Does Science Lead to Atheism? Has Science Killed Religion? (2018-03-26) ​

0:00:00 bismillahirrahmanirrahim in al
0:00:02 hamdulillah more so that was salam ala
0:00:04 rasulillah brothers and sisters and
0:00:06 friends i greet you with the warmest
0:00:08 islamic greetings of peace
0:00:10 as-salaam alaikum warahmatullahi
0:00:12 wabarakatuh for those who don't know
0:00:16 that means may the peace and blessings
0:00:19 of God be upon you all today we're going
0:00:24 to be talking about the failed
0:00:25 hypothesis has science killed religion
0:00:28 and I'm going to talk about two main
0:00:31 things the first thing I'm going to talk
0:00:32 about is does science lead to atheism
0:00:35 because we hear about this quite a bit
0:00:38 especially in the online sphere also
0:00:44 we're going to be talking about well how
0:00:45 science led to the deny of religion the
0:00:48 deny of Revelation so I want to address
0:00:50 these two key topics I think it's very
0:00:54 important to understand that there is a
0:00:56 distinction between what the academics
0:00:58 say and what happens on Google okay I
0:01:01 think that's very important for us to
0:01:02 understand this because the very fact
0:01:04 that we have to give such a lecture or a
0:01:07 talk is a symptom of a cause it's a
0:01:11 symptom of a problem and the problem is
0:01:12 that there is a bit of a gap especially
0:01:14 in Western society especially in Britain
0:01:18 between what's happening in academia and
0:01:21 what's happening in popular culture yes
0:01:25 there are overlaps sometimes as some
0:01:27 kind of link but generally speaking
0:01:28 there is a gap among certain groups of
0:01:30 people and this is why I think the
0:01:32 British government had to basically come
0:01:34 up with the project called impact which
0:01:36 was to make an impact the professors and
0:01:40 the academics had to basically you know
0:01:42 engage in popular culture discourse to
0:01:46 bridge that gap and to do so they would
0:01:49 make an impact right so this is one of
0:01:51 the reasons why I think the British
0:01:52 government did that so I want you to
0:01:54 really understand that this question
0:01:56 really is not much of a question when it
0:01:59 comes to academic discourse because
0:02:01 professors and academics especially
0:02:04 comes to the first point that I
0:02:05 mentioned earlier you know does science
0:02:07 into atheism they would say even if the
0:02:10 Atheist they would say no it doesn't and
0:02:12 that's
0:02:13 we have to be very honest it just
0:02:15 doesn't simple as that
0:02:17 and I'm going to try and explain why
0:02:19 that's the case so let's start with the
0:02:23 first thing that we spoke that we want
0:02:24 to speak about which is does science
0:02:27 lead to atheism does science lead to the
0:02:29 denial of God well this is a force
0:02:31 assertion and the reason it's a false
0:02:34 assertion is based on full force
0:02:37 assumptions okay the first assumption is
0:02:40 science is the only yardstick for truth
0:02:42 right so if you have that false
0:02:44 assumption that science is the only
0:02:46 yardstick for truth and science can't
0:02:49 really deal with a metaphysical notion
0:02:51 like God because he's not in the
0:02:53 universe it's not physical in the
0:02:55 universe therefore God doesn't exist
0:02:59 because science is the only yardstick
0:03:01 for truth and if we can't use science to
0:03:04 try and prove this metaphysical notion
0:03:05 and science can't even deal with the
0:03:08 idea of God therefore he doesn't exist
0:03:10 and that's the kind of assumption here
0:03:11 the second assumption is horid a second
0:03:14 guys science works keyhole surgery the
0:03:18 iphone science works
0:03:19 therefore it is true and if it's true
0:03:23 and science can only deal with things
0:03:25 that you can observe and God by
0:03:26 definition you can't observe therefore
0:03:29 God doesn't exist
0:03:30 yes it's very fuzzy logic but that's the
0:03:32 Assumption here the third false
0:03:34 assumption is science leads to certainty
0:03:37 it leads to certainty absolute truth
0:03:40 these are scientific facts the
0:03:43 unchanging it's the Moses tablets right
0:03:46 you hear lots of people talk like this
0:03:48 sometimes there's video on Twitter and
0:03:50 Instagram and YouTube and all those
0:03:51 funny places right so if it leads to
0:03:54 certainty and science cannot deal with a
0:03:57 metaphysical notion that you can't
0:03:58 observe like a creator therefore God
0:04:03 doesn't exist because science can only
0:04:05 be certain about things other than God
0:04:07 for example yes as fuzzy logic but
0:04:10 that's the basis of that assumption that
0:04:12 false assumption the full-force
0:04:14 assumption is basically people adopt for
0:04:18 a software con actual ISM and they
0:04:20 misunderstand methodological naturalism
0:04:22 and I'd only give you a huge headache
0:04:24 headache with lots of terms I'm going to
0:04:26 discuss that a bit later
0:04:27 so those are the full force assumptions
0:04:29 now before I get to you know before I
0:04:32 break down those full force assumptions
0:04:34 let's just really understand what
0:04:36 science is okay in a general but in in a
0:04:40 basic way so we really understand what
0:04:41 we're talking about here science is not
0:04:43 just what you observe we have to first
0:04:45 understand that observations are
0:04:48 required for science but science or
0:04:51 scientific theories and conclusions are
0:04:52 not just observations okay so when I see
0:04:54 the moon and therefore the moon exists
0:04:57 that's not really a scientific theory or
0:04:59 scientific explanation it's just I'm
0:05:01 mirroring my observations okay science
0:05:04 requires observations and what science
0:05:07 does it reasons right it uses reason to
0:05:11 understand their observations themselves
0:05:14 so say you have more than five
0:05:17 observations you see five of the
0:05:18 observations about a particular
0:05:20 phenomenon you use now your rational
0:05:23 faculties to make inferences or to see
0:05:25 if there's any connections between these
0:05:27 observations and to understand them
0:05:29 holistically to understand them in a
0:05:31 comprehensive way that's essentially
0:05:33 science right and that's the beauty of
0:05:35 science now Bertrand Russell he said in
0:05:38 his book religion and science published
0:05:41 by Oxford scientists the attempt to
0:05:43 discover by means of observation and
0:05:45 reasoning based upon it so it's by means
0:05:47 of observation you have observation
0:05:49 direct and indirect observation and you
0:05:52 reason over those observations and he
0:05:55 continues to basically discover
0:05:58 particular facts about the world and the
0:06:01 laws connecting facts about with one
0:06:03 another so that's essentially what
0:06:06 science is yes there's much more to it
0:06:07 than that
0:06:07 the method is a very interesting method
0:06:10 and there are debates amongst the
0:06:11 philosophers of science concerning its
0:06:13 method for example if you're a Pope
0:06:16 Arian Karl Popper you might you know
0:06:19 want to adopt falsification but if
0:06:21 you're a soft preparer and you'll be
0:06:23 like it's useful but you know falsified
0:06:25 series can change if you change the
0:06:27 assumptions you can revive falsified
0:06:29 theories if you change the assumptions
0:06:31 as big debates about these things but
0:06:33 let's put them to the side the point is
0:06:35 you require observations and you require
0:06:38 require a rational mind the human
0:06:40 intellect
0:06:41 to understand those observations that in
0:06:43 essence is science okay so now we've got
0:06:46 that out of the way
0:06:47 let's go to the first force assumption
0:06:49 because what we're dealing with here now
0:06:50 we're basically saying well science
0:06:52 doesn't need to atheism and the
0:06:54 assertion that people express that
0:06:57 science does lead to atheism is based on
0:06:59 force for force assumptions the first
0:07:01 false assumption is sight is the only
0:07:04 yardstick for truth now the first
0:07:06 problem with the first false assumption
0:07:09 is it's self-defeating if I say to you
0:07:12 guys
0:07:13 science is the only yardstick for truth
0:07:16 and not stamen itself has to be true
0:07:19 then now we're just basically to you can
0:07:22 you prove that statement scientifically
