53:54 and that is called efficiency
0:53:56 whether it's expensive money or energy
0:53:58 or capital or resources
0:54:01 i want to do this
0:54:02 this means what why would you care
0:54:07 you care because you have limited
0:54:08 resources limited power you have wants
0:54:11 that you cannot achieve unless you are
0:54:14 prudent
0:54:16 okay
0:54:17 strange thing to compare god to or one
0:54:19 who is creates whatever he pleases
0:54:22 has no limitations whatsoever has no
0:54:24 needs
0:54:25 so when a person uses an efficiency
0:54:27 argument on god they're actually arguing
0:54:29 that god has to behave in the world like
0:54:30 an engineer
0:54:33 but even with humans it's not always the
0:54:35 case that's what's so amazing look at
0:54:37 artists
0:54:39 artists must be imaginative in their use
0:54:41 of resources to bring about emotional
0:54:43 impact and delight
0:54:45 time space energy expenditure and effort
0:54:47 can all be part of the creative
0:54:49 experience and are intended as part of
0:54:51 the outcome
0:54:52 let's give a couple artistic examples
0:54:55 a person makes a gigantic white canvas
0:54:58 and puts a splatter of red across the
0:55:00 middle of it a very whether you like the
0:55:02 kind of art or not it'll be a striking
0:55:04 impact what makes it its size and excess
0:55:07 it's plain white field the big red
0:55:09 splatter in the middle the fact that it
0:55:11 takes the entire side of the building to
0:55:13 show it is impactive some people say
0:55:15 it's a waste of the public taxpayers
0:55:17 money but it still has its impact
0:55:19 the part of that purpose of the impact
0:55:21 is in the size and scale
0:55:24 not in its efficiency
0:55:26 now let us take a more conservative
0:55:28 example the opposite extreme is more
0:55:30 conservative and acceptable when you
0:55:32 conserve the circles they persian
0:55:34 miniature in the muslim world they used
0:55:36 to make paintings the size of thumbnails
0:55:38 sometimes
0:55:40 with such detail that the human eye
0:55:42 cannot see the detail but it has to be
0:55:43 there
0:55:45 to expand that much effort to make these
0:55:47 small details can barely be seen
0:55:53 it's part of the aesthetic
0:55:56 itself is it practical
0:56:00 in this hole that cannot be achieved any
0:56:03 other way to human needs yes so even
0:56:06 humans are not always engineers and even
0:56:08 when they are not behaving like
0:56:09 engineers they're not behaving foolishly
0:56:11 they're not necessarily doing the wrong
0:56:13 thing by not being efficient because the
0:56:15 type of experience you want to achieve
0:56:16 the goal you have in the aesthetic realm
0:56:19 is different
0:56:20 so that should make us humble before we
0:56:22 try to apply either of these analogies
0:56:25 to god
0:56:27 because god is artist is used by some
0:56:28 people and people who see god as artists
0:56:31 you know they have a different attitude
0:56:32 about the way god behaves
0:56:34 and they have different expectations of
0:56:35 god you've noticed that if you look at
0:56:37 people that's that try to explain god
0:56:39 that way they have a different attitude
0:56:40 about religion than those who would try
0:56:42 to
0:56:43 picture god as an engineer
0:56:45 but both we would say are false
0:56:46 analogies they're comparing god to us
0:56:51 now let us look at
0:56:53 an imaginary scientific explanation of
0:56:56 this false analogy
0:56:58 look if you can look on the right side
0:57:00 of the slide you see a little tiny green
0:57:01 and blue ball that's the earth you've
0:57:03 seen it before in some earlier slides
0:57:05 yes and on the left side you see this
0:57:07 big orange and yellow ball that is the
0:57:09 sun
0:57:10 let's look at some details about this
0:57:12 now these are not this is not a matter
0:57:14 of scientific theories these are all
0:57:15 observed facts i'm going to give you
0:57:17 the sun's dynamic diameter is about
0:57:20 109 times the diameter of the earth
0:57:24 in order for the earth to enjoy a
0:57:26 climate conducive to life
0:57:28 the earth averages
0:57:30 149.6 million kilometers away from its
0:57:33 source of energy
0:57:34 the distance between the sun and the
0:57:36 earth is 107
0:57:38 times the diameter of the sun
0:57:41 the sun is 333 thousand times more
0:57:44 massive than the earth the sun consumes
0:57:47 more than four million tons of fuel
0:57:49 every second
0:57:51 the sun loses an additional 1.5 million
0:57:54 tons of material to the solar wind
0:57:57 over its lifetime up to now
0:57:59 the sun has lost more than 100 times the
0:58:02 mass of the earth
0:58:04 the earth receives between one and two
0:58:07 billions
0:58:09 that's one and two thousand millionths
0:58:12 of the energy emitted by the sun
0:58:14 very little actually and the other
0:58:16 little specks of dust called the other
0:58:18 planets also get their share a few more
0:58:20 billions there now imagine a person who
0:58:24 has the efficiency argument in their
0:58:25 mind they are geocentrists imagine you
0:58:27 go back to the middle ages
0:58:28 and you go to the geocentrist who
0:58:30 believes that the sun is a little tiny
0:58:32 bowl
0:58:33 very hot and bright and it goes around
0:58:35 the earth
0:58:36 and you explain this to that geocentrist
0:58:39 they would say that's the craziest thing
0:58:42 i ever heard
0:58:45 this is ridiculous way to heat in my
0:58:47 earth
0:58:48 to spin the earth around to make day and
0:58:50 night so as to spin it around really
0:58:52 fast
0:58:53 and then it goes around the sun like
0:58:55 that at that distance
0:58:58 it makes much more sense
0:59:01 to have a small sun close to the earth
0:59:03 and go around the earth
0:59:05 shedding its light and heat as it does
0:59:07 so
0:59:08 it's much more efficient
0:59:12 what is this spinning earth nonsense
0:59:14 this setup is wasteful injudicious and
0:59:18 absurd
0:59:19 and i have seen in the literature the
0:59:21 same exact argument being used against
0:59:23 evolution
0:59:24 needless to say whether evolution is
0:59:26 true or false it may not be the argument
0:59:28 you would want to use
0:59:30 simply because it has this defective
0:59:32 comparing god to an engineer
0:59:39 humanity
0:59:41 now what's interesting is that
0:59:42 al-ghazali who's an asteroid came up
0:59:44 with this argument he argues that our
0:59:47 world is in fact the best possible world
0:59:51 and there has been a lot of discussion
0:59:52 about what he means by that
0:59:54 centuries of discussion
0:59:56 western academia has published books on
0:59:58 the subject and papers
1:00:01 as well as muslims throughout the
1:00:03 centuries have debated what he means by
1:00:05 because it seems like an asteroid
1:00:06 wouldn't want to say this a god is not
