Seminar & Interview: Why Atheism is Irrational #1 — The Argument from Prior Cognitive Information (2021-11-21) #

0:00:03 [Music]
0:00:06 brothers and sisters and friends and
0:00:10 welcome to today's
0:00:12 seminar stroke interview
0:00:15 alhamdulillah with us we have
0:00:17 our beloved doctor chowdhury and today
0:00:20 we're going to be covering adversaries
0:00:22 of reason why atheism is irrational part
0:00:24 one and we're specifically going to be
0:00:26 covering a forthcoming academic paper
0:00:29 academic journal article called the
0:00:32 argument from prior cognitive cognitive
0:00:35 information by of course dr sapphir
0:00:37 chowdhury
0:00:38 so before i introduce
0:00:40 our beloved brother and doctor what i'm
0:00:43 going to do is talk about the series
0:00:45 talk about we're going to be speaking
0:00:46 about today introduce the doctor and
0:00:48 then what i want to do
0:00:50 is
0:00:52 kind of like have this kind of
0:00:54 open
0:00:55 [Music]
0:00:56 discussion based upon a kind of student
0:01:00 teacher relationship so of course i see
0:01:02 dr as one of my student
0:01:05 staff would love one of my teachers
0:01:06 rather i've known him for i think over a
0:01:08 decade now alhamdulillah so as his
0:01:10 student
0:01:11 what i did today was i went through his
0:01:14 forthcoming publication
0:01:16 and i did i did some slides so we're
0:01:19 gonna go through these slides and
0:01:21 we're gonna basically unpack some of his
0:01:23 perspectives and he's gonna comment and
0:01:25 talk about it as well and then we're
0:01:26 going to have a q a session and we're
0:01:28 going to bring you on board to ask some
0:01:31 questions
0:01:32 not to myself but to to doctor if i can
0:01:35 add something i will but we're going to
0:01:37 ask questions to the doctor so he could
0:01:38 basically unpack his argument which
0:01:41 really is also an islamic argument and
0:01:44 it has an islamic a quranic exegetical
0:01:46 president which we're going to discuss
0:01:47 as well
0:01:49 so
0:01:50 what is this series about actually
0:01:52 before we talk about the series the
0:01:53 contents of today of this presentation
0:01:56 is that we're going to talk about the
0:01:57 series of the seminars we're going to
0:01:59 summarize the argument from prior
0:02:00 cognitive information we're going to
0:02:02 talk about some of the preliminary
0:02:04 points that dr chowdhury has basically
0:02:06 articulated in his journal which are
0:02:08 important in order for us to understand
0:02:10 the rest of the argument then we're
0:02:11 going to go into the argument unpack the
0:02:13 premises unpack the conclusions then
0:02:16 we're going to briefly go through the
0:02:18 quranic exegetical precedent for this
0:02:20 argument which is based on surah
0:02:22 al-baqarah
0:02:23 30 verses 30-33 then we'll have
0:02:26 questions and answers
0:02:28 so brothers and sisters what is the the
0:02:31 series of seminars about well to be very
0:02:33 honest i was supposed to do a seminar on
0:02:36 one of the
0:02:37 papers that i did for my postgrad and i
0:02:40 was supposed to deliver it
0:02:41 in in june
0:02:43 this year june but i was delayed
0:02:46 and then i covered then there was a
0:02:48 whole host of issues going on
0:02:50 and as i was preparing for
0:02:53 this series because i realized we
0:02:55 shouldn't just do one seminar we should
0:02:56 do a few i had a conversation with dr
0:02:59 suffolk chowdhury and i tried to adopt
0:03:01 this principle in apologetics endower in
0:03:04 sharing islam where i do a lot of shura
0:03:05 a lot of consultation it is sometimes a
0:03:08 neglected practice in our kind of
0:03:11 intellectual community but there's lots
0:03:13 of good groups now that are growing and
0:03:14 we have teachers such as dr chowdhury
0:03:17 and others who help us so i was i asked
0:03:19 him a bunch of questions basically
0:03:21 concerning
0:03:22 the argument from reason from an islamic
0:03:24 perspective and the things connected to
0:03:26 that and then he said i have a paper
0:03:28 coming up and i was like wow
0:03:30 because my first set of presentation
0:03:33 slides was going to be
0:03:35 an argument from logic from the laws of
0:03:37 logic and we're going to talk about you
0:03:38 know what best explains that and we're
0:03:41 going to talk about things like
0:03:42 intentionality and so on and so forth
0:03:44 but there was some metaphysical issues
0:03:46 that could be problematic from a quranic
0:03:49 perspective and i wanted to try to
0:03:51 unpack some of those and doctor suffolk
0:03:53 chaudhuri actually raised them to me and
0:03:55 then i realized you know what let's have
0:03:57 him on board because his argument looks
0:04:00 quite islamic it's grounded in the
0:04:02 tradition and it's also philosophically
0:04:04 robust so that's why we're here today