0:07:24 no it's self-defeating that's the first
0:07:28 point we'll go home now let's get our
0:07:31 pizza right so it's so defeating it it's
0:07:36 almost like saying there are no
0:07:38 sentences in the English language longer
0:07:41 than three words but I've just uttered a
0:07:45 sentence that's longer than three words
0:07:47 okay now that's the first point this the
0:07:51 the second point I wanna mention is well
0:07:53 science is not the only a stick for
0:07:55 truth why because our observations are
0:07:57 always going to be limited and truths
0:07:59 will always change from that point of
0:08:01 view and that's one of the beauties of
0:08:02 science now the atheist and the
0:08:04 philosopher of science and the
0:08:05 philosopher biology professor Elliot
0:08:07 sober he basically says in his essay
0:08:10 called empiricism that any moment in
0:08:12 time scientists are limited to the
0:08:15 observations they have at hand the
0:08:17 secretive just use your intellect here
0:08:19 it's so obvious that you may have
0:08:21 another observation that can contradict
0:08:23 your previous conclusions based upon
0:08:25 your previously limited observations so
0:08:28 therefore truth can change in science
0:08:31 which is one of the beauties of science
0:08:33 truth can change what we consider to be
0:08:35 true can change so science is limited to
0:08:40 what it can observe and not only can its
0:08:44 truth claims change but its scope and
0:08:47 its area of focus is limited therefore
0:08:51 it can't answer other questions because
0:08:53 there are many things
0:08:54 you can't observe directly or indirectly
0:08:57 but yet we believe them to be true for
0:09:00 example necessary logical truths you
0:09:03 can't observe necessary logical
0:09:06 connections or necessary logical links
0:09:10 between logical properties in deductive
0:09:12 logic I know that sounds really crazy
0:09:13 I'm going to explain it later okay but
0:09:15 you can't observe that you by the way
0:09:18 you have to have that before you do
0:09:19 science so it's limited to observation
0:09:22 the third point science is morally
0:09:24 neutral or in otherwise this amoral now
0:09:28 what I mean by this I don't mean
0:09:29 scientists are immoral of course not god
0:09:31 forbid right what I'm saying here is
0:09:34 although scientists are human beings -
0:09:35 and sometimes we have a couch of thing
0:09:37 just because it's a scientist he's like
0:09:38 you know the religion of the white coats
0:09:41 right you have that kind of assumption
0:09:43 sometimes in popular discourse right
0:09:46 anyway so science is is morally neutral
0:09:50 what do I mean by this well there are
0:09:51 many things that we take to be first
0:09:54 principles in moral theory in meta
0:09:57 ethics meaning that there are some
0:09:59 things that we consider to be
0:10:00 objectively morally true there are
0:10:03 objective moral values in the world
0:10:06 objective moral truths not all of them
0:10:08 but I am a true believer that we all
0:10:10 believe in objective moral truths
0:10:13 regardless what society tells us
0:10:15 regardless we'll individual Minds tell
0:10:17 us and regardless what in two inches or
0:10:20 psychological our emotions tell us right
0:10:24 so let me give an example you go home
0:10:27 you're tied from work or university and
0:10:30 you turn the television and you see
0:10:32 breaking news and it and the headline
0:10:35 says man behead five-year-old now that's
0:10:40 morally wrong right yes yes no okay all
0:10:49 right let's assume you said no write an
0:10:51 emphatic no of course a so we said yes
0:10:54 rather what what was my question I'm
0:10:57 gonna get myself in trouble it's morally
0:11:00 wrong correct
0:11:01 good now next question is it objectively
0:11:04 morally wrong for example if the whole
0:11:07 world would
0:11:08 and say - it's okay to behead a
0:11:11 five-year-old it'd still be morally
0:11:13 wrong and if individual minds right and
0:11:16 individual human beings with the own
0:11:19 emotional disposition came to sit now
0:11:20 let me justify - intellectually and
0:11:22 emotionally you'd be like no it's still
0:11:24 morally wrong
0:11:25 this would mean by objective it's
0:11:27 outside of the limited human mind in a
0:11:29 way outside of limited emotions and
0:11:31 therefore you require some kind of
0:11:32 grounding what explains and takes into
0:11:34 account the objectivity of that moral
0:11:36 value and where did it come from if we
0:11:39 consider there were some morals to be
0:11:41 objective in this sense science has no
0:11:44 say science is asleep it has no say in
0:11:47 this issue why because science can't
0:11:51 provide a rational basis for the
0:11:53 objectivity of moral values for
0:11:55 objective moral truths and values why
0:11:57 well let's remind ourselves what Charles
0:12:00 Darwin said er he gave an extreme
0:12:02 example concerning this notion he
0:12:04 basically said if we were to be reared
0:12:06 under precisely the same conditions as
0:12:09 the hy-vee's we would think it's okay to
0:12:11 kill our brothers and okay LK to kill
0:12:14 off hurt our daughters now if you extend
0:12:16 that logic and you talk about the nurse
0:12:18 shark you know one would argue that if
0:12:21 we were reared under precisely the same
0:12:23 biological conditions as the nurse shark
0:12:26 we would think it's okay to rape women
0:12:28 that's what the nurse shark does check
0:12:30 the National Geographic it the nurse
0:12:32 shark bites the fin of its mate and
0:12:35 wrestles its mate which is tantamount
0:12:37 equivalent to force mating rape right so
0:12:42 there is a problem here because all the
0:12:44 Darwinian mechanism can do or to be a
0:12:47 bit more specific all that natural
0:12:49 selection can do is provide us with the
0:12:52 ability to formulate ethical rules we
0:12:54 agree with this it gives you the ability
0:12:57 to formulate ethical rules but it
0:13:00 doesn't give you a foundation to justify
0:13:03 or take into account objective moral
0:13:06 truths why because these morals are
0:13:09 subject not objective anymore they're
0:13:12 subject to inevitable biological changes
0:13:15 not only that morals lose
0:13:18 meaning under biology they lose meaning
0:13:21 because it's just almost arbitrary it's
0:13:24 like a result of a accident two rearing
0:13:28 of certain biological conditions
0:13:30 that's why science is amoral from this
0:13:33 perspective all morally neutral from
0:13:35 this perspective the fourth point is
0:13:40 that science can't drove into the
0:13:41 personal into the personal now what do I
0:13:44 mean by this now for my post-grad I did
0:13:47 a thesis on the on physicalism and
0:13:50 neuroscience and the hard problem of
0:13:52 consciousness okay and this duels with
0:13:54 what's happening inside ourselves the
0:13:56 person okay now science can't deal with
0:14:01 the hard problem of consciousness yes it
0:14:03 does great work concerning you know how
0:14:07 we think cognition the fact that we are
0:14:10 able to think and you can do all of
0:14:12 these things but can science do with
0:14:15 what really makes us human the fact that
0:14:17 we have inner subjective conscious
0:14:19 States for example you know you like
0:14:23 strawberries I'm thinking of story I had
0:14:26 400 grams of strawberries this morning
0:14:27 that's oh I'm thinking right everyone
0:14:29 likes strawberries right now when you
0:14:31 have a strawberry on an on a Sunday
0:14:34 morning with some this with some double
0:14:36 cream there is an internal experience
0:14:39 that you're having there's an internal
0:14:40 subjective conscious experience that
0:14:42 you're having you could ask the question
0:14:44 what is it like for Abdul or Susan or
0:14:47 John or Fatima to have a strawberry on a
0:14:53 Sunday morning dipped in double cream
0:14:55 what is it like and that answer cannot
0:15:02 be found using science because we're
0:15:05 dealing with someone's in a subjective
0:15:08 conscious State
0:15:09 and if I were to know everything about
0:15:11 the human mind and map out all the neuro
0:15:14 chemical electrochemical happenings and
0:15:16 firings right and connect them with
0:15:18 someone's experience I would still not
0:15:20 know what it's like for that person to
0:15:22 have that experience because it's just a
0:15:24 neuroscience is a study of correlations
0:15:27 it's just a study of correlations so I
0:15:30 would not know what it's like for that