1:00:08 obliged to do anything so why would this
1:00:10 world be the best possible world and
1:00:15 doesn't mean he's obligated to do it but
1:00:17 he did
1:00:18 because he is gone
1:00:21 and he will to do what is wise and he
1:00:23 will decree this world and we should
1:00:24 take that on faith he says we have to
1:00:26 take your own faith because how could we
1:00:29 make that determination for ourselves
1:00:30 how do we know what would it take to
1:00:33 know that the world is best not taken on
1:00:35 faith but to know that this is the best
1:00:37 possible world well it gives a list of
1:00:39 nine things nine conditions that we
1:00:41 would have to fulfill and then we would
1:00:43 know for sure
1:00:44 without having to take it on faith
1:00:46 that this is the best possible world
1:00:48 condition one god created for us all the
1:00:51 knowledge our souls would contain
1:00:54 god poured out upon them wisdom of
1:00:56 indescribable extent god gave each
1:00:58 person the knowledge wisdom and
1:00:59 intelligence of them all so shared
1:01:01 knowledge
1:01:02 god revealed to them the consequences of
1:01:04 all things
1:01:06 god taught them the mysteries of the
1:01:07 invisible world
1:01:09 god acquainted them with the subtleties
1:01:11 of divine favor god acquainted them with
1:01:13 the mysteries of final punishments god
1:01:15 made them aware of all that is evil god
1:01:18 made them wear what brings all benefits
1:01:20 what brings all heart because if you had
1:01:22 this knowledge you could you would
1:01:23 determine without a doubt that this is
1:01:25 the best possible world well guess what
1:01:27 you don't have that so guess what you
1:01:29 just have to take it on
1:01:31 so that's now
1:01:33 that is again something that is
1:01:34 something we know for sure that's how
1:01:35 they gave this list of conditions to
1:01:37 know this for sure now exactly why he
1:01:40 says that and insist upon it has been a
1:01:42 matter of scholarly debate for centuries
1:01:44 but obviously we don't fulfill the
1:01:46 conditions to make those determinations
1:01:49 this has importance for us in science
1:01:50 because if someone says that uh looks at
1:01:53 a scientific theory whatever that theory
1:01:55 is it says that theory it is unpleasant
1:01:58 or it looks crude
1:02:00 in the best possible world that wouldn't
1:02:01 be the case
1:02:04 they would that that would not be a
1:02:05 valid argument because we can't
1:02:07 determine what the criteria of that best
1:02:09 possible world is there is a there is a
1:02:11 criteria but i mentioned professor john
1:02:13 parking on before professor of
1:02:14 mathematical physics in cambridge he
1:02:15 talks about beauty and elegance being a
1:02:18 key to truth in science mathematical
1:02:21 elegance mathematical beauty the
1:02:23 universe seems to have this intrinsic
1:02:25 correspondence between beauty and
1:02:27 elegance
1:02:29 so it's it's not uh
1:02:31 and those qualities themselves
1:02:33 tend to be keys to the truth and
1:02:35 accuracy of a scientific thesis uh it
1:02:37 was quite remarkable when i first heard
1:02:39 that that is remarkable and it go it
1:02:40 also shows a flow of information you can
1:02:42 look at aspects of nature
1:02:44 like that and realize that there is a
1:02:46 god who is wise
1:02:48 but you would not look at a scientific
1:02:50 theory and say this specific theory
1:02:52 isn't beautiful enough for me so god
1:02:54 wouldn't do it that way it has to be
1:02:56 false you can't reverse it
1:02:58 and say i don't personally think it's
1:03:00 beautiful
1:03:01 so that scientific theory can't be nice
1:03:02 because i don't like the world it's
1:03:04 describing
1:03:05 and because god is perfect
1:03:07 and god created the best possible world
1:03:09 that scientific model is not the best
1:03:11 possible world in my opinion
1:03:13 so that scientist is talking crap he
1:03:16 doesn't know what he's talking about al
1:03:18 ghazali would point out you as an
1:03:20 individual do not get to set that
1:03:22 criterion
1:03:24 you'd have to fulfill all nine of these
1:03:25 positions then you could talk like that
1:03:28 until you get until you've achieved
1:03:29 these nine uh specific prerequisites you
1:03:33 don't get to talk like that that's what
1:03:34 he would say
1:03:38 so here is a glaring example false
1:03:40 analogy douglas barbour mentions this in
1:03:43 many places when science meets religion
1:03:45 no this is not douglas barbour's
1:03:46 argument
1:03:48 he's an argument he discusses oh i see
1:03:50 because he he himself is a
1:03:52 a christian uh he's ordained in the
1:03:54 church of england i think so he's
1:03:56 yeah and he's very active in the islam
1:03:59 and the christianity and science of
1:04:01 science and religion the discussion
1:04:03 he says one argument against evolution
1:04:05 is there seems to be too many blind
1:04:07 allies
1:04:08 species going extinct without getting
1:04:10 anywhere there are too many extinct
1:04:12 species and too much suffering and waste
1:04:15 in the world to attribute every event to
1:04:17 call its specification now no one's
1:04:19 arguing that there isn't waste and
1:04:20 suffering in the world you can see that
1:04:22 animals eating each other and dying and
1:04:24 disease it's out there but they're
1:04:25 saying you can this cannot be the way
1:04:27 god creates this cannot be the creative
1:04:29 process of god because that process is
1:04:32 wasteful again we've already discussed
1:04:34 in detail
1:04:35 why that is not the case and why we
1:04:37 can't use that it's a crass example of a
1:04:38 whole synology
1:04:41 and it's not common among muslim
1:04:42 thinkers for that very reason you know
1:04:44 for example as abu mahindi nsfe of the
1:04:47 matri theologian explains the falsehood
1:04:49 of this analogy when he says every agent
1:04:51 in the observable world is subject to
1:04:54 needs and necessities if they if worldly
1:04:58 creatures engage in what does not
1:05:00 benefit them
1:05:02 when they should be acquiring benefit
1:05:04 boarding off harm
1:05:06 then they are engaging what diverts them
1:05:08 from acquiring benefit and averting harm
1:05:11 this is blameworthy behavior for them
1:05:13 it's you know called folly and decadence
1:05:15 for instance we have wordsworth this is
1:05:17 blameworthy behavior for them
1:05:19 since it is deficient and destructive it
1:05:23 is foolish
1:05:25 if people do things that don't benefit
1:05:26 them and cause them harm it's foolish we
1:05:28 call that a foolish person
1:05:30 but god transcends such things
1:05:33 he doesn't have but he can't be harmed
1:05:34 he cannot get benefit
1:05:37 so when he acts without securing benefit
1:05:39 for himself
1:05:40 which he can never secure a benefit for
1:05:42 himself
