Scientific Atheist asks Muslim Key Questions!|| Mohammed Hijab (2016-12-13) ​

0:00:00 you're incorrectly defined morality
0:00:04 where we start in in the line of
0:00:05 discussion we both uh failed to define
0:00:08 it
0:00:11 yes so how would you define morality
0:00:12 yeah well like i said i use the sam
0:00:14 harris model whereas the worst suffering
0:00:16 for all humans is at one end anything
0:00:19 that helps us move away from suffering
0:00:22 how could that be object how could you
0:00:23 create an objective morality from that
0:00:24 because he does as i said before
0:00:26 the reason why he believes in this model
0:00:28 of consequentialism is because
0:00:31 he operates on a utility presumption
0:00:33 okay so what is most useful for human
0:00:35 beings is that which is most best for
0:00:37 human beings
0:00:38 this moral presupposition cannot be
0:00:41 substantiated or proven objectively
0:00:44 therefore it would be arguing in a
0:00:45 circle to say okay well we're going to
0:00:47 employ a italian almost utilitarian
0:00:49 principle model yeah you know although
0:00:52 although it's a little bit different
0:00:53 yeah well i think i think two things so
0:00:57 i accidentally said yes to something i
0:00:58 shouldn't which was that
0:01:00 [Music]
0:01:01 you said it can't be objectively found
0:01:03 that morality
0:01:04 any form of morality could be
0:01:06 objectified
0:01:08 but
0:01:09 it could be if we have better technology
0:01:11 which is his argument if we were to
0:01:13 measure
0:01:14 we could measure something
0:01:16 then uh if we wrote laws and said follow
0:01:19 this principle these ways of being and
0:01:21 you will have less
0:01:23 yeah that would be our morale okay so
0:01:25 the presumption here or the
0:01:26 presupposition
0:01:28 is that suffering is bad yeah
0:01:30 and that's by the way the the problem of
0:01:32 evil the problem of evil which is the
0:01:34 one of the main objective objections of
0:01:36 atheists
0:01:37 is based on this presupposition
0:01:40 the question would be
0:01:42 why how can you prove that suffering is
0:01:44 bad point one from an atheistic
0:01:46 perspective objectively
0:01:48 and two how can you prove that such a
0:01:49 thing going back to the problem of evil
0:01:52 as evil exists as one objective reality
0:01:55 yeah well um
0:01:57 i go to richard dawkins it's sort of
0:01:58 like a ticket
0:02:00 sometimes
0:02:01 you can ask the wrong questions if you
0:02:03 like ask
0:02:04 what does a rainbow smell like
0:02:06 i
0:02:08 you can ask the wrong question
0:02:09 yeah but just don't
0:02:11 um
0:02:15 you're saying about objectifying how can
0:02:17 you prove that suffering is objectively
0:02:30 you crave certainty and you don't want
0:02:32 to be
0:02:33 floating about
0:02:34 but floor the word floor once again
0:02:37 is something which relies on some kind
0:02:39 of reality
0:02:40 [Music]
0:02:58 [Music]
0:03:02 like you wouldn't ask that question if
0:03:04 you're a different person
0:03:06 i don't understand
0:03:08 you wouldn't ask that question if you're
0:03:09 a different person
0:03:11 you think that question has validity but
0:03:14 it doesn't mean anything
0:03:16 okay i mean one can say that about
0:03:18 almost anything or any statement that
0:03:20 anyone makes
0:03:22 um
0:03:22 yes that's that's the thing we have to
0:03:24 raise above our ground and then like
0:03:27 float and then like encapsulate our ways
0:03:29 of being
0:03:31 i accept but let's go back to your point
0:03:33 richard dawkins you mentioned him he's
0:03:35 another person who doesn't believe in
0:03:36 objective morality yet yes yeah this is
0:03:38 what i find interesting about richard
0:03:40 dawkins
0:03:41 richard dawkins
0:03:43 listen listen to me right
0:03:45 i mean if you look if you watch i go on
0:03:46 youtube sometimes i
0:03:48 i see some things like recommended
0:03:50 videos listening so richard dawkins
0:03:51 right i click it and he's like having an
0:03:54 argument of a muslim yeah
0:03:56 and then to really catch the muslim out
0:03:58 and to attack the muslim finish off the
0:03:59 muslim he said something like
0:04:01 oh so what's the islamic punishment of
0:04:03 apostasy and you know the muslim is
0:04:05 shaken up a little bit he doesn't know
0:04:06 how to answer him or whatever yeah
0:04:09 okay hold on i mean
0:04:12 richard dawkins if you read his god
0:04:14 delusion
0:04:15 he admits to
0:04:17 that the fact that there is no objective
0:04:18 morality
0:04:20 if
0:04:21 and by the way he's caricaturing the
0:04:22 islamic model of apostasy and