0:15:31 person
0:15:32 in a subjective conscious experience oh
0:15:34 I have our utterances linguistic
0:15:37 utterances of the description of the
0:15:40 inner subjective conscious state it's
0:15:42 crispy
0:15:43 it's sweet it's lovely right or whatever
0:15:46 the case may be these are linguistic
0:15:49 utterances which represent meaning which
0:15:51 is a representation of what's happening
0:15:53 inside you still don't know what is
0:15:56 sweet for that person and what is
0:15:58 crunchy for that person that's the hard
0:16:00 problem of consciousness in a nutshell
0:16:02 it requires another lecture but that's
0:16:05 generally it right this is why professor
0:16:07 Thomas Nagel he makes a really good
0:16:09 point and he raised this point in his
0:16:11 famous paper I believe it was published
0:16:12 in 1973 or 1974 when he wrote ways I'd
0:16:15 like to be a bat right and he said look
0:16:17 science is a problem methodologically
0:16:19 it's limited because science is the
0:16:21 third person fact so how can third
0:16:24 person fact new with first person fact
0:16:26 there you go and the debate continues
0:16:29 right by the way I'm not saying I've
0:16:32 solved the problem here or I'm
0:16:34 expressing you know all the views in
0:16:36 five minutes that'll be highly arrogant
0:16:38 of me it's a big massive discussion by
0:16:41 generally speaking when I give these
0:16:42 lectures is to plant seeds in your heart
0:16:44 and mind so you continue your own
0:16:46 intellectual spiritual journey I'm not
0:16:48 here to teach you anything rather I
0:16:51 considered these lectures therapy for
0:16:52 myself
0:16:53 right okay so the next point science
0:16:57 can't answer why things happen that's
0:16:58 another limitation of science imagine my
0:17:00 auntie came along here right and my
0:17:03 auntie is very good at cooking and she
0:17:06 baked a nice chocolate gateau massive
0:17:08 one like 25 inches right chocolate cat
0:17:11 Oh gateau right and then she left she
0:17:14 vowed silence and she left let me ask
0:17:17 you the question as a scientist why did
0:17:20 she bake the cake
0:17:22 why come on scientists why did she make
0:17:27 the cake sorry to be eaten maybe not
0:17:31 maybe she just want to show how artistic
0:17:35 it is that's an assumption
0:17:38 why does he bake the cake Oh scientists
0:17:41 what's the purpose of the cake that's
0:17:43 what we mean when we're saying why
0:17:46 you never know but if I asked you how
0:17:48 she picked the cake you don't have to
0:17:50 ask her if you have the right tool the
0:17:52 right method and the the the right
0:17:54 amount of time you could tell me how she
0:17:56 baked the cake you could test the kind
0:17:58 of I don't know protein bonds and all my
0:18:01 science is rubbish but you know what we
0:18:02 know what's going on in the cake
0:18:04 something's happening in a cake there
0:18:06 are protein buns in the cake right there
0:18:08 you go I was right
0:18:09 don't offer me yeah so there's some
0:18:11 bothered you stuff happening in
0:18:12 chemicals happening right you could
0:18:14 assess that and find out how she make
0:18:16 the cake but you can't tell me why on
0:18:19 earth she made the cake so science is
0:18:21 limited from that point of view it can't
0:18:23 tell you about the purpose of things the
0:18:27 next issue is that science is not the
0:18:30 only a stick for truth because there are
0:18:32 other sources of knowledge and for me
0:18:34 this is the most frustrating is that
0:18:35 people don't really people are not even
0:18:37 bothered to read a basic philosophy book
0:18:40 philosophy 101 if you're 16 years old
0:18:45 and you know by a ailable standard book
0:18:47 on epistemology the study of knowledge
0:18:49 and you would see that there are other
0:18:52 sources of knowledge other than just
0:18:54 touching and feeling things one of them
0:18:56 include testimony believe it or not they
0:19:00 say so of others and let me summarize
0:19:03 what I'm saying with what happened a few
0:19:04 years ago with Professor Lawrence Krauss
0:19:06 so obviously I did a few mistakes as
0:19:09 well people change if you're the same
0:19:11 person you were four years ago then you
0:19:12 have issues so you know I follow kind of
0:19:14 a Bruce Lee philosophy you should be
0:19:16 like a river they keep on flowing right
0:19:18 so I'm not the same person you don't
0:19:20 step in the same river twice as they say
0:19:22 because it's changing isn't it yeah but
0:19:24 anyway there are some good things to
0:19:26 learn from that discussion with mr.
0:19:28 Krauss and I said to cross hey Krauss I
0:19:30 didn't do it that way but you know I
0:19:32 mean so hey professor Krauss you have a
0:19:34 metaphysical presupposition you think
0:19:37 that truth is as a result of what you
0:19:39 touch and fill so yes of course I'm a
0:19:41 scientist and I said fine but there are
0:19:43 other sources of knowledge he said like
0:19:45 what
0:19:46 and I said testimony and he sniggered at
0:19:48 me he said I just do the science and I
0:19:50 said well do this science do you believe
0:19:53 in evolution he said yes of course I
0:19:54 follow the evidence and I said to him
0:19:56 have you done all the experiments
0:19:58 yourself have you done
0:19:59 the science yourself and then he paused
0:20:02 everybody started to laugh at him or
0:20:04 lots of people start to laugh at him why
0:20:05 because they exposed his metaphysical
0:20:08 presupposition it is true that he has to
0:20:11 rely on the say-so of other scientists
0:20:13 because he ain't gonna do the science
0:20:15 himself and if you rely just on your own
0:20:17 experiments and you've done directly you
0:20:19 will never have the science you have
0:20:20 today and that's the beauty of human
0:20:22 knowledge you have to rely on other
0:20:24 people and that's why if you study the
0:20:27 scientific method you would see that a
0:20:30 key part of the scientific method are
0:20:31 the sayings of other scientists are the
0:20:34 conclusions of other scientists now you
0:20:36 may claim yes but this studies are
0:20:38 repeatable and they have been repeated
0:20:40 if you haven't repeated it yourself it's
0:20:43 still the say so of others it could be
0:20:46 one scientist or 500 the fact that they
0:20:48 are telling you the basis of that
0:20:51 knowledge is not empirical it's the
0:20:53 say-so of others now what's very
0:20:56 interesting there's been a revival in
0:20:58 Western epistemology on the issue of
0:21:01 testimony in the past 30 to 40 years for
0:21:04 example you had the 1991 book by
0:21:06 Professor Cody he wrote the book
0:21:07 testimony a philosophical discussion and
0:21:09 he basically argues that testimony is
0:21:12 not only a source of knowledge it's a
0:21:14 fundamental source of knowledge it's
0:21:16 fundamental it's indispensable and so he
0:21:20 basically argues that testimony is not
0:21:22 only useful but it's a fundamental
0:21:24 source and he calls David Hume the
0:21:27 famous Scottish skeptic that disagrees
0:21:29 with professor Cody and David Hume
0:21:31 basically says look testimony is useful
0:21:34 for the wise man but we only accept
0:21:38 testimony we only accept testimony
0:21:41 because it's in line with our collective
0:21:44 experiences so professor Cody being a
0:21:47 genius what does he say he has hold on
0:21:49 mr. David Hume what do you mean by
0:21:54 collective experiences because the only
0:21:56 way to understand other people's
0:21:59 experiences is to ask them and they'll
0:22:02 tell you so he's actually shown that
0:22:06 testimony the state of others is
0:22:08 fundamental to knowledge because if
0:22:10 David Hume is saying that yes
0:22:12 testimonies
0:22:13 so by snow fundamental because it has to
0:22:14 be in line with our collective
0:22:15 experiences well how do you know what
0:22:17 people's collective experiences are it's
0:22:19 only by testimony so it's a really good
0:22:22 book I think you should read that shows
0:22:23 that testimony is fundamental now by the
0:22:25 way testimonial knowledge could be wrong
0:22:27 just like I empirical knowledge could be
0:22:29 wrong I'm not saying it's accurate I'm
0:22:30 saying it's a fundamental source now
0:22:33 what we have to do to find out what
0:22:35 constitutes valid testimonial knowledge
0:22:38 that's a different philosopher good
0:22:39 discussion and whatsoever interesting
0:22:41 you have many talking about this dr.