1:05:43 it is not foolish
1:05:45 so you're saying that's a very false
1:05:46 comparison between human beings and god
1:05:53 so now we get to the main point of our
1:05:56 topic
1:05:57 arguments from wisdom
1:05:59 that have been made in the present day
1:06:02 the 20s late 20th and early 21st century
1:06:05 for and against evolution i'm going to
1:06:07 give both kinds
1:06:09 and we're going to study these arguments
1:06:11 on the basis of what has gone before
1:06:13 from a sunni perspective these arguments
1:06:15 may make more sense from other
1:06:16 perspectives but specifically from a
1:06:19 sunni theological perspective on wisdom
1:06:22 how do these arguments stand up
1:06:26 so i'll begin with anti-evolution
1:06:27 arguments
1:06:36 the first oh anti-evolution argument i
1:06:38 went too far
1:06:44 what god would and would not do
1:06:49 the first argument i'm giving
1:06:52 is if nat if natural purposeless causes
1:06:55 are found to be sufficient to account
1:06:57 for such things people would have no
1:06:59 reason to believe in god
1:07:02 the argument here is
1:07:05 god would not create the universe that
1:07:08 is causally closed the way the
1:07:09 scientists expect it to be or assume it
1:07:12 must be for their practice
1:07:13 because
1:07:14 god has to leave in
1:07:17 reason for us to believe in him
1:07:19 some things will have to go and explain
1:07:23 that is the argument here that harun
1:07:24 yahya uses and we can read this in the
1:07:27 about as well
1:07:29 the argument essentially means that
1:07:30 god's wisdom dictates that he would not
1:07:33 act in nature by giving every effect a
1:07:35 cause
1:07:36 we're not saying god is incapable of
1:07:38 doing so
1:07:39 that would be a different type of
1:07:40 argument altogether that the universe by
1:07:43 nate by necessity has to have gaps
1:07:45 because god's creative act would not
1:07:47 account what would mean that everything
1:07:49 cannot be accounted for we've discussed
1:07:51 that in our previous discussion about uh
1:07:54 we discussed intelligent design
1:07:55 arguments
1:07:57 in those ways we're discussing on a
1:07:58 metaphysical level this is more simple
1:08:00 saying god wouldn't do it that way he
1:08:03 would leave gaps
1:08:04 he'd leave them so we'd have faith
1:08:08 now we see from the divine action models
1:08:10 i discussed in the very beginning
1:08:12 with regard to what god can and cannot
1:08:13 do
1:08:14 that this type of argumentation would
1:08:16 not be very strong because if we
1:08:18 understand that god's existence is so
1:08:20 manifest in the causal process itself
1:08:23 for a muslim when they see cause and
1:08:25 effect they see god's action
1:08:27 they see order they see
1:08:29 contingency
1:08:30 things don't have to be the way they are
1:08:32 they don't have to resolve the way they
1:08:33 do they don't have to be before and
1:08:35 after each other so everything points to
1:08:37 god's existence
1:08:39 which would mean that even a neatly
1:08:41 closed causal process shows god's
1:08:43 existence and shows his wisdom
1:08:46 indeed on ibn tabia's model
1:08:48 the very the fact that god creates true
1:08:50 natural causes and everything has a
1:08:52 natural cause requires that all
1:08:54 phenomena will be expected to have
1:08:55 occurrence so it would really be
1:08:57 problematic for him this
1:08:58 particular argument because wisdom would
1:09:00 mean your god would have to leave some
1:09:02 things with other cause so we'd observe
1:09:04 a lack of causation no that would make
1:09:06 no sense to him
1:09:08 so this means if science demonstrates
1:09:10 that something came about strictly to
1:09:11 natural causes and can be totally
1:09:13 accounted for by natural process all
1:09:16 they have done is to map out for us give
1:09:18 us a map of the process of god's the
1:09:21 processes of god's creative act and that
1:09:24 in no way imperils our faith it should
1:09:26 increase from sunni perspective our
1:09:28 faith is not weakened by him creating a
1:09:31 gapless process
1:09:32 it is strengthened by the precision of
1:09:35 that design the design in the causal
1:09:37 process
1:09:38 because wisdom does not necessitate
1:09:40 that he places causal gaps in the
1:09:42 universe so we can latch on to those
1:09:44 gaps and believe in on that basis
1:09:47 so that argument is saying that god has
1:09:50 to leave gaps for us to be able to be
1:09:52 able to see it's comparing
1:09:55 uh the natural causation in its autonomy
1:09:59 to god in his atonement
1:10:02 another question is
1:10:05 with suleiman yang argues the islamic
1:10:08 view of human origins and man's favorite
1:10:10 status in the universe does not square
1:10:12 with a dominant scientific view of
1:10:14 evolution as argued by charles darwin
1:10:17 and the scientific communities around
1:10:18 the world
1:10:19 if one follows a logic of the evolutions
1:10:22 man appeared after a long process of
1:10:25 transformation from lower forms to
1:10:28 higher forms
1:10:29 now again i don't believe solemn yang is
1:10:32 arguing that god could not is not
1:10:34 capable of creating human beings from
1:10:36 lower forms to higher forms as he says
1:10:40 he's arguing because god has honored us
1:10:42 that's not the way he would go about it
1:10:45 he's saying it would go against god's
1:10:47 wisdom to create us such a man
1:10:49 how could he favor us and give us such
1:10:52 base and ignoble origins
1:10:54 now this argument is problematic for
1:10:58 a number of reasons
1:10:59 i must god's wisdom dictate how he
1:11:02 creates those he favors
1:11:05 and how he confers his esteem and favor
1:11:08 on them
1:11:09 it begs the question isn't god's esteem
1:11:12 enough
1:11:12 the argument assumes a false analogy
1:11:15 that god's creative act must conform
1:11:18 with subjective human notions of dignity
1:11:20 and honor
1:11:22 it is not reasonable maybe for us as
1:11:24 people to honor something that we bring
1:11:26 from lowly sources
1:11:29 if i take something out of the trash i
1:11:31 may not
1:11:32 respect it very much
1:11:34 so we say it must follow for god as well
1:11:37 that's the basic argument if god is
1:11:39 going to honor us he's not going to
1:11:40 evolve us from
1:11:42 disgusting other animals or whatever
1:11:45 but the quran seems to say something
1:11:47 else
1:11:48 about this
1:11:51 the quran says in sort of
1:11:54 28
1:11:55 god created man from altered black mud
1:11:58 and each one of us
1:12:00 in turn is ascribed from the quran like
1:12:03 in sword sajdah verse 8 that we are
1:12:05 created from a humble fluid
1:12:08 a sperm drop
1:12:11 that doesn't
1:12:12 negate the dignity god said he's
1:12:14 conferred upon us
1:12:16 humble origins
1:12:18 does not mean god cannot say he has
1:12:20 honored us