0:04:06 and yes in this series this why atheism
0:04:09 is irrational series we're going to have
0:04:11 an argument from the laws of logic and
0:04:13 rational insight we're going to talk
0:04:15 about truth as an intrinsic moral value
0:04:17 does that make sense under philosophical
0:04:19 naturalism we're going to talk about
0:04:21 evolutionary reliabilism theism and the
0:04:23 epistemic justification for our truth
0:04:26 reliable cognitive faculties and we're
0:04:28 going to talk about related moral and
0:04:30 existential arguments related to the
0:04:32 whole topic of reason what it means to
0:04:34 be a a functioning human with
0:04:37 with reliable cognitive faculties
0:04:39 now it's very important to know yes
0:04:41 sometimes our titles are a bit you know
0:04:44 based on marketing why atheism is
0:04:46 irrational and you know we don't want to
0:04:48 offend many people uh well i do believe
0:04:50 that atheism is irrational actually
0:04:52 anything other than tawheed is foolish
0:04:54 as allah says in the quran you know only
0:04:56 someone foolish will only a fool will
0:04:59 reject the way of abraham which is
0:05:01 basically islamic monotheism
0:05:04 notwithstanding
0:05:06 i i want to bring to your attention that
0:05:08 when we talk about atheism generally in
0:05:10 the in this series is that we're going
0:05:12 to be talking about philosophical
0:05:13 naturalism and just to remind you
0:05:14 philosophical naturalism is the kind of
0:05:16 first principle it's the metaphysic it's
0:05:18 the lens that someone puts on there on
0:05:20 the kind of cognitive
0:05:22 eyes
0:05:23 in order to understand the world in
0:05:24 reality and philosophical naturalism
0:05:26 basically says there is no divine there
0:05:29 is no supernatural there is no
0:05:31 non-physical which entails physicalism
0:05:33 in to some degree and that everything
0:05:35 can be
0:05:36 explained via physical processes so that
0:05:39 is the kind of
0:05:40 philosophical naturalism also known as
0:05:42 metaphysical naturalism also known as
0:05:44 ontological naturalism so when we talk
0:05:46 about atheism we're talking about
0:05:47 philosophical naturalism and it also
0:05:49 means those who claim that non-theistic
0:05:52 darwinism is an explanation
0:05:55 or a more adequate explanation for
0:05:58 our ability to reason and think as well
0:06:01 as provide a foundation for the laws of
0:06:02 logic and for truth having an intrinsic
0:06:05 moral value
0:06:06 and also it's for those who use the
0:06:08 darwinian paradigm and non-theistic
0:06:11 darwinian paradigm to provide a kind of
0:06:13 epistemic justification for you know the
0:06:16 fact that we have
0:06:17 truth reliable cognitive faculties and
0:06:20 so on and so forth so basically you get
0:06:22 the idea that when we speak about
0:06:24 atheism or atheists from this
0:06:26 perspective it's the philosophical
0:06:27 naturalists and those who adopt a
0:06:30 non-theistic darwinian paradigm to
0:06:32 explain some of the things that we spoke
0:06:34 about okay
0:06:35 so
0:06:37 dr safrik chaudhary
0:06:40 now
0:06:41 this is a big introduction but i think
0:06:43 it's it's worthy um of of of people who
0:06:45 don't know dr suffolk charity to
0:06:47 actually understand who he is where
0:06:50 where he's come from and basically from
0:06:52 an intellectual academic perspective and
0:06:54 an islamic scholastic perspective and
0:06:56 also his publications he's got a
0:06:58 brilliant book that is out which is on
0:07:01 the problem the uh entitled islamic
0:07:03 theology and the problem of evil so
0:07:05 please go to
0:07:06 amazon or whatever platform and actually
0:07:09 purchase it insha'allah so dr dr safrik
0:07:12 chaudhary he studied philosophy at
0:07:13 king's college london
0:07:15 completing it with the accompanying
0:07:17 associate of king's college award he
0:07:20 then traveled to cairo egypt studying
0:07:23 the traditional islamic studies
0:07:24 curricula at al-azhar university he
0:07:27 returned to the uk to complete his m.a
0:07:29 at the school of oriental and african
0:07:30 studies with distinction alhamdulillah i
0:07:33 believe
0:07:34 his thesis supervisor said this was
0:07:36 worth half a phd if not more masha'allah
0:07:41 and his doctor's dissertation was on the
0:07:44 eminent sufi i don't know how to
0:07:45 pronounce this properly a geographer
0:07:48 and theoretician abu abdul rahman
0:07:51 al-sulami published as a sufi apologist
0:07:55 of nishapur the life and thought of
0:07:59 man al-sulami published by equinox
0:08:01 publishing
0:08:02 dr chaudhuri's research interests in
0:08:04 addition to sufism at the moment are in
0:08:06 the para consistent logic argument
0:08:09 theory metaphysics ethics and
0:08:11 epistemology with keen interest in how
0:08:12 these subjects are explicated within