0:22:43 Elizabeth Fricker
0:22:44 she makes a really good point she says
0:22:45 look given my limitations as a
0:22:47 parametric given that I'm a limited
0:22:49 human being I can't know everything I
0:22:51 have to rely on earth Authority on this
0:22:53 which is simple is that
0:22:55 Benjamin McMeel associate associate
0:22:58 professor Benjamin Michael Mayer he says
0:23:00 that in order to have testimonial
0:23:01 knowledge the one who's giving the
0:23:03 knowledge has to basically have the
0:23:06 responsibility of referring back to
0:23:08 people's challenges and the audience
0:23:11 that's receiving the testimonial
0:23:12 knowledge they have to basically is
0:23:14 within their right to challenge the one
0:23:16 who's giving the testimonial knowledge
0:23:18 you have for example America professor
0:23:20 Keith Lehrer
0:23:21 he's brilliant you know he says he says
0:23:23 in order for testimony or knowledge to
0:23:25 be valid or to be constituted as
0:23:27 knowledge you have to be trustworthy in
0:23:30 your assessments on the trustworthiness
0:23:33 of others now if a lot of you know about
0:23:36 Islamic theology this is in line with
0:23:37 what Muslims have been discussing for
0:23:39 1400 years in the study of prophetic
0:23:42 traditions animal hadith when we talk
0:23:44 about the trustworthiness of the
0:23:45 reporter anyway I want too much on
0:23:49 testimony the point is testimonial
0:23:51 knowledge is a fundamental source of
0:23:53 knowledge and I want to end it this part
0:23:55 by asking you a question how do you know
0:23:59 China exists many of us it fundamentally
0:24:03 based on testimonial knowledge even if
0:24:06 you have pictures even if you have
0:24:08 images on a map someone told you that's
0:24:12 the picture of Chinese people and China
0:24:15 and even if you man Chinese person today
0:24:16 or you have to just believe what they
0:24:18 said it's testimonial really also what's
0:24:24 testimonial is your mother being the one
0:24:26 that gave birth
0:24:26 you you have zero proof don't even tell
0:24:29 me have a DNA test certificate because
0:24:31 you don't and if you did that's still
0:24:33 testimonial it's a certificate a
0:24:35 testimony that someone did something you
0:24:37 didn't do yourself right so from that
0:24:40 point of view hiding your mother gave
0:24:42 birth to you you only know because of
0:24:44 testimonial evidence the fact that your
0:24:47 dad told you the Midwife told you
0:24:48 there's a certificate there may be a
0:24:50 video right the video is not empirical
0:24:53 because you need Kamala gabbro did you
0:24:55 with the Baden glasses and a laptop
0:24:57 imagine that wouldn't be a miracle God
0:25:00 exists right
0:25:01 so you didn't you and capitate from your
0:25:03 mother's womb like that well you know
0:25:05 you had a different face obviously for
0:25:09 more kita so yeah so from that point of
0:25:12 view someone have to tell you hey that
0:25:15 was you and you were a child so when it
0:25:18 comes to things like China and existence
0:25:19 that the fact that you believe that your
0:25:21 mother gave birth to you so test them on
0:25:22 your knowledge so it's not true that
0:25:24 science is the only source of of truth
0:25:27 the only yardstick for truth because we
0:25:28 have other sources of knowledge like
0:25:29 testimony final point to do with the
0:25:32 first assumption which is science cannot
0:25:34 prove necessary truths and this is very
0:25:37 interesting science can't prove
0:25:39 necessary truths and these necessary
0:25:41 truths are required before you do any
0:25:44 science for example logic logical
0:25:49 reasoning deductive logic number one all
0:25:53 bachelors are unmarried men number two
0:25:57 John is a bachelor number three
0:26:00 therefore John is a unmarried man this
0:26:04 is what you call a valid deductive
0:26:06 argument is also sound a valid deductive
0:26:09 argument is where the conclusion
0:26:11 necessarily follows from the previous
0:26:12 statements or premises a sound deductive
0:26:15 argument if it's valid and also the
0:26:18 premises have some form of justification
0:26:20 this is a sound deductive argument I
0:26:23 repeat number one all bachelors are
0:26:26 unmarried men number two John is a
0:26:29 bachelor number 3 therefore John is are
0:26:31 unmarried man this is a necessary
0:26:35 conclusion science can prove these
0:26:39 necessary conclusions because we know
0:26:43 that the conclusion necessarily follows
0:26:45 not because of the meaning of the
0:26:47 previous premises but rather there are
0:26:50 logical relations between the logical
0:26:52 properties of that deductive argument of
0:26:56 those premises there is a logical
0:26:57 relation between unmarried John bachelor
0:27:00 and men there is a logical relation
0:27:03 science cannot warrant take into account
0:27:05 justify explain those logical relations
0:27:12 so there you go
0:27:14 you need this before you do any science
0:27:18 and to claim that science is the only
0:27:19 otic the truth is extremely problematic
0:27:21 because you require necessary true
0:27:24 necessary truths like deductive
0:27:26 arguments or logical relations between
0:27:29 logical properties in order for you to
0:27:31 even do any science in the first place
0:27:33 so the first assumption in my humble
0:27:35 opinion is not a valid assumption next
0:27:40 point well the second false assumption
0:27:44 is science works therefore its
0:27:46 conclusions are true science works guys
0:27:49 therefore its conclusions are true well
0:27:53 that's not true then explain if we study
0:27:58 the history of science you will see that
0:28:00 there are theories that were working
0:28:03 that provided things that we now call
0:28:06 truths but we eventually found out that
0:28:08 those theories are false for example in
0:28:11 the 1700s there was this workable theory
0:28:14 called the theory of phlogiston okay the
0:28:17 theory of phlogiston what was this
0:28:18 theory if things were combustible they
0:28:20 can burn they would release floristic
0:28:22 heated air dan Rutherford in 1772 he
0:28:26 used this workable theory and he
0:28:28 discovered nitrogen nitrogen but after a
0:28:33 few more years they found out that the
0:28:34 theory itself was false this shows us
0:28:37 that you can get a truth from a workable
0:28:40 theory that's eventually found to be
0:28:43 false so there you go it's not true that
0:28:47 just because science works it must be
0:28:49 true that is a false assumption
0:28:52 you have the philosopher Samir okasha in
0:28:55 his book philosophy of science
0:28:57 he says historically there are many
0:28:59 cases of theories that we now believe to
0:29:01 be false but they were empirically quite
0:29:04 successful also you have professor
0:29:07 Elliott sober he says false models can
0:29:10 sometimes work better than true ones
0:29:13 than true ones so the second assumption
0:29:16 that science works therefore is it's
0:29:18 true is a false assumption let's go to
0:29:21 the third false assumption the third
0:29:23 false assumption is sighs leads to
0:29:25 certainty I mean who says this you know
0:29:29 when people throw out their eye in the
0:29:31 popular sphere had this is this morning
0:29:33 on my Facebook I think someone said you
0:29:35 know scientific fact like this like
0:29:37 Moses tablets coming from God himself
0:29:39 and there's a Moses tablet called
0:29:41 scientific fact number 345 yeah and it
0:29:45 gives you the fact and that Moses tablet
0:29:47 cannot change its engraving in stone
0:29:50 scientific facts are not like that
0:29:52 they're not like that for example many
0:29:57 of you believe the Darwinian mechanism
0:29:58 to be a scientific fact which basically
0:30:02 means in scientific language a world
0:30:04 confirmed theory that can change that's
0:30:06 what it means that's what it means
0:30:08 people even the evangelical Richard
0:30:11 Dawkins who's like in love with the
0:30:14 Darwinian mechanism he writes about it
0:30:15 and his a popularizer and he's an
0:30:17 academic he even said I think it's in
0:30:20 his book the devil's chaplain he said
0:30:21 well in 10 years or in the future we
0:30:25 could have future observations that can
0:30:27 really contradict or change the way we
0:30:29 see the Darwinian mechanism it could
0:30:30 look completely different so when we say
0:30:34 scientific fact we mean it's well
0:30:39 confirmed but it may change some
0:30:43 scientific facts are unlikely to change
0:30:45 some unlikely to change but the point is
0:30:48 they both have a likelihood to change in
0:30:50 some way so science doesn't need to
0:30:55 certainty from that point of view now
0:30:57 why is it the case that science doesn't
0:30:59 need to certainty because of the problem
0:31:01 of induction science relies heavily on
0:31:03 induction what is induction is
0:31:06 a thinking process where you have a
0:31:08 limited set of observations and data and
0:31:10 as a result of your limited observations
0:31:13 and data you conclude for the next
0:31:15 observation that you have not observed
0:31:17 or the entire set of observations that
0:31:19 you haven't observed it moves from the
0:31:21 known to the unknown