1:12:21 or holds us in esteem
1:12:24 and it also seems to be strangely the
1:12:27 argument satan uses
1:12:30 yes
1:12:31 when he says when he was told to bow
1:12:34 down to adam
1:12:35 he invoked his origins
1:12:38 and adam's origin says you created me
1:12:40 from fire and you created him from mud
1:12:43 now again i'm not holding the stone upon
1:12:45 soleiman i'm just saying there's some
1:12:47 logical fallacy in his argument
1:12:50 and just because something may have come
1:12:52 from a lowly origin does not mean that
1:12:54 god's wisdom would declare that god
1:12:56 would not
1:12:57 create something that way and then
1:12:59 confer honor and distinction upon it
1:13:01 we're comparing
1:13:02 god's actions again to how we would go
1:13:04 about doing things when we want to honor
1:13:07 and we are not to be compared to god
1:13:11 another anti-evolution argument is
1:13:14 the theory of evolution is repugnant to
1:13:16 believers because it is totally in
1:13:18 opposition to the good qualities
1:13:20 required by god of his servants it is a
1:13:23 theory of progress that sets a premium
1:13:25 on sex greed selfishness and violence
1:13:30 in summary this argument is basically
1:13:33 saying
1:13:33 that god's wisdom demands that he would
1:13:36 only act in his creation
1:13:38 in a way that
1:13:39 exemplifies
1:13:41 moral conduct our moral content how we
1:13:43 should behave
1:13:44 that god when he acts he manifests in
1:13:47 nature natural phenomena
1:13:48 the natural phenomena he manifests in
1:13:50 nature should resemble how we should
1:13:53 treat how we are expected as people to
1:13:55 treat each other
1:13:56 that's the argument
1:13:58 this argument assumes
1:14:00 that god's actions must serve as moral
1:14:02 instruction
1:14:04 basically god will not create in a
1:14:06 manner from which people might derive
1:14:08 morally reprehensible lessons
1:14:11 god's actions in this case are being
1:14:12 compared to our own
1:14:14 he will not bring about new species
1:14:16 through a pattern in his actions which
1:14:19 is what evolution would be from a muslim
1:14:20 perspective a pattern in god's actions
1:14:22 he would not do so in nature or sexual
1:14:26 prowess other others misfortunes and
1:14:28 fierce competition among creatures would
1:14:31 play a role in the unfolding of that
1:14:34 pattern
1:14:35 now this is a very subjective uh
1:14:39 argument
1:14:40 it also seems incompatible with some
1:14:42 verses of the quran for example in sword
1:14:45 njim 43-45
1:14:46 god says and it is he who causes to
1:14:49 laugh and causes to weep
1:14:52 and is he who causes death and causes
1:14:54 life
1:14:55 and he created the pairs male and female
1:14:58 so he links even our procreation to this
1:15:01 patterns of misfortune and fortune in
1:15:02 the world
1:15:05 again
1:15:06 god says in sword to shorter
1:15:09 true god belongs to dominion of the
1:15:11 heavens and the earth
1:15:13 he creates what he wishes
1:15:15 he bestows females upon whom he wishes
1:15:18 and bestows males upon whom he wishes
1:15:21 or he gives them both males and females
1:15:24 and he renders whom he wishes childless
1:15:27 indeed he is knowing and capable so god
1:15:30 is saying he is the one who decides who
1:15:32 has more offspring than anybody else and
1:15:35 not everybody gets the same thing that
1:15:36 is clear from the verse i'm just
1:15:38 impressed and sorry just in parenthesis
1:15:41 here and somewhat controversially i i
1:15:42 note that
1:15:43 in in the the language used in the
1:15:45 english translation of the quran god
1:15:47 speaks of male and female genders only
1:15:50 um
1:15:51 there is no uh the the woke discourse uh
1:15:54 is is is is absent shall we say from
1:15:57 that description of our humanity as male
1:15:59 and female that polarity is quite clear
1:16:02 but that's my parenthood
1:16:04 okay yeah see definitely no one can
1:16:07 doubt there is such a thing as male and
1:16:08 female from the quran it establishes
1:16:10 both uh concepts very nicely
1:16:14 this argument that we see here also
1:16:16 assumes that god's actions in nature are
1:16:18 required to resemble how humans are
1:16:20 expected to behave towards one another
1:16:22 this is the most problematic point of
1:16:24 this argument in my opinion
1:16:26 this is a false comparison
1:16:28 even though human moral duty may be
1:16:30 intelligible to us we know why murder is
1:16:32 bad
1:16:33 and we know why saving a child from
1:16:36 drowning is good we can understand that
1:16:38 rationally yes
1:16:39 to a greater lesser extent and different
1:16:41 schools who thought disagree on how much
1:16:43 that extent is
1:16:45 the actions of the creator are different
1:16:47 they're on a different
1:16:50 order altogether
1:16:52 than the actions of individual creatures
1:16:54 living in this world
1:16:56 come
1:16:57 there's a verse that says he is not
1:16:59 questioned about what he does
1:17:01 but they will be questioned
1:17:04 the ashrae theologian albert
1:17:06 comments on this verse and he says
1:17:09 it means that they will be asked about
1:17:12 what they earn
1:17:13 and he will not be asked about what he
1:17:15 creates
1:17:16 because there is no one above him to
1:17:18 command him
1:17:20 and there is no requirement upon him in
1:17:22 what he creates
1:17:24 rather the command and the requirements
1:17:27 are upon them and what they acquire
1:17:30 likewise anesthesia observes he's a
1:17:33 maturity theologian
1:17:35 wisdom is possible in the creation of
1:17:37 repugnant acts
1:17:39 so how can you claim that there is no
1:17:41 wisdom
1:17:43 if they allege that if there had been
1:17:45 wisdom in it they would have understood
1:17:46 that wisdom identified it then they are
1:17:48 being arrogant and presumptuous in the
1:17:51 extreme by making their limited
1:17:53 intellects that can only understand some
1:17:56 aspects of human wisdom into a law
1:17:59 governing divine wisdom very strong
1:18:01 terms
1:18:04 just because as we can say what is good
1:18:06 it would god can tell us even what is
1:18:07 good and bad for us to do
1:18:09 doesn't mean that god when he acts in
1:18:11 nature has to act according to those
1:18:13 same limited
1:18:15 rules or at least we have to understand
1:18:17 and perceive them according to our
1:18:19 limited rules
1:18:21 cellophane theologians distinguish
1:18:22 between the legislative command and
1:18:25 decree which is a law that applies to
1:18:27 creatures so it's like the ten
1:18:28 commandments
1:18:29 do this don't do that when god commands
1:18:31 us that's a legislative command the
1:18:34 legislative decree this is lawful this
1:18:36 is forbidden
1:18:38 but they distinguish that from what they
1:18:40 call the existential command an
1:18:42 existential decree