0:08:15 islamic theology especially within the
0:08:16 kalam tradition kalam theology his
0:08:19 current book is entitled islamic
0:08:20 theology and the problem of evil which
0:08:22 is the first work in islamic studies to
0:08:25 treat the topic with the analytical
0:08:26 theology theology approach he also
0:08:29 teaches hanafi thick and arabic
0:08:31 currently he is lead researcher in the
0:08:33 beyond foundationalism new horizons in
0:08:35 muslim analytic theology project at
0:08:37 cambridge muslim college which is funded
0:08:40 by the john timberton foundation
0:08:42 dr chowdhury is the creator and
0:08:43 administrator of the islamic analytical
0:08:45 theology website the only site
0:08:47 specifically devoted to the presentation
0:08:49 and promotion of research and study of
0:08:51 islamic theology and philosophy within
0:08:53 the analytic tradition i know dr suff is
0:08:56 probably cringing continuously at every
0:08:58 line but i had to say this you know
0:09:00 because it's very important for us to
0:09:03 explain who's speaking and what kind of
0:09:06 background they have and for you to
0:09:07 engage with their work because you would
0:09:09 definitely benefit with the work and
0:09:11 i've known dr suffolk charity for i
0:09:13 think over 10 years now way over 10
0:09:15 years alhamdulillah
0:09:17 when he was basically translating bits
0:09:19 of the quran into greek because he also
0:09:21 knows ancient greek alhamdulillah as
0:09:23 well as other languages
0:09:33 you know what i have to say though if i
0:09:34 can say this yeah you know many people
0:09:37 will know
0:09:38 um
0:09:39 not just with sapience alhamdulillah but
0:09:41 you know
0:09:42 over the years
0:09:43 you know you've you know you've masha
0:09:45 allah
0:09:46 um
0:09:47 enabled the ummah to
0:09:49 have uh
0:09:51 intellectual spiritual resources
0:09:54 are very hard to come by and i and i
0:09:56 know that from you know from family
0:09:59 you know from very very close friends
0:10:00 acquaintances
0:10:02 [Music]
0:10:03 and even you know some non-muslims
0:10:05 and you know sapiences has fast become
0:10:09 uh a resource
0:10:11 a much go-to a kind of a much needed and
0:10:14 a go-to resource
0:10:15 so alhamdulillah it's a great team
0:10:17 you've got you're the simple
0:10:19 and allah gives you to fear and i mean
0:10:21 you know enable you to go from strength
0:10:23 to strength and and bring bring to the
0:10:25 fore
0:10:26 you know this great work that's being
0:10:27 done by not myself i mean many many
0:10:29 people who you know you have in the
0:10:31 institute and and who are you know
0:10:33 partnering and beyond
0:10:35 so you know i'll give you toffee and
0:10:37 barakah in in the work because it's much
0:10:39 needed it's much needed
0:10:41 not many people know this as well but
0:10:43 you know
0:10:44 this reciprocal you know i think hands
0:10:47 out for millions of people is is a
0:10:49 teacher and i think that's no exactly
0:10:51 alhamdulillah so
0:10:53 it's a blessing it's a blessing
0:10:56 you need to swiftly move on insha allah
0:10:58 so
0:10:58 jazakallah for those kind words may
0:11:00 allah bless you and yes you know
0:11:02 alhamdulillah as you said i think
0:11:04 and it helped me develop some
0:11:06 one of our presentations when we're
0:11:07 articulating what sapience is about
0:11:09 we're trying to become the kind of
0:11:11 bridge between the high level academia
0:11:14 and the rest
0:11:15 of the duat and the population because
0:11:17 there needs to be that kind of
0:11:18 intellectual translation and i think
0:11:20 that's a nice place where we're fitting
0:11:22 ourselves at the moment because there
0:11:23 are amazing academics and intellectuals
0:11:26 such as yourself and others on the
0:11:28 website that i mentioned previously
0:11:29 concerning islamic analytical theology
0:11:31 and many many others but it's about
0:11:33 translating it in a way that you don't
0:11:35 lose the intellectual robustness by
0:11:38 studying a way that can capture the
0:11:39 intention and the kind of
0:11:41 um
0:11:42 the minds and the hearts of the people
0:11:44 who want to share islam intellectually
0:11:46 and academically so yeah maybe bless you
0:11:48 so let's let me now become the student
0:11:50 again right so i went through your paper
0:11:52 i think was this morning it was after
0:11:54 fajr some of the one of the best time to
0:11:56 go best times to develop presentations
0:11:59 and
0:12:00 what we what i basically found was i
0:12:02 found this was a brilliant argument this
0:12:04 was a very powerful argument and the
0:12:06 reason i like it is because it's very
0:12:07 quranic as well and we're going to
0:12:09 explain that towards the end
0:12:11 now just for people to know um every
0:12:14 time you see like a heading it's it's
0:12:17 self-explanatory to a certain degree so