0:31:23 for example if I've observed 1,000 white
0:31:26 sheep I may conclude the next sheep is
0:31:30 going to be white but is it true is it
0:31:33 necessarily true is a hundred percent
0:31:36 true no it's likely to be true given my
0:31:38 observations that are limited by I may
0:31:40 observe a black sheep right so that's
0:31:44 the problem reduction it's probabilistic
0:31:46 it's not what you call a definite
0:31:49 knowledge from that point of view it may
0:31:50 change you may have a future observation
0:31:53 that contradicts previous conclusions so
0:31:55 let me give you a principle just for it
0:31:56 to be in your mind there can always be a
0:31:59 new observation that can be our odds of
0:32:01 our conclusions based on our limited
0:32:03 data based on our previous limited data
0:32:06 I repeat they can always be a new
0:32:08 observation that can be at odds with our
0:32:11 conclusions based on our previous
0:32:13 limited data and that is the beauty of
0:32:17 science because it changes and it adapts
0:32:21 as a result of the new observations in
0:32:24 direct or indirect observations we have
0:32:27 experienced and this is why philosophers
0:32:31 of science
0:32:31 Gillian Barker and Phillip pitcher they
0:32:34 say in their book philosophy of science
0:32:36 a new introduction published by Oxford
0:32:37 science is revisable
0:32:39 hence to talk of scientific proof is
0:32:42 dangerous because the term fosters the
0:32:45 idea of conclusions that are graven in
0:32:47 stone now before I move on to the final
0:32:50 force assumption I want to talk about
0:32:51 just a quick note on falsification now
0:32:54 Karl Popper he understood the problem of
0:32:57 induction with science you know you
0:32:59 can't prove scientific theories to be
0:33:00 true in a philosopher Co sense you can't
0:33:04 prove scientific theories to be true in
0:33:06 an absolute philosophical sense you can
0:33:09 just show that they were confirmed but
0:33:10 they may not be true from that point of
0:33:12 view from a philosophical point of view
0:33:15 and he felt that was a problem and he
0:33:17 agreed you can't solve the
0:33:19 problem of induction so what he what did
0:33:21 he invent if you like he basically
0:33:24 brought into existence this idea of
0:33:26 falsification
0:33:28 he said scientific theories can't be
0:33:30 proven to be true in an absolute way but
0:33:33 they can be proved in before the
0:33:35 knowledge that you can have is knowledge
0:33:37 of what theories are force that's the
0:33:40 knowledge that a scientist should be
0:33:41 looking for and he could this
0:33:44 falsification now what is falsification
0:33:47 in a in a nutshell it is the following
0:33:52 if a theory claims that something would
0:33:53 be observed under certain circumstances
0:33:56 and it is not observed then the theory
0:33:58 is proved false listen to this theory I
0:34:01 made up earlier ribbet
0:34:02 remember not remember ready all birds
0:34:06 that die on a Friday will do so in
0:34:09 mid-flight theory beautiful theory ax
0:34:13 all birds that died on a Friday would do
0:34:16 so in mid-flight how do you falsify this
0:34:19 theory you observe a bird that is not
0:34:25 flying it's on the ground and it's
0:34:26 walking and it's a Friday and it died
0:34:28 while walking
0:34:29 my theory is falsified that's
0:34:32 falsification okay now what's very
0:34:35 interesting is he was not entirely true
0:34:39 because you can have falsified theories
0:34:42 that can be brought back to life it's
0:34:45 like an epistemic intellectual
0:34:47 resuscitate and all you need to do is
0:34:51 change the auxilary assumptions that's
0:34:54 why many academics scientists and the
0:34:57 philosophers of science they don't
0:34:58 really take falsification a hundred
0:35:00 percent seriously from the point of view
0:35:01 of being a hard Pope Arian they're more
0:35:04 softpro parents it's useful to have
0:35:06 theories that are falsifiable but it's
0:35:10 not as simple as that because if you
0:35:12 tweak the assumptions something that a
0:35:14 theory that was dead can be revived let
0:35:18 me give an example how do we discover
0:35:21 Neptune does anyone know how we
0:35:26 discovered Neptune you don't know I
0:35:29 found it I'm Jackie
0:35:31 we discover Neptune because you know
0:35:34 orbits were like wow you know obits are
0:35:36 really nice and they're smooth and
0:35:38 they're doing their thing right and you
0:35:41 know if we if we have another planet
0:35:43 like Uranus its it's always should be
0:35:45 the same smooth musical cosmic dance
0:35:48 right
0:35:49 but Uranus seem to be a bit drunk he had
0:35:52 a wobbly orbit the perturbations of
0:35:54 Uranus it was like whoo I'm a bit tipsy
0:35:56 yeah
0:35:57 so Uranus was tipsy so the problem here
0:35:59 is what do they do do they now say look
0:36:03 this has falsified our theories about
0:36:04 orbits no they just changed the
0:36:07 assumption was the assumption they said
0:36:10 there's no other planets so they change
0:36:12 that assumption saying maybe there's
0:36:14 another planet that's closer to Uranus
0:36:16 that is affecting the orbit of Uranus
0:36:20 and that's how they discovered Neptune
0:36:24 so falsified theories in the onset can
0:36:29 be revived as a result of tweaking your
0:36:32 assumptions and by tweaking those
0:36:34 assumptions you discover new scientific
0:36:36 truths and there you thought science was
0:36:38 simple
0:36:39 so next point the fourth final
0:36:48 assumption behind the assertion that
0:36:50 science leads to atheism which is based
0:36:53 on philosophical naturalism and
0:36:54 methodological naturalism let's discuss
0:36:57 this assumption so people who believe
0:37:01 that science leads to atheism they
0:37:04 really hold a non-scientific assumption
0:37:06 what is that non scientific assumption
0:37:09 it's the Philosopher's code view of
0:37:11 philosophical naturalism it's not
0:37:13 scientific what's for the soft aqua
0:37:15 naturalism philosophical naturalism is
0:37:17 based on three things number one the
0:37:19 belief that there is no divine the
0:37:21 assertion that there's no divine number
0:37:23 two the assertion that all physical
0:37:27 phenomena can be explained all phenomena
0:37:30 can be explained by physical processes
0:37:32 and number three there is no afterlife
0:37:34 which is similar to the idea that
0:37:35 there's no divine sowhat's for the Safa
0:37:37 Co naturalism
0:37:37 there's no divine no Hereafter and all
0:37:41 phenomena in the universe can be
0:37:43 explained by physical
0:37:45 now what's the problem with that if
0:37:47 these are the lenses that you put on
0:37:48 your eyes to see the world then what are
0:37:50 you going to see you're just going to
0:37:52 see the denial of the divine because
0:37:53 these are your lenses right say you go
0:37:56 to optometrists and you buy some glasses
0:37:58 Calvin Klein the atheist edition you put
0:38:01 it on your face what you're gonna see
0:38:03 you ain't gonna see God no where you'll
0:38:04 see no divine power right that's it and
0:38:09 that's what you have the likes of many
0:38:13 scientists that you know will respect
0:38:14 for the scientific endeavors but frankly
0:38:17 you know they had the wrong lenses on
0:38:19 and they were they had non-scientific
0:38:22 assumptions on their faces as lenses
0:38:24 which was Calvin Klein atheist edition
0:38:27 right and so if you adopt that false
0:38:32 philosophical assumption that basically
0:38:34 is literally based on blind faith in my
0:38:36 view then all you're gonna see is the
0:38:38 denial of the divine because you started
0:38:39 with that premise
0:38:40 you put those lenses on and even the
0:38:42 Atheist himself professor Michael ruse a
0:38:45 very honest atheist philosopher he says
0:38:48 if you want a concession I've always
0:38:50 said that naturalism philosophical
0:38:52 naturalism is an act of faith faith and
0:38:55 that's why when you discuss with people
0:38:57 don't discuss the site discuss the
0:38:59 assumptions that people are holding and
0:39:01 you have a more fruitful discussion the
0:39:04 next part of this assumption is
0:39:07 methodological naturalism now this is
0:39:09 not a problem for theists especially the
0:39:11 Islamic tradition now what's the
0:39:13 methodological naturalism it's basically
0:39:15 the assertion that for any scientific
0:39:18 conclusion of theory to be scientific it
0:39:20 cannot refer to the divine power or
0:39:23 creativity that's what it's saying it
0:39:25 doesn't say God doesn't exist it's just
0:39:27 it just says for your science to be
0:39:29 science for your conclusion to be
0:39:31 scientific for your theory to be
0:39:33 scientific just don't refer to God's
0:39:35 power or divine wisdom or creativity and
0:39:38 this is not a problem for the Muslim
0:39:39 because the Muslim believes that the
0:39:41 whole universe is made up of physical
0:39:43 causes and these are as bad in Arabic
0:39:46 these are causes that God has used to
0:39:49 manifest His divine will that's not a
0:39:51 problem for the Muslim but what some
0:39:53 people do is they conflate
0:39:55 methodological naturalism and they think
0:39:57 it means for the Safa cone a chiral is