1:18:44 which applies to god's actions and
1:18:46 nature the two are separate and distinct
1:18:48 when god wants something to be he says
1:18:50 be and it is
1:18:52 that command b is existential god
1:18:55 creates what he wants
1:18:56 they say that has nothing to do with the
1:18:58 legislative command when god says do not
1:19:00 commit fornication do not steal
1:19:03 it says help your neighbors
1:19:05 respect your parents those are
1:19:06 legislative commands that's where
1:19:08 morality is understood
1:19:11 when god decides i'm going to create a
1:19:13 flood or to send down the reins or to
1:19:16 bring about a forest fire or to put an
1:19:18 end to the forest fire these are his
1:19:20 actions in nature those are existential
1:19:22 actions and they cannot be compared to
1:19:25 the commands that he gives to human
1:19:26 beings
1:19:29 so this again is a false analogy
1:19:33 another anti-evolution argument made by
1:19:36 uh
1:19:37 when the wisdom uh paradigm is by k
1:19:40 nedvi
1:19:41 he laments that the theory of evolution
1:19:42 offers a peaceful life for the strong at
1:19:45 the expense of the weak this is of
1:19:47 course
1:19:48 interpreting more of spencer than darwin
1:19:50 this is interpreting what's called
1:19:51 social darwinism but he's saying that
1:19:53 comes he's saying the biological theory
1:19:55 must be false because people can derive
1:19:57 the social theory from it that's what
1:19:58 he's saying
1:20:00 so he's basically arguing that god's
1:20:01 wisdom demands that god would only act
1:20:04 in his creation in a way that reflects a
1:20:06 just political order and ideal social
1:20:09 norms
1:20:11 this argument is very similar to the
1:20:13 previous one except that it focuses on
1:20:16 social justice rather than individual
1:20:18 moral conduct
1:20:21 the other one was looking at morality on
1:20:23 the individual level this is looking at
1:20:24 social justice
1:20:26 it assumes that god's actions must
1:20:28 emulate a model of an ideal social order
1:20:31 so god would not bring about new species
1:20:33 through a pattern
1:20:35 in his actions
1:20:36 that would resemble
1:20:38 by analogy
1:20:40 and unjust society
1:20:44 so this argument like the previous one
1:20:46 assumes an analogy between our behavior
1:20:48 our conduct our societies and god's
1:20:51 actions in nature
1:20:52 so again this is another false analogy
1:20:55 just like the efficiency analogy these
1:20:56 are all different false analogies that
1:20:59 we have seen
1:21:03 so now
1:21:04 okay i've gone too far
1:21:06 arguments from wisdom the pro-evolution
1:21:08 camp and there are pro-evolution muslims
1:21:10 that are out there too they try to force
1:21:12 evolution through religion
1:21:15 and they also have their own
1:21:17 wisdom-based arguments
1:21:19 and we're going to examine three of
1:21:21 those as well
1:21:23 the first is mentioned by nidol gessum
1:21:28 argues
1:21:29 because god is omnipotent
1:21:32 it does not mean
1:21:33 that he is just going to do
1:21:35 violations of his own laws
1:21:39 so i am not saying that god cannot
1:21:42 i am saying that god put together the
1:21:44 laws
1:21:45 so that things function in an orderly
1:21:47 manner
1:21:50 otherwise what is the point of putting
1:21:52 together laws
1:21:54 and then doing what one wants to do
1:21:55 every now and again
1:21:57 the world is ordered and harmonious the
1:21:59 quran itself emphasizes that on the
1:22:02 contrary god is saying
1:22:04 i am omnipotent but even i omnipotent
1:22:07 put together laws by which creation
1:22:09 proceeds
1:22:10 and i want you to follow laws and i want
1:22:13 you to be orderly to follow the order
1:22:16 this of course negates the possibility
1:22:18 of miracles miracles of course in sunni
1:22:21 theology are violations of the natural
1:22:23 order where god does other than what he
1:22:25 normally does
1:22:27 and we have different we've mentioned
1:22:28 three divine action models and each one
1:22:30 has a slightly different interpretation
1:22:31 of how that happens but it's basically
1:22:33 that
1:22:34 yes no i was just saying that i had i
1:22:36 guess uh just a few days ago who
1:22:38 questioned the whole concept of uh laws
1:22:40 in nature he's trained coming from a
1:22:42 philosophical point of view he says laws
1:22:45 don't exist out there what we are doing
1:22:47 is observing regularities and patterns
1:22:50 in nature
1:22:51 and that they don't have this law-like
1:22:53 uh quality such that by necessity in the
1:22:57 future
1:22:58 they must always behave like they did in
1:22:59 the past he said this is a
1:23:01 in a sense a man-made concept they don't
1:23:04 actually exist out there in nature that
1:23:06 was his argument i thought it was
1:23:07 rather impressive
1:23:10 it's an interesting argument especially
1:23:12 when you talk about the metaphysics of
1:23:13 the laws of course from a practical
1:23:15 standpoint science if we just assume
1:23:16 this is the case but we're investigating
1:23:19 the natural relationships and we just
1:23:21 want to know what relationships are that
1:23:22 we see
1:23:23 but once you get into the metaphysics
1:23:24 once a scientist wants to transfer
1:23:26 something into a lot of trouble i agree
1:23:29 okay
1:23:30 so but this is a person trying to argue
1:23:33 from a religious side
1:23:35 yeah about the law this is even more
1:23:36 more problematic than even a scientist
1:23:38 trying to do it
1:23:39 this is trying to
1:23:41 say what is he saying here he's saying
1:23:43 that god's wisdom demands
1:23:46 that he would never violate the norms
1:23:48 that he places in nature now this
1:23:50 doesn't go against what uh what you just
1:23:52 mentioned he's saying that god is he's
1:23:53 still saying the norms are god's actions
1:23:55 god is placing them in nature
1:23:57 you're saying that is god doing it yeah
1:23:59 and if you look at what he says he's
1:24:01 saying i am not saying that god cannot
1:24:03 he's not denying the power and this is a
1:24:05 classic wisdom-based argument then
1:24:07 model argument for wisdom i say god has
1:24:10 the power to do it
1:24:11 but i'm saying his wisdom dictates he
1:24:13 won't do it
1:24:15 it's not because i don't say he is
1:24:16 incapable of doing a miracle or creating
1:24:18 humans miraculously or creating animals
1:24:21 miraculously without evolution
1:24:23 i'm saying he wouldn't do it
1:24:26 that's a perfectly this is framed as a
1:24:28 wisdom-based organ
1:24:30 okay
1:24:31 the argument assumes
1:24:33 that god's norms are like human laws
1:24:36 that god's habits are like laws so that
1:24:39 when god violates those habits
1:24:42 it means he is being unruly and constant
1:24:44 and fickle
1:24:45 the argument also suggests he's not
1:24:47 saying this he's just what the argument