0:12:19 this is going to be a summary and it's
0:12:20 cut it's come from page one of the paper
0:12:22 that i was given and so this argument
0:12:25 always has been developed by dr suffolk
0:12:26 chowdhury and it has been articulated in
0:12:29 the forthcoming paper entitled prior
0:12:31 cognitive information and an islamic
0:12:33 argument from reason
0:12:35 and do you know where it's going to be
0:12:36 published or you're not you know you
0:12:38 don't know yet um
0:12:39 [Music]
0:12:44 um yes so the paper was presented at the
0:12:47 rational antithesis and atheism
0:12:49 conference in tehran i wasn't there in
0:12:51 person but you know online early in the
0:12:53 year i think it was may and so um i
0:12:57 think they're in an editing process at
0:12:59 the moment now when it will come out in
0:13:01 their publication i'm not sure could be
0:13:03 early 2000
0:13:04 next year or later next year but yeah it
0:13:07 most likely will be the institute of
0:13:09 philosophy in tehran the iranian
0:13:11 institute of philosophy most likely yeah
0:13:13 okay good does oklahoma make it a
0:13:15 success
0:13:16 and
0:13:17 this paper this
0:13:19 study if you like this research this
0:13:21 argument was inspired by the islamic
0:13:23 jurist and intellectual chef
0:13:26 i think he passed away in 1977 and it
0:13:29 was expounded in his small book called
0:13:33 which is thinking
0:13:35 and i think i had a copy of that book
0:13:37 and the translation was almost
0:13:38 impossible to understand at that time it
0:13:40 was a very difficult read so
0:13:43 you know when i read your paper though
0:13:44 it was
0:13:45 you know a lot of philosophers they're
0:13:47 writing very difficult language but i
0:13:48 think you've got really good balance
0:13:50 where you basically you have the target
0:13:52 audience in mind you know someone who
0:13:53 may not know someone who's academic or
0:13:56 may not know the the the perspective
0:13:58 that you're coming from or may not know
0:14:00 the kind of islamic context or the
0:14:02 language that is used so anyone who's
0:14:04 not basically special to the particular
0:14:06 area but is still academic can really
0:14:08 you know your work is quite accessible
0:14:09 which is which is sometimes rare in the
0:14:11 philosophical tradition because when i
0:14:12 was you know
0:14:14 doing my uh m.a and my emres and
0:14:16 whatever it's like some of the papers
0:14:18 were like almost unreadable yeah they
0:14:21 are difficult to read yeah yeah yeah
0:14:23 so that's right here so yes it's quickly
0:14:26 let's quickly summarize the argument so
0:14:28 in so there's gonna be a summary then
0:14:29 we're going to unpack it so we'll be
0:14:31 very quick with this one
0:14:32 so human thinking is the capacity to
0:14:35 make judgments about things and for
0:14:37 human thinking to occur the following
0:14:39 necessary conditions must exist so you
0:14:41 have to understand these necessary
0:14:42 conditions number one the existence of
0:14:45 external reality
0:14:46 properly functioning senses
0:14:49 a functioning brain an antecedent
0:14:52 cognitive information or input in other
0:14:54 words prior cognitive information and
0:14:57 doctor argues that without prior
0:14:59 cognitive information we cannot make
0:15:01 judgments on things unless we are able
0:15:04 to meaningfully link what we sense with
0:15:07 what we already know if there is a gap
0:15:09 in our linkage between new sense data
0:15:12 and our prior stored cognitive
0:15:14 information about the world we cannot
0:15:16 make proper and accurate judgments on
0:15:18 things in the world in order to progress
0:15:21 and advance both materially and
0:15:23 cognitively
0:15:25 so just to end the summary then we get
0:15:27 thoughts from dr suffolk chowdhury the
0:15:29 necessary conditions for thinking are
0:15:32 what a philosophical naturist would
0:15:34 accept
0:15:35 so
0:15:35 the thing the good thing about this
0:15:37 argument is that some of most of the
0:15:38 premises or a lot of the premises
0:15:40 they're based on the kind of
0:15:42 naturalist intuition or naturalist
0:15:45 understanding of the world that they
0:15:46 don't go against the kind of your
0:15:49 physicalist or empirical reality so this
0:15:51 is very powerful so it's it's within
0:15:53 that paradigm so it's easier to bring
0:15:54 them to the conclusion because their
0:15:57 premises are not what you would call
0:15:59 controversial
0:16:00 now the conclusion of the argument
0:16:01 however argues that for prior cognitive
0:16:04 input to take place
0:16:06 must have come from and be taught from a
0:16:08 non-natural source so there's two things
0:16:10 you have to understand here it has to
0:16:12 come from a non-natural source and it
0:16:14 has to be taught by a non-natural source
0:16:17 those two things are very important