0:39:59 no because you could be a methodological
0:40:01 naturalist and when you do science you
0:40:03 don't refer to God's divine power
0:40:04 creativity but you can still be a theist
0:40:07 that believes in God of course you can
0:40:11 there's no contradiction because your
0:40:12 philosophy could be well those physical
0:40:14 causes are a manifestation of the
0:40:16 differing will no problem
0:40:18 so they conflate methodological
0:40:20 naturalism with with philosophical
0:40:25 naturalism and that's why evolutionary
0:40:27 biologist Scott C Todd he said of course
0:40:30 the scientist as an individual is free
0:40:33 to embrace a reality that transcends
0:40:35 naturalism methodological naturalism in
0:40:38 this case so does science dita atheism
0:40:41 no we've taken the full force
0:40:44 assumptions we've broken them down so
0:40:46 therefore we can conclude in a
0:40:49 intellectually healthy way that science
0:40:51 does not lead to atheism next point of
0:40:58 today's discussion well science
0:40:59 disproves religion it disproves religion
0:41:02 you have all of these scientific things
0:41:03 are happening all these conclusions and
0:41:05 the things that we consider fact and
0:41:07 your revelation whether it's the Bible
0:41:09 whether it's the Koran whether it's your
0:41:11 prophetic traditions whether it's your
0:41:13 scriptures they are saying some things
0:41:15 that are not really scientific so what
0:41:17 you do as someone who believes in a
0:41:19 religious worldview now when it comes
0:41:20 from the Muslim point of view what do
0:41:22 you do say for example I was born in
0:41:24 them in the nineteenth century and there
0:41:26 was the scientific fact at that time
0:41:29 that the universe had no beginning so
0:41:31 say I'm a scientist and I adopt that yes
0:41:33 universe has no beginning I'm a Muslim
0:41:34 in the nineteenth century
0:41:35 universe has no beginning then I go read
0:41:38 my scripture my Quran universe has a
0:41:40 beginning what do I do
0:41:51 sorry I believe the Koran he says sorry
0:41:58 toss a coin okay let me go heaven I hold
0:42:03 it to the coin yeah Jackie you have to
0:42:09 believe in the testament of some people
0:42:10 right well that's a very good point he's
0:42:12 been listening see for my point of view
0:42:14 from my point of view you could do both
0:42:17 let me tell you what I mean by both I'll
0:42:19 be very careful here you can as a
0:42:21 scientist accept the fact given what we
0:42:23 discussed about the philosophy of
0:42:25 science doesn't need absolute certainty
0:42:26 can't change can i future observations
0:42:28 are critical his conclusions you can
0:42:30 accept as a limited human endeavor that
0:42:32 produces limited conclusions that are
0:42:34 not absolutely true and you can accept
0:42:36 it practically as a scientist that based
0:42:39 on our human limited knowledge that this
0:42:41 is what we've concluded but it's not
0:42:42 true that I have to enter into my Creed
0:42:45 on my philosophical worldview but it's
0:42:47 true from the point of view that is
0:42:49 practical but I can still accept the
0:42:51 Quran because it comes from a source
0:42:53 that is true absolutely and therefore
0:42:58 you could never say science now
0:43:00 contradicts revelation especially my
0:43:03 Muslim point of view because you've just
0:43:05 committed an epistemic disqualification
0:43:09 once human limited knowledge once divine
0:43:12 knowledge it's as simple as that
0:43:13 and you can't even compare the both
0:43:16 because one is for example one
0:43:18 understands the picture the other just
0:43:22 observes the pixel it's it's no problem
0:43:26 you could respect both and you could
0:43:29 adopt both one practically understand
0:43:31 it's limitedness as a human endeavor and
0:43:32 we're just being doing it practically
0:43:33 and you keep with the divine revelation
0:43:37 because you know is from the divine now
0:43:39 that's a different discussion obviously
0:43:40 you know it's from the divine hamsa
0:43:42 different lecture maybe next year but
0:43:45 the point is don't commit this epistemic
0:43:48 disqualification we're saying here
0:43:49 here's some scientific truth that we
0:43:50 know that may change and if now since
0:43:53 we've learned some things about the
0:43:54 philosophy of science they may not be
0:43:55 absolute and it seems to be it seems to
0:43:58 contradict religious discourse the Koran
0:44:00 for example and we can't reconcile it at
0:44:02 all right that's an
0:44:04 the Assumption assumingly you can't
0:44:05 reconcile it what you do will you accept
0:44:08 both one practically and one you accept
0:44:10 philosophically and in your Creed and
0:44:12 you know it's absolutely the other it's
0:44:13 a pixelated understanding of the world
0:44:17 Allah God has the picture we've just got
0:44:20 a pixel and that's this life and that's
0:44:24 the history of science for you really
0:44:26 now let me give you a case study
0:44:28 Darwinian mechanism because for some
0:44:31 reason for some reason I don't really
0:44:33 get this for some reason Muslims even
0:44:35 Christians our beloved brothers and
0:44:37 sisters in the Christian tradition and
0:44:39 other religions and people who believe
0:44:40 in God and even people who are just in
0:44:43 the middle right and people on the fence
0:44:44 they're skeptics I don't know what's
0:44:45 going on they think Darwinism is the
0:44:48 problem for what it just discourse it's
0:44:50 not I just don't get it it's I mean I've
0:44:52 been seeing in the sidelines for the
0:44:53 past few years thinking what's the
0:44:56 problem how is their problem I don't get
0:44:59 it if someone doesn't understand and
0:45:02 studies the foundations of science the
0:45:04 philosophy of science
0:45:05 this wouldn't be become a problem for
0:45:07 you anymore let me explain why Darwinism
0:45:11 suffers from all the limitations that we
0:45:13 just spoke about in the philosophy of
0:45:15 science and we've developed a thing
0:45:17 called pad Darwinism suffers from pad
0:45:22 it's probabilistic it has its own
0:45:25 assumptions and they are academic this
0:45:27 speaks about certain aspects of
0:45:29 Darwinism this doesn't mean you reject
0:45:31 it oh my god no yeah it's no it's not
0:45:35 like you know this this this force of
0:45:37 evil they just reject now you accept it
0:45:39 practically with the notion that it's
0:45:41 probabilistic because it's based on
0:45:43 limited data you may have future data in
0:45:46 genetics for example epigenetics seems
0:45:49 to be you know a bit of a challenge to
0:45:51 the kind of old-school thinking on the
0:45:53 Darwinian mechanism or I'm not a
0:45:54 scientist or know much about this is
0:45:56 based on testimony of course but things
0:45:57 are happening right things are happening
0:45:59 so you may have future observations and
0:46:02 understanding in genetics or other
0:46:03 things that can contradict previous
0:46:05 conclusions about Darwinism itself so
0:46:07 it's probabilistic you don't have all
0:46:08 knowledge you don't have all the
0:46:10 observations right secondly Darwinism is
0:46:14 based on assumptions and these
0:46:15 assumptions include
0:46:17 gradualism The Tree of Life and their
0:46:21 many other assumptions but you have to
0:46:24 adopt gradualism as an assumption right
0:46:27 in order for you to understand the
0:46:30 observations it's not the other way
0:46:31 around so it's an assumption and this is
0:46:33 why then it's noble the oxford
0:46:35 university biologist he said all the
0:46:37 central assumptions of neo-darwinism
0:46:39 have have been disproven so it's based
0:46:42 on some assumptions and also has
0:46:44 disputes for example you have disputes
0:46:46 like evolution by natural genic tech
0:46:48 engineering new Lamarckian evolution
0:46:51 mutation driven evolution no longer be
0:46:53 very honest with you I don't have
0:46:55 another academic understanding on these
0:46:57 right but and I don't have to adopt them
0:46:59 I'm not saying they're right but they
0:47:01 exist it disputes exists on the academic
0:47:04 level assumptions are there study the
0:47:06 philosophy of biology study the
0:47:08 assumptions of the Darwinian mechanism
0:47:09 there are unproven assumptions and it's
0:47:12 probabilistic meaning you don't have all
0:47:14 observations it may change so how on
0:47:16 earth is it a problem for the for
0:47:19 Muslims at least how is it a problem
0:47:20 it's only a problem if you've committed
0:47:23 an epistemic disqualification if you
0:47:25 believe human limited knowledge is
0:47:26 equivalent to divine knowledge and that
0:47:29 has happened only because we have an
0:47:31 inferred to complex and because we don't
0:47:34 know who our Creator is because if we
0:47:36 believe in God's names and attributes
0:47:37 he's al Hakim
0:47:38 he is the wise he has the totality of
0:47:41 wisdom
0:47:42 he's an alum he's the knowing he's has
0:47:44 the totality of knowledge if you believe
0:47:47 he's the wise and all the the knowing
0:47:49 and he has the picture we just have a
0:47:50 pixel this would never have been a
0:47:52 problem and we just continue the science
0:47:55 and love to do science and accept it