1:24:49 implies to his analogy okay i'm not
1:24:51 going to say he's saying
1:24:53 the argument also suggests a degree of
1:24:56 hypocrisy
1:24:57 in demanding that people comply with
1:24:59 god's commands but he doesn't follow his
1:25:01 own
1:25:04 and that's the converse of what it says
1:25:05 in the argument
1:25:06 on the contrary god is saying i am
1:25:08 omnipotent but i put together laws and i
1:25:10 follow so you should follow yours
1:25:14 so gesum is arguing
1:25:17 that god will not disobey his own laws
1:25:21 it's almost like god's laws are like a
1:25:22 sharia for him
1:25:24 that he is expected to follow his own
1:25:26 sharia just like we're supposed to
1:25:28 follow
1:25:29 and it's an analogy then this reminds me
1:25:31 it was always crazy
1:25:32 sorry in in western europe in the
1:25:34 post-enlightenment period almost kind of
1:25:36 a deas conception of god that god would
1:25:38 never break his own laws he would not
1:25:40 violate the laws of nature uh and it's
1:25:43 almost it's almost deistic in its
1:25:45 concept of god i think
1:25:48 yes by the extent that god has the power
1:25:50 to do so i don't know if diaz would give
1:25:52 him that well i don't know enough about
1:25:54 all the different branches of him but
1:25:56 he's not denying that god has a power to
1:25:57 do but that he would never do
1:25:59 because his wisdom demands that he would
1:26:01 follow his laws so i don't know would
1:26:03 you say that makes a distinction here
1:26:04 that's still i i don't know i mean once
1:26:07 of jesus i don't think the argument
1:26:08 wasn't based so much on does god have
1:26:10 the power to intervene but he does not
1:26:12 break his own he doesn't violate the
1:26:14 laws of his own nature that he uh
1:26:16 restrains himself or or prevents or it
1:26:19 does not intervene
1:26:21 in fact in the world that rules out
1:26:23 miracles that's a very common theme in
1:26:25 european rationalist latitudinarianist
1:26:28 um that would be the more precise word
1:26:30 latitude and erroneous theology
1:26:32 associated with cambridge university
1:26:34 in the 17th century which uh uh it was
1:26:37 around the time of newton so anyway
1:26:39 that's by the bye but there are others
1:26:41 there are muslims arguing this
1:26:43 okay there are muslims ordering this in
1:26:44 the 21st century wow and that's
1:26:46 basically what's going on here
1:26:48 that's a wisdom-based argument
1:26:50 and like the anti-evolution wisdom-based
1:26:52 arguments it shares with them
1:26:55 positing an analogy between god and
1:26:57 humans
1:26:58 and analogy which is problematic and
1:27:00 false so it's it's different in that's
1:27:03 trying to prove evolution and not negate
1:27:05 it but it's the same in its logical
1:27:07 structure
1:27:08 and in its weaknesses
1:27:13 another argument pro-evolution argument
1:27:15 from israel
1:27:18 if the universe had really evolved and
1:27:20 developed up to the present stage
1:27:22 does it not mean purpose
1:27:25 one of the most precious products of its
1:27:27 development was implied in it from the
1:27:29 very onset
1:27:30 that purpose of some sort was present in
1:27:33 every stage of its development
1:27:35 at the material stage it was entirely
1:27:37 unconscious at the biological stage it
1:27:40 was half conscious at the human stage it
1:27:43 became completely conscious and
1:27:44 deliberate so this is a wisdom-based
1:27:47 argument that god's wisdom demands that
1:27:50 he manifest his purposiveness
1:27:53 in every natural phenomenon without
1:27:55 exception not that he has a purpose that
1:27:57 he manifested in a clear and discernible
1:28:00 manner
1:28:01 and evolution necessitates according to
1:28:05 that every object any event in the
1:28:07 universe is being steered by god for a
1:28:09 purpose so we're saying evolution is the
1:28:11 wise it's a manifestation of god's
1:28:13 wisdom he would have to every event that
1:28:16 takes place has to be leading to the
1:28:18 next event and as we develop into
1:28:20 something higher
1:28:21 and that is evolution to him
1:28:24 so this argument advocates for directed
1:28:26 or theistic evolution
1:28:28 that's what he's arguing here in the
1:28:30 book that he's written
1:28:32 the process of creation a chronic
1:28:33 perspective
1:28:34 he's arguing for theistic evolution and
1:28:36 giving a wisdom-based argument to uh
1:28:39 establish
1:28:40 that evolution according to this
1:28:43 argument invests purposiveness in every
1:28:46 object and occurrence in nature so it
1:28:49 culminates in the human being developing
1:28:52 on earth
1:28:53 and then attaining consciousness which
1:28:55 he goes on to say in turn enables the
1:28:57 initiation of spiritual development and
1:29:00 the final stage of purpose of evolution
1:29:02 which goes beyond what's in the quote
1:29:04 the spiritual development of the human
1:29:06 is the next stage in evolution
1:29:08 so every genetic mutation
1:29:11 every birth and every death every
1:29:13 population shift
1:29:15 is invested with purpose through
1:29:17 evolution with god's purpose
1:29:20 now this argument of course fails
1:29:22 because it over determines
1:29:24 human ability to concern god's wisdom
1:29:27 and it imposes a particular purpose on
1:29:30 very disparate events and phenomena
1:29:32 without sufficient justification
1:29:35 because because we can't compare god's
1:29:37 purposes to our own and say we can
1:29:38 discern them in this way in this action
1:29:41 because purposes could be other than
1:29:43 what is being assumed here
1:29:46 nevertheless
1:29:48 this argument is very interesting in one
1:29:50 way extremely interest
1:29:53 it takes evolution
1:29:55 as an idea that maximizes divine
1:29:59 tediology he's saying evolution is true
1:30:01 because of divine paleology now that's
1:30:03 very interesting because a lot of people
1:30:05 fight evolution and say evolution is
1:30:07 false because it negates divine
1:30:08 teleology because if you can explain the
1:30:11 eyes revolutionary processes then the
1:30:13 eye doesn't have to have a purpose
1:30:14 behind it if you explain the hand
1:30:16 through evolution
1:30:17 it doesn't it means that the purpose of
1:30:19 this in nature no longer points to god
1:30:21 he says no the only way you can
1:30:23 demonstrate purposefulness in nature and
1:30:25 every single motion of every single
1:30:28 grain of sat
1:30:29 is through evolution
1:30:31 so it's very unique how each as a human
1:30:33 being looks at the exact opposite
1:30:35 perspective and says teleology is why
1:30:38 evolution is true because god's wisdom
1:30:40 with him would entail maximal teleology
1:30:43 in the universe and evolution is maximal
1:30:45 teleology that is his argument
1:30:48 so it's very very unique and interesting