0:16:18 because sometimes we always think about
0:16:19 causation we think about source when it
0:16:21 comes to theism but this argument and
0:16:24 when you go when we go through the whole
0:16:26 presentation you'd understand a little
0:16:28 bit better it's not only that it came
0:16:29 from this source but it's also taught
0:16:32 from this source and it's going to make
0:16:34 sense when we talk about the attributes
0:16:35 of
0:16:36 god towards the end and other concepts
0:16:40 now in summary we're not going to
0:16:42 discuss the unpacking of it now but
0:16:44 we're going to talk about it later but
0:16:45 in summary the attributes of this source
0:16:47 must be living transcendent willing in
0:16:50 other words has a radha has a will must
0:16:53 be omniscient must be all-knowing
0:16:57 and above makes sense of the god of
0:16:59 traditional theism and the argument has
0:17:02 an islamic basis in surah al-baqarah
0:17:04 verse 30 to 33
0:17:07 when
0:17:07 allah basically said that he taught adam
0:17:11 the names of things we're going to
0:17:12 unpack that a little bit later so before
0:17:15 we continue to the preliminary points
0:17:18 anything you want to add yeah have i
0:17:19 been have i been a good haven't you done
0:17:21 it i think you summarized it but then it
0:17:24 was an article no no no
0:17:27 i mean
0:17:28 the way i the way i try and
0:17:30 the kind of a kind of a simple way i i
0:17:32 try and explain it is okay you know we
0:17:34 have this first cause
0:17:35 um for the existence of the world the
0:17:38 universe so um we go back uh finite you
0:17:41 know finitely into into the finite past
0:17:44 and we posit a transcendent cause for
0:17:47 for the universe well i'm trying to make
0:17:49 a parallel borrowing apparently of
0:17:50 course from
0:17:51 uh
0:17:53 that the there must be a first cause
0:17:57 to to to our cognitive information that
0:18:00 we will not that we have necessarily but
0:18:02 the first human being and insanity
0:18:05 and that has to have been inputted by
0:18:06 someone
0:18:08 beyond the causal chain
0:18:10 and
0:18:11 knows what they're inputting in the
0:18:13 first human being so it's like a first
0:18:15 cause
0:18:16 for our cognitive um data you could say
0:18:19 yeah so
0:18:20 what someone was a sound bite sound bite
0:18:22 you know that's a very beautiful summary
0:18:26 good
0:18:26 so your primary points the first point
0:18:28 that you made basically was and i've
0:18:31 already mentioned this earlier that key
0:18:32 premises of this argument aligns itself
0:18:34 with what natchez would consider
0:18:36 uncontroversial yeah and then you make a
0:18:37 very interesting point and this is very
0:18:39 critical actually
0:18:40 because you preempt some of the kind of
0:18:43 darwinian responses as well
0:18:45 because what you say for the second
0:18:46 point is that
0:18:48 my argument is not claiming that
0:18:50 necessarily at every historical stage of
0:18:52 human development a supernatural
0:18:54 pedagogical agent is required to input
0:18:57 the cognitive data required to form
0:18:59 judgments about things
0:19:00 rather it is only the original human
0:19:02 individual who required such data in
0:19:05 other words i am seeking to explain the
0:19:07 ultimate origins and not the subsequent
0:19:09 origins because the former intrigue
0:19:11 intriguingly and legitimately calls out
0:19:14 for an explanation so i'll unpack that a
0:19:16 little bit for us so what i was trying
0:19:17 to say is that somebody might say for
0:19:19 example that you and i
0:19:21 so so thinking here means to make
0:19:23 judgments about things so we always make
0:19:25 judgments on things we sense things and
0:19:27 because of previous information but in
0:19:29 our heads we make judgments oh this is
0:19:31 an apple this is a car this is a
0:19:33 beautiful house or you know this is a
0:19:37 a bitter fruit whatever it might be we
0:19:38 make judgments about things so i'm not
0:19:41 the argument is not saying that me now
0:19:44 you now
0:19:45 to make judgments
0:19:47 require a direct divine input right now
0:19:51 that's not the argument i mean an
0:19:53 argument could be made that for every
0:19:56 for every judgment we make every thought
0:19:58 that we conjure up
0:19:59 somewhere there is a divine
0:20:01 um you know agency involved okay that's
0:20:05 not the metaphysical argument that's
0:20:06 that's for another day i'm trying to get
0:20:08 a common denomin denomination that
0:20:11 naturalists would accept so it's not
0:20:13 that i am making judgments now i need a
0:20:15 divine input directly and you or anyone
0:20:17 else collectively we've got you know
0:20:20 we've got cognitive information a pool
0:20:22 of cognitive information um but we're
0:20:24 talking about
0:20:26 in the causal chain of human beings