0:47:58 practically you know you could study the
0:48:00 Darwinian mechanism as a Muslim and
0:48:02 learn how to deal with antibiotics and
0:48:05 learn about bacteria and save the world
0:48:07 and like many Muslims do because the
0:48:10 Quran gives us a spiritual driving
0:48:12 principle value which says if you save
0:48:14 one life is like same saving the whole
0:48:16 of humanity there you go what you're
0:48:19 going to do start walking out of your
0:48:21 Darwinism Alexis come on man do you see
0:48:25 my point it's not a problem and if it's
0:48:29 irreconcilable with orthodoxy
0:48:31 then so be it science is beautiful it's
0:48:34 supposed to change and that's what the
0:48:36 Darwinian mechanism is probabilistic
0:48:38 from the point of view that you can I
0:48:39 future observation that can can
0:48:40 contradict things that's that we
0:48:42 understand today is based on assumptions
0:48:44 that aren't proven and there are
0:48:47 academic disputes about certain key
0:48:48 things of science like is it the tree of
0:48:50 life is it the bush of life you know by
0:48:53 true these Accu that exist the bush of
0:48:54 life idea exists so there you go so I
0:48:57 don't see how it's a problem so as a
0:48:59 Muslim you could walk into your biology
0:49:01 class and you can listen to the lecturer
0:49:03 and you could be empowered by the fact
0:49:05 that you understand now what you
0:49:06 couldn't Arabic the O soul of science
0:49:08 the foundations the framework the
0:49:11 principles of the philosophy of science
0:49:13 let me give you a little story a few
0:49:17 years ago they discovered the Higgs
0:49:18 boson who knows who the Higgs boson is
0:49:21 okay some of you now the Higgs boson
0:49:24 right was a particle they found they
0:49:27 observed this particle now originally
0:49:29 they said look in the early stages of
0:49:31 the universe particles had no mass but
0:49:36 the Higgs field was switched on someone
0:49:39 switched it on don't know who both we
0:49:40 know who but just play with the idea for
0:49:42 a while just to get excited yeah someone
0:49:44 switched the universe field on and the
0:49:47 higgs field gave particles mass apart
0:49:49 from the proton right so it gave gave
0:49:53 particles mass now they found the
0:49:58 particle that made up the Higgs field
0:49:59 and popular magazines YouTube Google
0:50:04 even some atheist frankly never this be
0:50:06 honest you know the ones who don't know
0:50:07 much about science especially the
0:50:09 philosophy of science and they read
0:50:11 popular magazines the popular books and
0:50:12 think they know where all right some of
0:50:13 them yeah
0:50:14 those types so like oh they found the
0:50:16 god particle that's why they call it the
0:50:19 good particle
0:50:19 I had Muslims emailing me saying oh my
0:50:22 god my faith has hit the floor because
0:50:23 they found the god particle it had
0:50:27 really nothing to do with God it wasn't
0:50:30 even about the beginning of the universe
0:50:32 it was that it was after the beginning
0:50:33 of the universe he was the how you know
0:50:35 this happened because God does a
0:50:36 manifestation of God's will the reason
0:50:40 they couldn't the god particle is
0:50:42 because it was lazy
0:50:43 guys it was so hard to find the could
0:50:46 have got damp article and it has removed
0:50:49 the word damn that's it and it's a shame
0:50:53 that popular headlines now increases the
0:50:56 face of an atheist and decreases the
0:50:59 faith of a Muslim just because of a
0:51:02 title and I'm saying many of these
0:51:04 things as a result of a lack of
0:51:05 knowledge a lack of understanding of the
0:51:07 principles behind the thing that we look
0:51:09 at the fact that the area of knowledge
0:51:10 that we're studying over we're dealing
0:51:12 with and is also based on social
0:51:14 phenomena human beings are social beings
0:51:16 right whether we like it or not
0:51:18 we love people right all the time but
0:51:22 generally speaking we like to be around
0:51:23 look at today you're on a bunch of
0:51:25 people so and the social norm is
0:51:28 developed as a result of our need to
0:51:29 belong and I need to feel certain this
0:51:32 is called informational social influence
0:51:34 and normative social influence if I'm
0:51:37 uncertain about something I'm gonna go
0:51:39 to the masses to gain that certainty
0:51:43 conversely if I'm certain about
0:51:46 something but I have a need to belong I
0:51:48 may give up my beliefs just to adopt
0:51:52 your beliefs because it's the consensus
0:51:54 or it's the masses that's how you
0:51:57 manipulate society's right that's the
0:51:59 social norm we have a need to belong and
0:52:01 we have a need for certain and that's
0:52:03 why in your introduction spiritual
0:52:05 journey just try and ask yourself
0:52:06 questions without your phone and think
0:52:08 and just you know meditate upon your own
0:52:10 self and introspect as the Quran says
0:52:12 think within yourself well feed on full
0:52:15 circle my fellow to pursue Ronan in
0:52:17 themselves do they not see reflect and
0:52:19 ponder I will let me attack you roofy on
0:52:21 forcing him reflect within yourself and
0:52:23 find out is it really because of a
0:52:25 scientific principle I'm denying God is
0:52:27 it really because of you know there
0:52:29 seems to be some kind of contradiction
0:52:31 here or either because I just want to
0:52:33 belong and I'm just not certain I don't
0:52:35 have the right answers we need to be
0:52:36 more honest with ourselves because I
0:52:38 have so many conversations now with so
0:52:40 many different people on different sides
0:52:41 of the theological spectrum dying from
0:52:44 the me so theists which means the hair
0:52:46 of God which is a group of people by the
0:52:48 way who read professor Bernard wisest
0:52:50 book me Sophie ISM the untold story of
0:52:54 hating God you you see it actually just
0:52:57 called me
0:52:57 anyway the type of something like that
0:52:59 yeah it's very interesting and then you
0:53:01 have the atheist and the agnostic and
0:53:02 the skeptic and the believer and the
0:53:04 partial believer and the Muslim and then
0:53:06 whatever the case may be so there's a
0:53:07 spectrum of people's beliefs which is
0:53:08 fine when I speak to all of these people
0:53:11 many times it's not really intellectual
0:53:13 argumentation I'm going to be honest
0:53:15 with you it's not and I've realized in
0:53:18 my old age of 37 years and just learning
0:53:20 from our own mistakes is I've realized
0:53:23 that there's something else going on and
0:53:25 I want to end by making you understand
0:53:27 something about first principles okay
0:53:29 and I'll end on this we'll have Q&A
0:53:33 everything has first principles
0:53:35 everything now if you've been attentive
0:53:37 to this lecture sites has first
0:53:39 principles or assumptions for example
0:53:41 you have to believe in an external
0:53:43 universe with external causes in the
0:53:46 universe in order for science to work if
0:53:49 you don't believe in external causal
0:53:50 connections game over you can't really
0:53:52 do science so you have to believe that
0:53:54 assumption it's an assumption they have
0:53:57 even sold what a cause-and-effect is and
0:53:59 the link between them is yet study
0:54:01 metaphysics in philosophy when I did my
0:54:03 post card and it metaphysic was like I'm
0:54:05 not doing my essays on this Jo it was
0:54:07 too much for me
0:54:08 it was wow it's like they haven't soit
0:54:10 out yet especially when it comes to
0:54:11 causality but you have to adopt it as an
0:54:13 assumption a particular view as an
0:54:15 assumption or you have to assume it in
0:54:17 order for science to works so science
0:54:19 has assumptions mathematics has
0:54:23 assumptions for example if you study
0:54:24 calculus or set theory you have to
0:54:27 believe in infinite although you could
0:54:29 have observe an infinite but you have to
0:54:30 believe in them for it to work and if
0:54:32 you look into the philosophy of science
0:54:33 look at the list of assumptions one of
0:54:36 the assumptions are infinity exists
0:54:38 that's it they just have to they exist
0:54:40 in order for everything to work even
0:54:42 maths has assumptions size assumptions
0:54:44 maths has first principles and
0:54:46 assumptions and these are important to
0:54:47 have in order for that field of
0:54:49 knowledge for it to grow politics has an
0:54:52 assumption the idea of freedom freedom
0:54:56 itself no political approach is to
0:54:59 freedom but the idea of freedom itself
0:55:01 the idea of freedom itself which there
0:55:04 is a consensus amongst philosophers that
0:55:06 they believe that is has intrinsic value
0:55:08 so it's not as instrumental freedom
0:55:11 not good for him for it's not useful for
0:55:13 good ends rather it's an end in itself
0:55:15 it's intrinsically valuable and when you
0:55:18 ask for how do you know this your boy we
0:55:19 don't have to tell you because if it's
0:55:21 intrinsically valuable it doesn't
0:55:22 require evidence they say what how do
0:55:24 you take into account the fact that you
0:55:26 think is intrinsically valuable you know