1:30:50 in that way doesn't make it any less
1:30:52 false but it's very unique
1:30:56 and our final pro-evolution argument
1:30:59 what god would and would not do
1:31:02 is from the o shabnas in his 2005 book
1:31:05 he's written two different books of two
1:31:07 different theses
1:31:08 but this is from
1:31:09 his earlier book creation evolution of
1:31:12 life is the result of allah presenting
1:31:14 possibilities proposals
1:31:16 and each arriving moment of the future
1:31:19 to the atoms as well as the aggregates
1:31:21 of atoms
1:31:22 those lazy creatures who do not respond
1:31:25 to the choices arriving from allah
1:31:27 through the messenger moments of the
1:31:29 future remained as they are
1:31:32 i am proud of my pre-human ancestors
1:31:35 genes he says
1:31:36 which chose the genes which chose to
1:31:39 receive and grasp allah's guidance to
1:31:42 help our ancestors to transform into
1:31:45 human kindness wow that's quite
1:31:47 extraordinary
1:31:48 yes it is and let us unpack this
1:31:50 argument first
1:31:52 because it is again a wisdom-based
1:31:54 argument
1:31:55 it's saying god's wisdom to mass that he
1:31:58 would create by manifesting an
1:32:00 evolutionary process
1:32:01 since god's wisdom dictates that he
1:32:03 calls everything to obey his commands
1:32:06 that what god does is cause
1:32:08 he doesn't force us to believe in him
1:32:12 he calls us
1:32:14 there's no compulsion in religion he
1:32:16 takes us to natural level
1:32:18 this call should take place on every
1:32:20 level then by god's wisdom not just on
1:32:23 the level of prophecy
1:32:25 the argument assumes an analogy again
1:32:28 that creation must be like revelation
1:32:30 again an analogy based on our experience
1:32:32 as humans in our relationship to god
1:32:34 he's comparing god's relationship to
1:32:36 genes rocks minerals plants trees and
1:32:39 animals
1:32:40 yeah indeed creation must be like
1:32:42 revelation where god holds his creatures
1:32:45 to obey him and they either choose to do
1:32:47 so or choose not to do so
1:32:50 evolution according to shabness
1:32:52 is where the matter of nature responds
1:32:55 to god's call to develop in the
1:32:57 direction that he wills for it
1:32:59 they can obey and evolve
1:33:02 or disobey and stagnate so it's like we
1:33:05 can obey and attain salvation or survey
1:33:07 and
1:33:08 attain misfortune uh this is a false and
1:33:11 narrative yeah it is i'm just very uh
1:33:15 uneasy about this language that um
1:33:18 you know genes can receive and grasp
1:33:20 god's guidance and hear god's call it's
1:33:23 it's anthropomorphizing nature to uh
1:33:26 extremely high level
1:33:28 um
1:33:29 which is just really i don't mean to be
1:33:32 rude but it's almost comical as if the
1:33:34 whole universe is kind of you know uh
1:33:36 you know the the prophetic paradigm is
1:33:38 kind of universalized in in this kind of
1:33:41 way and i'm thinking
1:33:43 it's very odd uh very odd way of putting
1:33:45 it um anyway this is my subject
1:33:48 there are people today that hold these
1:33:50 kind of attitudes about nature about
1:33:53 about universal consciousness
1:33:57 and so it's not something that people
1:34:00 dressing it up in different languages
1:34:01 say the same thing and it sounds nice
1:34:03 depends i guess in how you say it
1:34:06 not that it makes it true or it's
1:34:07 islamically acceptable but you know
1:34:09 there are people that do dress this up
1:34:10 in different language and it comes
1:34:12 across a little bit more
1:34:14 nicely than this particular quote
1:34:17 but the problem here is it's a false
1:34:19 analogy
1:34:21 comparing god's creative power to an
1:34:23 appeal
1:34:25 god's wisdom dictates that he leaves
1:34:27 creation to his own volition
1:34:29 providing nothing but guidance in other
1:34:32 words it must be through god's guidance
1:34:34 alone that he should act and direct the
1:34:36 natural world not by compelling
1:34:40 so we've seen that the pro-evolution
1:34:41 wisdom-based arguments are as subjective
1:34:44 as the anti-evolution wisdom-based
1:34:46 organisms that we explored earlier
1:34:48 interesting they all compare god's
1:34:50 actions to human actions they suppose
1:34:53 some kind of limitation upon god that's
1:34:55 something they all have in common
1:34:56 whether you want to be pro-evolution or
1:34:57 anti-evolution these kind of arguments
1:35:00 impose limits upon those
1:35:02 in light of these limitations evolution
1:35:05 is either seen
1:35:06 as being the only wise and judicious
1:35:08 pattern for god
1:35:11 or
1:35:12 being something god would never use to
1:35:14 manifest his will in the world
1:35:21 so
1:35:23 so we've seen now how muslims understood
1:35:25 wisdom and within the sunni uh schools
1:35:28 that they have differences some of those
1:35:30 differences are very minor and
1:35:33 subtle some are much more important like
1:35:35 whether you'd ever use a language god's
1:35:37 wisdom dictates that he would do this
1:35:39 for example
1:35:40 if
1:35:43 he had no hesitation using that language
1:35:45 would never use that
1:35:47 but they had a lot more in common than
1:35:48 they had in disagreement
1:35:50 and we saw how
1:35:53 wisdom-based arguments were given
1:35:55 four important wisdom-based arguments
1:35:57 against evolution and three for
1:35:59 evolution and we see that though they
1:36:01 are very different arguments and very
1:36:03 creative arguments with very different
1:36:05 outcomes even
1:36:06 that they all had a structural and
1:36:08 logical similarity and the exact same
1:36:10 feelings they were all analogies
1:36:12 based on applying limitations of human
1:36:14 beings under god they had that in common
1:36:17 without exception
1:36:20 so let's look at our summary
1:36:22 theology asks what god is capable of and
1:36:24 what he actually did and what he would
1:36:26 do these are three types of questions
1:36:29 that we could look at
1:36:32 wisdom arguments of course are the third
1:36:34 kind what god is capable of is
1:36:37 deals of god's nature and his power and
1:36:39 he's capable of all things we discuss
1:36:41 how logical impossibilities are not even
1:36:43 a problem
1:36:45 they don't live we don't see them as a
1:36:47 limitation on god's power
1:36:49 what he actually did whatever that is is
1:36:51 based on scripture if we cannot see it
1:36:53 then we it's for the unseen it's based
1:36:55 on scripture so the last set of
1:36:57 questions is what he wouldn't wouldn't
1:36:58 do and that's what we've been exploring
1:37:02 what god is capable of relates to his
1:37:04 omnipotence and is dressed by divine
1:37:05 action organs for sunni muslims god is
1:37:08 all-powerful and maximally active
1:37:12 what god actually did for matters of