0:20:29 where did the original human being
0:20:31 get that cognitive input that's where i
0:20:34 want to get to because it can't be
0:20:35 infinitely in the past it has to be a
0:20:38 terminus good and where did we get that
0:20:40 where do we get to that terminus and how
0:20:42 it is brilliant
0:20:45 so the argument this came comes from
0:20:47 page four the argument from prior
0:20:50 cognitive information pci
0:20:52 is the following
0:20:53 premise number one prior cognitive
0:20:55 information is necessary for humans to
0:20:57 produce a thought
0:20:59 premise number two the ultimate source
0:21:01 of prior cognitive information is either
0:21:03 natural or non-natural premise number
0:21:06 three the ultimate source of prior
0:21:08 cognitive information cannot be from
0:21:10 something natural
0:21:12 conclusion
0:21:13 for therefore it must be from something
0:21:15 not natural
0:21:16 and the the the
0:21:18 continuing with more conclusions number
0:21:20 five the more the most plausible
0:21:22 non-natural source for prior cognitive
0:21:24 information must be a transcendent agent
0:21:26 cause that has the property of
0:21:28 omniscience life and intelligence and
0:21:30 the final conclusion the non-natural
0:21:32 agent calls in five is basically the
0:21:35 approximation uh it approximates the god
0:21:38 of theism basically it's in line with
0:21:41 the theistic understanding of the divine
0:21:43 is specifically the quranic
0:21:45 understanding of the divine because
0:21:46 things like omissions life intelligence
0:21:48 and so on and so forth
0:21:51 are part and parcel of the quranic and
0:21:53 islamic discourse
0:21:55 so let's now start to unpack some of the
0:21:58 premises doctor so
0:22:02 premise number one taken from pages four
0:22:04 and five so the prior cognitive
0:22:06 information is necessary for humans to
0:22:08 produce a thought so
0:22:11 the production of thought and when you
0:22:13 talk about thought here you're saying
0:22:14 the capacity for formulating judgments
0:22:16 about something yeah there must be at
0:22:18 least four necessary uh
0:22:20 conditions
0:22:22 sorry there's a little typo there number
0:22:24 one a reality external to the agent
0:22:26 number two sense faculties that sense
0:22:28 the reality number three a properly
0:22:30 functioning brain that differentiates
0:22:33 the sense to reality and number four a
0:22:36 prior
0:22:37 cognitive information
0:22:39 and you argue and this has taken a quote
0:22:41 if any one of these conditions is absent
0:22:45 no proper thought can take place it is
0:22:47 however the condition of prior cognitive
0:22:49 information that is crucial to the
0:22:51 thought production process as it helps
0:22:53 unify our transferred sensation into
0:22:56 something coherent and comprehensible
0:22:59 without it will not be able to generate
0:23:01 any thought let alone a sound fall this
0:23:04 thought would gen this thought we
0:23:05 generate is made possible once we have
0:23:07 sufficient information about the reality
0:23:10 nature or distinguishing properties of
0:23:13 the object of our sense experience and
0:23:16 you make sense of it with a really good
0:23:18 example i like this example
0:23:20 this was an example of if you give a
0:23:22 child a book in a foreign language that
0:23:23 was unknown to her it would not make no
0:23:26 difference how many times she senses or
0:23:29 looks at the words now i'm not going to
0:23:30 read the whole thing out to you but
0:23:32 let's unpack unpacked premise month for
0:23:34 us inshallah so yeah so so
0:23:37 naturally when we when we look at
0:23:39 ourselves um and the way we we behave we
0:23:42 make judgments about things every day
0:23:44 whether we know it or not whether we
0:23:45 consciously do it or unconsciously
0:23:48 you know we are making judgments let's
0:23:49 say of the form a's f or x is f yeah
0:23:53 so
0:23:54 in order to do that yes we need an
0:23:56 external world in which we're operating
0:23:59 and that impinges on our senses
0:24:01 um there's a transfer of that sensation
0:24:04 to a site
0:24:05 in our brain
0:24:06 i'm assuming that people might say oh
0:24:08 well what about this anthropology what
0:24:10 about that anthropology
0:24:12 yeah i mean but remember the context
0:24:14 we're talking with the naturalist here
0:24:15 if you're going to assume a kind of
0:24:18 different metaphysical anthropology that
0:24:20 says that doesn't admit of a brain you
0:24:21 know or all intellectual activity
0:24:23 happens somewhere else
0:24:25 we can come to that later but here the
0:24:27 common denominator is you know we're
0:24:29 trying to work with what perhaps a
0:24:31 naturalist is most likely going to
0:24:33 accept so a brain
0:24:35 um so that physical organ up here in the
0:24:38 north yeah
0:24:39 so uh so yeah so
