Mohammed Hijab responds to Ricky Gervais on Atheism (2020-06-18) ​

0:00:00 [Music]
0:00:04 so Ricky Gervais is a British comedian
0:00:07 which I can't say I've watched any of
0:00:10 his works or seen any of his shows but
0:00:12 he's an individual who is actually in
0:00:17 line with kind of New Atheism I would
0:00:19 classify him like this and recently he
0:00:21 doesnot sure how long this video has
0:00:23 been up there but I came across this
0:00:25 video which was the second of not the
0:00:28 most viewed atheist
0:00:29 video online or the video with an
0:00:32 atheist title and this is a video where
0:00:34 he's having conversation one of the
0:00:36 American interviewers and there's a bit
0:00:40 of a discussion about God and the
0:00:42 existence of God so we wanted to just
0:00:44 quickly do a reaction video to that and
0:00:46 see if some of the interrogations are
0:00:49 poor for Bhaiji face or in any way shape
0:00:51 or form legitimate the thick you look so
0:00:55 why is there something instead of
0:00:57 nothing that's not the two choices so
0:01:03 the first thing he says was why is there
0:01:05 something rather than nothing these are
0:01:06 not the only two choices well actually
0:01:08 these are not choices at all these are
0:01:11 not choices at all this is a question
0:01:12 it's not giving you is it this all that
0:01:15 because the choice usually is separated
0:01:18 with the word or and why something
0:01:21 rather than nothing is not an
0:01:22 illegitimate question you say it's not
0:01:24 about why but how well if you say it's
0:01:27 not about why and how that would
0:01:28 necessitate that you're starting with a
0:01:31 presupposition which is nihilistic in
0:01:33 other words you conceive the world as
0:01:35 meaningless or purposeless and by that
0:01:38 you say that why questions are
0:01:40 meaningless very similarly like 19:30 is
0:01:43 positivists or even verification estate
0:01:48 the same kind of claim this is a very
0:01:50 weak understanding because if this was
0:01:52 the case then lots of things which would
0:01:55 be meaningless if this is the stance you
0:01:58 take if there's the positivistic stones
0:02:00 many things would be meaningless
0:02:01 metaphysical things logical things
0:02:03 mathematical things so the idea of why
0:02:06 questions being meaningless is something
0:02:09 which has been thoroughly refuted in the
0:02:10 philosophical literature
0:02:12 but the question of its not why but how
0:02:14 okay the question of how so how is there
0:02:17 something rather than nothing it's still
0:02:19 a legitimate question but you haven't
0:02:20 you haven't done any good job in trying
0:02:22 to answer it you've tried to any
0:02:25 question about why is there something
0:02:26 wrong more than one of the most
0:02:27 foundational questions should be at the
0:02:30 forefront of your mind why is there
0:02:32 something at all why is he as if it's
0:02:34 not a good question I wouldn't know why
0:02:36 Albert Einstein would ask those
0:02:38 questions about the explicable 'ti of
0:02:41 the universe that was he an ignorant
0:02:43 person was he someone who didn't know so
0:02:46 once again I think that you're trying to
0:02:47 brush aside some very important and
0:02:49 heavy meaningful and purposeful
0:02:52 questions ultimate questions as Karl
0:02:55 Popper put it in order to try and weasel
0:02:58 will scramble away from those those
0:03:02 kinds of thoughts in your mind Demiurge
0:03:07 that started everything well outside
0:03:09 science and nature I don't believe so
0:03:11 so this is outside of science I don't
0:03:13 think there is a prime mover what is the
0:03:16 word outside of science mean I mean
0:03:17 outside of science is mathematics so
0:03:20 what do you do you think that science is
0:03:22 omnipotent sorry omniscient
0:03:24 that science can explain everything that
0:03:26 through it everything is known so then
0:03:29 metaphysics is out the window logical
0:03:31 precepts are out the window and
0:03:32 mathematics is out though in the outside
0:03:34 of science there's many things that are
0:03:35 outside of science act the scientific
0:03:37 method is outside of science itself the
0:03:39 scientific method through the scientific
0:03:41 method which science depends on is
0:03:43 outside of science so what you're
0:03:45 talking about what this what is this
0:03:46 phraseology outside of science it's just
0:03:48 New Atheists
0:03:49 regurgitate vomited regurgitation which
0:03:52 frankly have no fruitless and futile in
0:03:57 the face of actual argumentations
0:03:59 debate and discussion item is only
0:04:02 rejecting the claim that there is a God
0:04:04 atheism isn't a belief system so he says
0:04:07 atheism isn't a belief system that only
0:04:09 rejects that there is a God even if we
0:04:11 grant that so what what does that do to
0:04:13 the discussion I mean what whether you
0:04:15 want to classify atheism as a religion
0:04:17 as a belief system as an ideology or as
0:04:20 a lacking as its defined of belief who
0:04:23 cares at the end of the day
0:04:25 these are all semantic points I don't