0:04:25 the whole thing there and how it all
0:04:27 works but let's assume that his model is
0:04:29 exactly what
0:04:31 exactly what he believes is if someone
0:04:33 becomes muslim then this believer he's
0:04:34 trying to pull out or pluck out the
0:04:36 non-muslim
0:04:38 that you know you have to kill him
0:04:40 in any case in any situation that's what
0:04:42 the kind of caricature that he wants to
0:04:44 present for for muslims which isn't by
0:04:46 the way obviously he's completely
0:04:47 caricatured it's not true
0:04:50 but then that's his that's one of his
0:04:51 main arguments against muslims when you
0:04:53 when you click on the videos right
0:04:54 you'll see it online
0:04:55 the issue is he can't even prove that
0:04:58 had that been the case that that would
0:05:00 be a bad thing
0:05:01 objectively
0:05:02 so it's kind of it's a ridiculous
0:05:04 argument that's why actually richard
0:05:05 dawkins it's interesting you mention his
0:05:07 name
0:05:08 as a biologist okay his credit is where
0:05:10 credit is where credit is due yeah he
0:05:12 might be a really good biologist but as
0:05:14 a philosopher i find that
0:05:16 he's probably one of the weakest
0:05:18 i mean he's got a really weak philosophy
0:05:20 incredibly weak i mean look how easily
0:05:22 we could just identify his weakness
0:05:24 i think sorry don't you think there's a
0:05:26 point to it basically what he's trying
0:05:27 to say the objective morality which is
0:05:30 being uh mentioned in quran
0:05:32 it can't be right because it's actually
0:05:35 saying that for apostasy you are killing
0:05:37 somebody but how can you prove this okay
0:05:39 day and age yes that objective morality
0:05:41 doesn't really well this is the
0:05:42 animation yeah okay
0:05:44 so i think i think that maybe his point
0:05:46 yeah that is his point you're absolutely
0:05:48 right that you're you're completely
0:05:49 right that is this point but the
0:05:50 question is
0:05:51 first place in the first place how can
0:05:53 you prove that anything is right and
0:05:55 anything is irrespective of his belief
0:05:58 the belief of the uh
0:06:00 muslims or uh no i'm just let's just
0:06:02 assume that what he believes
0:06:05 assume that exactly what he believes
0:06:07 about islamic apostasy is correct which
0:06:09 i don't believe he understands i think
0:06:11 he's got a weakness in understanding
0:06:12 apostasy and islam religion
0:06:14 and philosophy he's good at biology
0:06:16 that's where he should stay
0:06:18 but not seriously he's good about it he
0:06:20 doesn't think he's ready
0:06:21 i'm not really yeah i mean i haven't
0:06:23 looked into it
0:06:25 but just to sort of yes you can but i'll
0:06:27 just just finish this question
0:06:29 um
0:06:30 this is the point
0:06:32 the day and age the sociological time
0:06:35 frame
0:06:35 cannot be a measure for true or valid
0:06:39 object or morality you can't say that
0:06:40 just because today we think this that's
0:06:42 what that's correct
0:06:44 in 1933 when hitler was elected as
0:06:47 you know not hitler was elected but when
0:06:48 he was when the nazi party was
0:06:51 was
0:06:52 elected if you will it was on my
0:06:54 majority nazi party election in 1933
0:06:57 in the march elections and in germany
0:07:00 that's what the german people a lot of
0:07:01 the electorate wanted now if we go back
0:07:03 to that kind of reasoning so okay if
0:07:05 they go in and said the same thing today
0:07:07 that's what we like
0:07:08 and therefore you have a very structured
0:07:10 morality so you can't prove morality in
0:07:13 a scientific way
0:07:14 uh more in a mathematical way so he
0:07:17 can't say that okay because muslims
0:07:19 believe in whatever it is that they may
0:07:20 believe in that therefore islam is wrong
0:07:22 it's not even a it's not even an
0:07:24 argument it's an emotional argument
0:07:25 that's what it is it's an emotional
0:07:27 argument which appeals to by the way
0:07:28 western supremacist i thought and i'll
0:07:31 tell you why
0:07:32 because
0:07:34 he has already assumed
0:07:36 he's already assumed a western
0:07:38 uh self-congratulations so he's
0:07:40 congratulated himself as a westerner the
0:07:43 enlightenment period is correct yeah
0:07:45 he's self-aggrandizing and he thinks
0:07:47 that we all ought to
0:07:49 basically the rest of the world
0:07:51 ought to resume the western man's image
0:07:54 we all have been built or created in the
0:07:56 western man's image so everyone has to
0:07:58 comply by uh enlightenment morality
0:08:01 although according to his own philosophy
0:08:03 you can't even substantiate