0:24:42 so the transfer there and then in that
0:24:44 locus in that site
0:24:47 this is where
0:24:48 um that sensation has to be connected
0:24:50 with something otherwise it's going to
0:24:52 be garbled or not clear
0:24:54 and and uncategorized and in order for
0:24:57 the for us to make sense of what we
0:24:59 sense
0:25:01 we need that cognitive information that
0:25:02 then categorizes and makes sense or
0:25:05 synthesizes
0:25:06 um what it is the information that comes
0:25:08 to us so without that
0:25:11 our judgments aren't going to be
0:25:12 accurate they may not even be sound so
0:25:14 all depends on how clear detailed
0:25:17 accurate
0:25:18 and rich
0:25:19 that stock of information we have is
0:25:22 so the more the the the more the quality
0:25:25 of that cognitive input is or stored
0:25:27 prior
0:25:28 cognitive data is
0:25:30 the more accurate our judgment will be
0:25:33 um so without that there's no linkage
0:25:36 now otherwise you're going to get like
0:25:37 let's call it raw energy coming up
0:25:40 but
0:25:41 what what
0:25:42 what's going to happen there's no
0:25:44 there's nothing for it to connect to or
0:25:45 to filter into so
0:25:47 um the prior cognitive cognitive
0:25:49 information does that work it becomes
0:25:50 like your your your mind's
0:25:53 filing cabinets it starts whatever you
0:25:55 sense it starts to go into a filing
0:25:56 cabinet say right this sensation looks
0:25:59 like it's a fruit okay do i have any
0:26:01 more other detailed information what
0:26:03 kind of fruit is it do i have prior
0:26:04 categories that tell me and so the more
0:26:06 richer more detail you have the more
0:26:08 better your judgments um will be not
0:26:11 necessarily sound
0:26:14 but
0:26:14 um there will be better better judgments
0:26:17 so that's what i mean by thought
0:26:18 production a thought production is our
0:26:20 ability to be able to make judgments
0:26:22 about things based on their properties
0:26:25 now we can't make judgments about things
0:26:26 their natures and properties unless
0:26:28 we've got information about their
0:26:29 natures and properties um
0:26:31 yeah so that's that's in a nutshell
0:26:34 what it is um
0:26:38 i think your example with the
0:26:40 the child on a book is quite good so
0:26:43 you know you say if we give a child a
0:26:44 book in a foreign language previously
0:26:46 unknown to her it would make no
0:26:47 difference how many times he uses her
0:26:49 senses to look at the words or listen to
0:26:50 them because no amount of male sensation
0:26:52 will make will make her understand or
0:26:54 make sense of the words it is only when
0:26:56 she is taught what the sounds of the
0:26:57 letters are or what the words mean
0:27:01 may perhaps resemble aspects of her own
0:27:04 language that she can begin to
0:27:06 comprehend and understand in some way
0:27:07 the language of the book
0:27:09 providing her with the relevant
0:27:10 information allows her to gain a stock
0:27:12 of prior information to connect what she
0:27:15 senses to this prior information yeah so
0:27:18 similarly like you know when i when when
0:27:20 students first learn let's just say like
0:27:22 you know uh
0:27:24 logic mathematical logic or something
0:27:26 like that right they've got a whole lot
0:27:27 of symbols okay yeah on the page they're
0:27:29 like look they have some previous
0:27:31 information perhaps of mathematics or
0:27:33 the greek alphabet yeah and they're like
0:27:35 trying to connect okay what does x here
0:27:37 mean and what does alpha here mean and
0:27:39 what's this grammar here and lambda
0:27:41 what's going on you know so they're
0:27:42 trying to make connections i did in
0:27:43 maths that x plus
0:27:45 y equals so they know the symbols but
0:27:48 they don't know the language until
0:27:49 someone tells them and says right look
0:27:52 this box here means necessary this
0:27:54 diamond here means possible this is the
0:27:56 negation
0:27:57 and then they start to so once they've
0:27:58 got that knowledge they can start to put
0:28:00 the symbols or the language of logic and
0:28:03 make it meaningfully
0:28:04 uh make connect it meaningfully to what
0:28:06 they already know
0:28:07 so yeah so found judgment therefore or
0:28:10 to produce a thought which is the be to
0:28:12 make sound judgments on things to make
0:28:13 judgments about things
0:28:15 that is in some way connected to meaning
0:28:18 as well right yes yes look you can come
0:28:20 across an object right let's just say
0:28:23 um
0:28:24 an object that looks like some kind of
0:28:25 machinery
0:28:27 and you ask if someone asks you do you
0:28:28 know what that is you look at him think
0:28:30 right
0:28:32 that thing is a machine so you made a
0:28:34 judgment that's a machine
0:28:36 but it's not but it's a vague judgment
0:28:38 right it's a machine but because you