0:04:26 care what you think atheism is or what
0:04:28 you think being an atheist entails the
0:04:31 question still is legit why is there
0:04:34 something rather than nothing and if you
0:04:36 don't answer why how is there something
0:04:39 rather than nothing don't run away from
0:04:40 that okay would you respect don't run
0:04:43 away from the question how means the
0:04:45 definition of how is by what means by
0:04:48 what means can there be
0:04:49 may they be is it conceivable for it to
0:04:51 be or for there to be something rather
0:04:55 than nothing you haven't answered that
0:04:57 question the interviewer I don't know
0:04:59 why I just jumped from one thing to
0:05:00 another
0:05:01 clearly he was deterred by the
0:05:03 confidence of this comedian but he
0:05:07 should have stuck to his guns you said
0:05:08 you know what no no no sorry I'm sorry
0:05:09 how is there something rather than
0:05:12 nothing that's the question so the
0:05:13 general question you saying I don't know
0:05:15 whether it be insufficient but don't
0:05:17 pretend you you have some information
0:05:19 that you don't or try to be strident or
0:05:21 positive about it you don't have an
0:05:23 answer that's it if that's what it is
0:05:24 then that's it don't pretend that you're
0:05:26 someone who's got anything to offer in
0:05:27 this discussion literally if you say I
0:05:29 don't know it means you have nothing to
0:05:30 offer in this conversation you deny one
0:05:33 less God than I do you don't believe in
0:05:36 2999 gods and I don't believe in just
0:05:40 one more he says if there are 3,000
0:05:42 religions I only deny 2999 gods I only
0:05:46 deny one more okay well how many men are
0:05:50 there in the world that could be your
0:05:51 father
0:05:52 wait a minute you trying to yeah this is
0:05:54 no joke this is no joke I mean maybe you
0:05:57 can explain because you're sorry to say
0:06:00 how many men could be your father how do
0:06:03 you know that your father is your father
0:06:04 now you could say oh I can go and do a
0:06:06 DNA test well have you done that I mean
0:06:08 that would be scientific yes and for it
0:06:11 to be truly scientific you'd have to do
0:06:13 the test yourself and see the results
0:06:14 yourself and not depend on only
0:06:16 testimony by the way not the testimony
0:06:18 of the people who do the DNA test for it
0:06:20 to be truly perfectly scientific but how
0:06:22 do you know your father is your father
0:06:23 you know through inference to the best
0:06:26 explanation
0:06:27 wait a minute inference to the best
0:06:29 explanation
0:06:30 so the circumstances of you being alive
0:06:34 in that time you're alive and you know
0:06:36 and your father being in the house or if
0:06:38 he wasn't in the house
0:06:39 wherever it was you know how do you know
0:06:41 your mother is your mother same thing I
0:06:43 mean were you there when you were coming
0:06:44 can you remember can you recollect can
0:06:46 you think about the time when you coming
0:06:51 out your mom's room yeah I don't think
0:06:55 you can think about I don't think you
0:06:57 can remember that so how do you know
0:06:59 your mom's your mom see there are maybe
0:07:01 a million people or mini human beings
0:07:04 women that can be your mom and you
0:07:07 reject 999,999 of them and you believe
0:07:12 in only one so that's the same argument
0:07:14 it's exactly the same argument you're
0:07:16 saying I reject 2999 gods and I reject
0:07:22 one more okay that's true so how does
0:07:24 that prove that God doesn't exist how's
0:07:26 that an argument against God's existence
0:07:27 if we take something like any fiction
0:07:30 and any holy book in any other fiction
0:07:32 and destroyed it okay in a thousand
0:07:34 years time that wouldn't come back just
0:07:36 as it was whereas if we took every
0:07:37 science book yes right and every fact
0:07:40 and destroyed them all in a thousand
0:07:41 years they'd all be back because all the
0:07:43 same tests would be the same with all he
0:07:48 says if we destroyed science books and
0:07:50 holy books in a thousand years the
0:07:51 science would be the same replicate but
0:07:53 the holy books won't be the same
0:07:54 actually if you destroy all the quran's
0:07:57 in the world the people would have said
0:07:59 because the Quran is a memorized book is
0:08:01 an overly transmitted book so actually I
0:08:04 don't think it would be gone if you
0:08:06 destroyed them you destroy them all now
0:08:08 people memorize them from a thousand
0:08:09 four hundred years so this this is a
0:08:11 very weak understanding of the
0:08:13 preservation of the Quran or the oral
0:08:15 transmission of it maybe you could argue
0:08:17 that with other religions but you need
0:08:18 to be specific because Islam is you know
0:08:21 a major world religion as you know and
0:08:23 so your argument doesn't actually cut it
0:08:25 when it comes to Islam moreover and
0:08:27 probably more problematic for you is
0:08:29 that you said if you destroy all the
0:08:31 scientific experiments they'll come back
0:08:32 in a thousand years that's a weak