0:08:04 enlightenment morality i think
0:08:06 i'm sorry i've been talking for a while
0:08:08 yeah
0:08:10 to go off
0:08:16 you said something about you can't
0:08:17 objectify the quran either so
0:08:20 your need for this objectification yeah
0:08:22 all that's happening in this
0:08:23 conversation is i'm advocating for
0:08:25 scientific objectification you are
0:08:27 advocating for
0:08:30 what so do do you believe in scientism
0:08:32 as a as a paradigm as a way to to know
0:08:35 the world in a complete sense
0:08:37 um
0:08:41 objectivism so how would that work do
0:08:43 you believe that science is a is a means
0:08:45 by which and through which we can find
0:08:47 certainty in every aspect of life
0:08:50 um that's what you were alluding to
0:08:52 yeah this question has got like a couple
0:08:54 of uh hooks baits a couple of baits um
0:08:58 i would say uh
0:08:59 we all got first first person
0:09:01 perspective yeah and that's quite solid
0:09:03 we can't get away from that but yeah
0:09:05 then science and rationality
0:09:07 is that yeah in my opinion by far the
0:09:09 greatest thing
0:09:10 so do you think that we can find out the
0:09:11 truth of morality
0:09:13 you know of the world around us using
0:09:15 these methods science uh if we define
0:09:17 what morality is which sam harris did
0:09:19 which i agree which is to move away from
0:09:21 suffering yes we can use science to um
0:09:24 not not objectify because what you're
0:09:25 trying to do which i
0:09:27 believe is wrong is you're trying to
0:09:28 root um
0:09:30 our thoughts into like reality so as if
0:09:34 but that's just wrong so all we can do
0:09:36 is make a bubble by which we all confirm
0:09:39 it to be true
0:09:40 is science a way we can find out the
0:09:41 truth about the world
0:09:43 in a certain way
0:09:46 okay if that's what you believe in
0:09:48 then i'm going to tell you some things
0:09:49 and i want you to explain them to me all
0:09:50 right okay well okay
0:09:53 number one
0:09:55 science
0:09:56 using the scientific method
0:09:58 you cannot prove anything mathematical
0:10:01 because science and maths are two
0:10:02 different paradigms number two
0:10:05 using the scientific method
0:10:07 you cannot prove that science itself
0:10:12 is certain
0:10:13 because you cannot because the science
0:10:14 itself is underpinned with philosophical
0:10:16 underpinnings yes
0:10:18 you cannot
0:10:19 you cannot examine those philosophical
0:10:21 underpinnings using the scientific
0:10:23 method no number three
0:10:26 what can i just one more i think you're
0:10:28 on four but go on number three
0:10:30 science cannot objectify or reason
0:10:33 morality
0:10:35 you cannot use the scientific method to
0:10:37 to churn out what is a true morality or
0:10:39 what is a false morality okay
0:10:41 that's three i can give you one more
0:10:43 which is really a trump card
0:10:45 number four
0:10:47 there is a presupposition of science
0:10:49 that rationality
0:10:51 and empiricism
0:10:52 are true
0:10:54 science cannot prove those
0:10:55 presuppositions to be true yeah okay
0:10:58 okay so um so how can you solve those
0:11:00 issues before we can continue yeah yeah
0:11:02 because we can't say that it can give us
0:11:03 certainty yeah without proving it in the
0:11:05 first no i i like them for i like them
0:11:07 they're good very good questions um
0:11:10 i just got a compute yeah yeah no no
0:11:12 just give me a minute
0:11:14 quite a good place
0:11:23 um
0:11:23 number two is the most interesting which
0:11:25 is
0:11:26 all rationality of philosophical
0:11:28 underpinnings which almost like
0:11:31 invalidate it yeah but um
0:11:36 [Music]
0:11:37 so you've asked like very big questions
0:11:39 and we've got a crowd i'm on the spot
0:11:41 i've got to try and give you back these
0:11:42 answers cameras biggest corners
0:11:46 that's nice
0:11:48 no but you're a nice gentleman i'm not
0:11:50 trying to put you on the spot genuinely
0:11:52 no no i mean i think you're i think
0:11:53 you're a sincere person i think you the
0:11:55 way you've spoken to me is open-minded
0:11:57 so what i'm saying is you the scientism
0:11:59 or the idea that you can objectify
0:12:01 things with science has serious
0:12:02 limitations let me go forward and just
0:12:04 say one more thing yeah
0:12:06 well
0:12:07 well i've already got four that okay but
0:12:10 i'll give you some time to think about
0:12:11 that yeah
0:12:12 so to progress the conversation they're
0:12:14 gonna give five good fifth one
0:12:16 [Music]
0:12:18 but now you get me to think about things