0:55:28 the answer is in academia you won't
0:55:29 believe it
0:55:30 space or not intuitions so one of the
0:55:36 first principles here is that we can use
0:55:37 our intuitions to basically take to
0:55:40 account key philosophical ideas put that
0:55:44 in your philosopher cup IP and smoke it
0:55:45 yeah that's like wow so you even have
0:55:50 that in politics yeah first assumption
0:55:52 some principles you have to adopt in
0:55:53 order to make sense of the phenomenon
0:55:56 that you're discussing or studying or
0:55:58 trying to comprehend even neuro
0:56:01 scientist has assumptions then study
0:56:04 moderato mans ot study Rosen all these
0:56:08 guys neuroscience is not philosophically
0:56:10 free you have all these popular
0:56:12 magazines they found conscious in the
0:56:13 brain some fuzzy thing tweaking going up
0:56:15 and down you know some electrochemical
0:56:17 activity in some area of the brain no
0:56:19 that's just rubbish get the rule paper
0:56:21 see what's really going on it's based on
0:56:23 assumption neuroscience is based on an
0:56:25 assumption which is full of Suffolk
0:56:26 Cousteau I mean scientific and that
0:56:27 assumption is called physicalism which
0:56:30 is the philosophical approach in the
0:56:31 flows of the mind that things can be
0:56:33 reduced to physical processes were not
0:56:35 necessarily physical bits of matter
0:56:37 physicalism is a philosophical
0:56:39 assumption that neuroscience needs in
0:56:42 order for it to understand what's
0:56:43 happening in the brain
0:56:44 concerning correlations between
0:56:46 electrochemical activity and inner
0:56:48 subjective conscious states there's an
0:56:50 assumption in your science everybody
0:56:53 everything has an assumption or
0:56:55 technically call it first principles
0:56:57 this is the area of metaphysics you
0:56:58 require first principles in order to
0:57:01 understand the world
0:57:02 so what's Islam's first principle let me
0:57:07 tell you since I don't have chalk I'm
0:57:09 gonna take this is that right so this is
0:57:13 the Psalms first principle are you ready
0:57:16 do we have choked by the way behind the
0:57:20 bag
0:57:21 oh yes beautiful right can I draw on
0:57:26 this can I do it good so here's the
0:57:30 songs first principle that's a heart by
0:57:37 the way I do apologize if it looks like
0:57:39 an obese heart but it's a heart yeah
0:57:48 so Islam has a metaphysical view of the
0:57:51 human being
0:57:51 it basically says every human being has
0:57:54 an innate primordial state called the
0:57:56 fitrah coming from the Arabic word
0:57:59 Fattah which you have was like Fatone
0:58:01 and Fattah who meaning something has
0:58:03 been created within us and there's
0:58:05 knowledge in this fitrah we're not a
0:58:07 tabula rasa there is proto primary
0:58:11 knowledge contained in your innate
0:58:13 primordial state that's why childrens
0:58:15 smile even if they're blind this is why
0:58:19 we praise things all the time by virtue
0:58:20 of their attributes even though those
0:58:22 attributes don't affect us in any way we
0:58:24 say Bravo we clap we laugh because there
0:58:26 is knowledge in the fitrah of what that
0:58:29 God is a reality or the creator is a
0:58:34 reality and he deserves praise he
0:58:39 deserves praise right this is contained
0:58:45 in the primordial state and you see
0:58:49 expressed in human beings all the time
0:58:50 whether they were like you know it's
0:58:52 expressed in human beings the idea of
0:58:55 causality prior colder conditions prior
0:58:58 creative power we actually even when
0:59:00 were atheists we just have God
0:59:02 replacements it wasn't God
0:59:04 it was a multi universe yeah it was the
0:59:06 multiverse we have God replacements in
0:59:08 our language all the time
0:59:09 praise we praise things all the time we
0:59:12 we stand we smile we say Bravo we
0:59:17 express a form of praise two things all
0:59:18 the time by virtue of their attributes
0:59:20 right you know if you like you like
0:59:23 football you like Ronaldo you're like
0:59:25 wow that was a wicked gold
0:59:26 why because you praised him by virtue of
0:59:28 his football skill but he doesn't really
0:59:29 been a few in any direct way so this is
0:59:32 based on a prophetic profound tradition
0:59:34 of the Prophet
0:59:35 upon him be peace that can be found in
0:59:36 the authentic narrations as narrated by
0:59:38 Muslim where he said that every child is
0:59:42 born in the state this primordial state
0:59:43 which is acknowledgement of God and the
0:59:46 affinity to praise but what happens as a
0:59:49 result of parenting society since
0:59:52 education etc is that this promote you
0:59:56 state is clouded this promote you state
1:00:06 is clouded
1:00:07 so what Islam says is that Muslim the
1:00:11 job of a Muslim generally speaking is to
1:00:14 help people uncloudy promote you state
1:00:17 how can you do that you can do it by
1:00:20 using reason you couldn't do it by using
1:00:24 love you can do it by using questions
1:00:31 you can do it by basically game people
1:00:34 to see their experiences negative
1:00:37 positive or spiritual in a different way
1:00:41 these things are not end there just
1:00:45 means to awaken the truth within so it
1:00:50 shines through and this is why in our
1:00:53 discourse as Muslims
1:00:54 sometimes we rely on this too much
1:00:57 sometimes we don't rely on anything and
1:00:59 we become intellectual abstract robots
1:01:02 thinking we can prove our tradition in
1:01:04 some kind of robotic intellectual
1:01:08 fashion here's a deductive argument
1:01:10 human beings are not functional
1:01:13 computerized models we're not robots or
1:01:17 dynamic and what's very interesting is
1:01:20 when I engage with people when you give
1:01:23 them reason sometimes they'll give you a
1:01:25 rational question that is a sign that
1:01:27 reason is not required anymore like I
1:01:30 would give someone an amazing argument
1:01:32 for God's existence I think is amazing
1:01:33 like ok I agree with you but what was
1:01:37 good doing for eternity before he
1:01:38 created the universe and I'm thinking in
1:01:41 my head ok well it's a rational question
1:01:44 but how that question undermined my
1:01:47 conclusion
1:01:49 and if you think that is enough for you
1:01:51 to stay on your path of disbelief the
1:01:53 denying the divine then for me it's an
1:01:56 indicator of something else going on
1:01:58 it's got nothing to do the rationality
1:01:59 it's got to do with maybe psychodynamic
1:02:01 stuff how many times have I spoken to
1:02:03 people and this is all my limited
1:02:04 experiences and they could be wrong like
1:02:06 I started speaking about their parents
1:02:08 and that was the main reason why they
1:02:09 basically rejected faith because they
1:02:11 had a very negative dark medieval
1:02:13 understanding of a tradition and they
1:02:14 just felt really sad and yet in the
1:02:18 beginning they'll give me all of these
1:02:19 amazing arguments against God but when
1:02:21 you unravel it then you find out it had
1:02:24 nothing to do with that and these are my
1:02:26 experiences so the why am i mentioning
1:02:28 this is because Islam has its first
1:02:29 principle as well and you know sometimes
1:02:32 we you know we don't we don't have this
1:02:36 intellectual and spiritual maturity to
1:02:39 understand the human being as the human
1:02:41 being and sometimes we treat them as
1:02:43 intellectual robots why am I saying this
1:02:46 because at the end of the day you know
1:02:48 we should encourage everybody when we
1:02:51 interact with each other to have
1:02:52 positive experiences are not just
1:02:54 relying upon I'm gonna prove you wrong
1:02:56 that's the point I'm trying to make how
1:03:01 many times have I seen people embrace
1:03:04 the faith the embrace Islam or even love
1:03:06 Islam a little bit more they may not be
1:03:08 Muslim but I appreciate just because
1:03:10 someone said I don't know or someone
1:03:14 said I don't know but I'm going to buy
1:03:15 your coffee yeah so we have a first
1:03:21 principle which makes sense of Islamic
1:03:24 epistemology as well because you start
1:03:25 with knowledge if you start with primary
1:03:27 knowledge that God exists and he and he
1:03:29 deserves praise then the whole of Islam
1:03:32 is all about awakening that within you
1:03:33 it's already inside you and if you start
1:03:37 with the primary knowledge then you
1:03:38 could end up with true knowledge but if
1:03:40 you start with nothing then you'd always
1:03:42 be in a state of skepticism anyway
1:03:44 there's more to it than that by thought
1:03:46 I bring that into the discussion it's
1:03:48 the end of the topic I think we can
1:03:50 conclude that science doesn't really
1:03:51 hasn't cured religion hasn't cured God
1:03:54 or dinner or led to atheism and one of
1:03:58 the reasons for that is because when we
1:03:59 study the philosophy of science we will
1:04:01 see
1:04:02 that science is beautiful but it's not
1:04:05 what we thought it was and it's not
1:04:06 enough to use as a baseball bat to break
1:04:09 down the divine and break down his
1:04:11 revelation so thank you much for
1:04:12 listening
1:04:13 [Applause]