1:37:14 faith is determined by scripture i've
1:37:15 already mentioned this
1:37:17 all sunni theologians agree that god is
1:37:20 wise
1:37:22 but they also all agree that humans
1:37:24 cannot always grasp god's wisdom
1:37:30 wisdom arguments are easily prone to
1:37:32 subjectivity and false analogies i
1:37:35 believe we've seen that seven times over
1:37:37 and if we include the argument against
1:37:39 deficiency which is not a muslim
1:37:40 argument eight times over
1:37:44 wisdom arguments have been made to
1:37:46 support evolution as well as to refute
1:37:48 it
1:37:51 the wisdom arguments both pro and khan
1:37:53 all suffer from the same failings
1:37:59 wisdom arguments lend themselves to
1:38:01 irresolvable disputation
1:38:03 demagoguery and personality cults
1:38:06 why
1:38:08 because they require someone who can
1:38:10 arbitrate arbitrate that knowledge
1:38:12 they have to subjectively determine what
1:38:15 is wise for other people and you notice
1:38:18 many uh
1:38:20 movements at least in the muslim world
1:38:22 whether it's
1:38:23 movement or other movements in the
1:38:25 middle east or elsewhere
1:38:27 where wisdom-based arguments are being
1:38:29 used are often personality cults
1:38:32 why because of the subjectivity of these
1:38:34 organs interesting if you're going to
1:38:36 argue with david gelagel about whether
1:38:38 there was evolution before adam or
1:38:40 something you're going to take out the
1:38:42 text and say the quran says this the
1:38:44 quran says that what does this mean what
1:38:46 does that mean you have text you have
1:38:48 hermeneutical rules and you can argue it
1:38:50 on both sides you say can we use
1:38:53 metaphor can we not use metaphor do we
1:38:55 interpret do we not interpret and you
1:38:57 can actually discuss these things on a
1:38:58 certain level
1:39:00 on matters of theology you have rational
1:39:02 proofs as well
1:39:04 it's like syllogism but the clam
1:39:05 cosmological argument what does it mean
1:39:07 how does it apply to god's
1:39:09 causality we can discuss these things
1:39:11 see your logic is faulty your logic is
1:39:14 sound this is the consequence of this
1:39:16 argument these are all possible there's
1:39:18 a discourse that can be had
1:39:20 when it comes to wisdom how do you know
1:39:22 it's wise enough
1:39:24 how do you it's so subjective what is
1:39:26 beauty like if you say the universe has
1:39:28 to be beautiful
1:39:29 well what who is definition of beauty
1:39:32 so often you will find his personality
1:39:34 cults
1:39:35 and
1:39:36 and charismatic muslim leaders who will
1:39:38 use these kind of arguments because they
1:39:40 get away with them
1:39:43 because their followers follow them on
1:39:45 the charisma on their faith they have in
1:39:47 that person
1:39:49 and so you don't really have to examine
1:39:50 it further than that although without
1:39:52 going into uh at home in points here the
1:39:55 the uh the biography of
1:39:57 um
1:39:59 in recent years is uh a perhaps a a a
1:40:02 sanitary lesson
1:40:03 in not following uh cult i think he's in
1:40:07 prison at the moment even actually for
1:40:08 various crimes um
1:40:11 yes but that's the point i'm making if
1:40:13 you look at the literature of the
1:40:15 movement heavily heavily inundated with
1:40:18 these wisdom-based arguments
1:40:21 and
1:40:22 evolution is nasty it's pro-communist
1:40:24 it's pro-capitalist and things like that
1:40:25 you'll find all variations on the
1:40:27 various arguments you've had
1:40:29 the anti-evolution basically all four
1:40:31 anti-evolution arguments appear in
1:40:32 various guises in that literature
1:40:38 to avoid this
1:40:40 to avoid this kind i'm not saying to
1:40:42 come to a conclusion about evolution
1:40:44 true or false
1:40:45 but in our discussion
1:40:49 as people of religion people wanting to
1:40:51 understand religion and science and
1:40:53 where evolution fits into a faith to
1:40:56 avoid these problems
1:40:58 we need to move beyond dogmatic
1:41:01 acceptance and rejection become a tool
1:41:03 for examining
1:41:05 we should let this discussion become a
1:41:06 tool for examining our ontology what we
1:41:08 believe about the world
1:41:10 to compare
1:41:11 theological positions in schools
1:41:14 and to look honestly at the interface
1:41:16 between science and faith we need to
1:41:18 become like this we need to be looking
1:41:20 at the big picture
1:41:22 and uh
1:41:23 and we definitely to avoid any arguments
1:41:26 that are purely subjective purely
1:41:28 emotional
1:41:29 and which
1:41:31 which will only cause the problem to be
1:41:33 compounded these kind of arguments
1:41:34 especially will compound the problems
1:41:36 you can never prove them right or wrong
1:41:38 to anybody else if someone is convinced
1:41:40 that it's nasty or it's ugly or it's
1:41:43 beautiful to do it this way or that way
1:41:45 it's very hard how are you going to
1:41:46 convince them otherwise
1:41:48 there'll be very little criteria for
1:41:50 anyone to see eye to eye with anyone
1:41:51 else
1:41:52 by nature people be talking across
1:41:54 purposes so wisdom-based arguments have
1:41:57 these dangers in them but they're going
1:41:59 to muddy they muddy the waters they make
1:42:01 it difficult to arrive at any kind of
1:42:03 conclusion
1:42:04 and of course they go they all have more
1:42:07 serious failings of imposing limits on
1:42:10 god based on human limitations which is
1:42:12 a serious theological failing which is
1:42:14 more serious than anything else that i
1:42:16 may have mentioned
1:42:18 and of course i have an email address
1:42:20 and if people have questions so please
1:42:23 feel free to email me i'll do my best to
1:42:25 answer them in a timely manner if i am
1:42:27 capable of doing so that's extremely uh
1:42:29 kind of well thank you very much indeed
1:42:31 david for your uh fascinating uh
1:42:33 presentation um a real education in uh
1:42:36 theology uh and theology and approaching
1:42:40 science and god's action in the world
1:42:41 thank you so much for that and i i just
1:42:43 i will leave in the description uh below
1:42:46 the the paper the academic paper upon
1:42:48 which this presentation is based um the
1:42:51 paper being uh presumptions about god's
1:42:54 wisdom in muslim arguments for and
1:42:56 against evolution and it's worth looking
1:42:59 at the article for bibliography and
1:43:01 further footnotes
1:43:02 um
1:43:03 as well so i'll say i'll leave that in
1:43:05 the description beneath uh the video so
1:43:07 thank you so much david for your
1:43:09 presentation and your valuable time
1:43:12 it was my pleasure thank you very much
1:43:14 xiaomi and me god bless us all to
1:43:16 benefit from it inshallah well thank you
1:43:19 very much until next time