0:08:34 understanding of the philosophy of
0:08:35 science with all due respect because as
0:08:38 Karl Popper mentioned you know there's
0:08:40 the principle of falsification which has
0:08:41 been criticized in the literature by
0:08:43 putting that to the side there is no ink
0:08:45 science is not incorrigibles not
0:08:47 something which is meant to produce
0:08:49 eternal truths see you seem to bring in
0:08:51 this
0:08:52 was referred to as scientism scientism
0:08:54 was the idea that science can explain
0:08:57 everything this is nonsense and there is
0:08:59 some kind of incorrigibly ternal truth
0:09:01 that's nonsense and everyone knows
0:09:02 that's nonsense we know that's nonsense
0:09:04 our experience with the corona virus the
0:09:06 science was changed you're gonna run a
0:09:08 weekly or monthly basis people were
0:09:09 telling us the science says this decide
0:09:11 says that the politicians were telling
0:09:12 us these things and the sciences the
0:09:14 investigations were different because
0:09:16 the sample size was growing and the the
0:09:19 information was changing and the
0:09:21 theories were we're moving around so
0:09:23 science is not incorrigible science is
0:09:26 by nature because it because of the
0:09:28 problem of induction is something which
0:09:30 can be falsified and in time for you to
0:09:32 think that a thousand years all the
0:09:33 investigations that we do today are
0:09:35 going to be the same in a thousand years
0:09:36 time it shows me that you have a
0:09:38 superficial understanding of the
0:09:39 philosophy of science of all due respect
0:09:41 yeah and the same thing applies with
0:09:43 your understanding of the religious
0:09:45 scriptures so put all of this aside well
0:09:48 we're calling you yeah to worship one
0:09:50 God that's what we're calling you to
0:09:52 which is there's an innate
0:09:54 predisposition to believe in one God
0:09:56 Justin Barrett dr. Justin Barrett who is
0:09:59 part of the Oxford or pelagic or
0:10:01 societies run a study in 2011 refers to
0:10:03 this as a in a receptivity to believe in
0:10:07 a God we're naturally inclined to
0:10:09 believe in a higher power you know the
0:10:11 majority of people in the u.s. believe
0:10:14 in a high of 90 percent of people even
0:10:16 the irreligious ones believe in a higher
0:10:18 power it's a natural you know only 5.5
0:10:20 percent according to Linda Woodhead 5.5
0:10:23 percent of the British public Australian
0:10:26 atheist like yourself you you are in a
0:10:28 minority I'm not saying that that means
0:10:29 anything but what I am saying is
0:10:31 sociologically people find it natural
0:10:33 even with the absence of religion to
0:10:35 believe in a higher power it sounds an a
0:10:37 chiral thing it can be argued from first
0:10:39 principles and so to try and dismiss it
0:10:42 as if it's some kind of ridiculous
0:10:43 concept though it's so pervasive
0:10:46 cross-cultural in historically
0:10:48 psychologically and and in every single
0:10:51 way possible I think you're doing a
0:10:53 disservice to yourself and I think
0:10:55 you're just regurgitating and vomiting
0:10:57 out yeah the same new atheist dogma that
0:11:00 you've probably taken from your master
0:11:02 Richard Dawkins
0:11:03 and I'm afraid you're gonna have to
0:11:05 start
0:11:05 can critically for yourself because it's
0:11:07 clear that your arguments are cut and
0:11:08 paste job and they're not even that well
0:11:11 refined as a cut and paste job from the
0:11:15 New Atheists rhetoric so I would say be
0:11:18 more open-minded start thinking start
0:11:21 thinking deeply about three questions
0:11:23 I'm gonna ask you those four you might
0:11:25 think that they're meaningless questions
0:11:26 but I'm gonna put these three questions
0:11:27 to you Rick use your face I'm gonna put
0:11:29 those proof questions to you and this is
0:11:30 way before you go to sleep today I want
0:11:32 you to think about those three questions
0:11:33 I don't say no it's meaningless in
0:11:36 science this is nonsense with disprove
0:11:38 in it and it's not even philosophically
0:11:40 robust the three questions are where
0:11:44 that I come from I think about not just
0:11:48 yourself but the universe itself where
0:11:50 did the universe come from what are they
0:11:51 what are the options either it came from
0:11:54 nothing or something the universe either
0:11:56 came from nothing or something we're
0:11:58 saying it came from something right and
0:12:01 there's no infinite regress so where did
0:12:03 I come from
0:12:04 then what am I doing here yeah so I mean
0:12:09 what is your existence and then where am
0:12:12 I going
0:12:12 you're gonna die I'm gonna die and you
0:12:15 got to think about what's gonna happen
0:12:16 after that if you're wrong you're in
0:12:18 trouble and you are wrong and you are on
0:12:21 and you will be in trouble but it's not
0:12:24 too late this you listening to me right
0:12:27 now Ricky Gervais is actually the best
0:12:33 thing that's ever happened to you in
0:12:34 your life so don't worry come on
0:12:45 you