0:28:39 lack the prior information you don't
0:28:41 know what kind of machine it is
0:28:43 you know is it sewing machine
0:28:45 what is it you know so
0:28:47 um but the more information you start to
0:28:50 get the more you understand about its
0:28:51 properties and its qualities
0:28:53 characteristics you can start to better
0:28:55 categorize it ah is it sewing machine
0:28:57 okay see it's got a needle that's got
0:28:59 strings attached to it and it's got a
0:29:01 rotating feature then you start to get
0:29:03 closer and closer to making a better
0:29:05 judgment
0:29:06 so you need prior cognitive information
0:29:08 to make a judgment but it doesn't
0:29:10 necessarily follow your judgment is
0:29:11 accurate or even
0:29:13 or sound you know okay good that's a
0:29:15 good point to make but and your argument
0:29:17 is not it's not about necessarily making
0:29:19 sound judgments about not necessarily no
0:29:21 no no but it's just good yeah it's just
0:29:24 you need that information to make the
0:29:26 connection
0:29:27 good so that is a very clear distinction
0:29:29 so we're not saying that the this is
0:29:31 about the ability to make sound
0:29:32 judgments but rather it's the ability to
0:29:34 make judgments themselves
0:29:36 okay very good
0:29:37 good so let's move on premise number two
0:29:40 taken from pages five to eight
0:29:43 the ultimate source of prior cognitive
0:29:45 information is either natural or
0:29:46 non-natural and you've given some kind
0:29:48 of uh
0:29:50 plausible possibilities you said it's
0:29:52 human non-human animal
0:29:55 that one was quite funny inanimate
0:29:57 object that one was quite funny too
0:30:00 natural selection
0:30:02 or god basically theism so let's uh go
0:30:06 and unpack some of these so
0:30:08 premise number three basically says the
0:30:10 ultimate source of prior cognitive
0:30:12 information cannot be from something
0:30:14 natural so really we're dealing with now
0:30:17 the options we're unpacking why it can't
0:30:19 be from a human being but it can't be
0:30:21 from a non-human animal where it can't
0:30:23 be from
0:30:24 an abstract uh inanimate object or an
0:30:27 anime object rather i'm confusing
0:30:29 abstract objects in metaphysics with
0:30:31 this now i'm getting confused
0:30:33 which is another field of your expertise
0:30:36 alhamdulillah
0:30:37 you really need especially from an
0:30:38 islamic thought perspective make it
0:30:40 successful
0:30:42 so
0:30:42 uh where were we yeah and then so we're
0:30:44 making we're explaining the
0:30:45 possibilities if the uh adequate
0:30:48 explanation yeah so if they're natural
0:30:50 objects or natural processes because
0:30:51 some might say okay but you know you've
0:30:54 gone through natural objects well what
0:30:55 about natural processes surely that
0:30:57 could be a cause
0:30:58 so i try to obviously it's not exhausted
0:31:00 but just to give
0:31:02 given the word limit that we had so you
0:31:04 know we went through a few
0:31:06 um of those uh natural objects objects
0:31:09 from the natural world and processes of
0:31:10 the natural world yeah okay good so
0:31:12 let's unpack it so let's first talk
0:31:14 about the human being so could the human
0:31:15 being be
0:31:17 the the source and the educator of the
0:31:20 prior con information and you've uh
0:31:22 labor you've given the symbol d
0:31:24 so
0:31:26 and so just for people to know when
0:31:27 there's a capital to d it means prior
0:31:29 cognitive information so
0:31:31 basically the summary of what you said
0:31:33 was is the prior cognitive information d
0:31:36 that is necessary for thinking could
0:31:38 have come from another human being
0:31:40 however we can ask
0:31:42 where did this human get d from in other
0:31:45 words where did this human get the prior
0:31:47 cognitive information from to say
0:31:49 another human would imply an infinite
0:31:51 regress right because if you continue
0:31:52 that would be an infinite regress
0:31:54 therefore
0:31:55 to solve that problem it would be
0:31:57 necessary for the first human to have
0:31:59 had the necessary prior cognitive
0:32:01 information but again just repeat the
0:32:03 question where did the first human get d
0:32:06 from where did the first human get the
0:32:08 prior cognitive information from and the
0:32:11 argument here is it must have come
0:32:13 externally to the first human to claim
0:32:15 that it was in the first humans
0:32:17 cognitive makeup
0:32:19 would not be to give an explanation but
0:32:22 to make an assertion without an argument
0:32:24 because you might say yeah you might
0:32:25 just say it's just a brute fact it's
0:32:27 there yes no but the fact can call out
0:32:29 for an explanation i can still ask well
0:32:32 surely just you asserting it as a brute
0:32:34 fact
0:32:34 isn't necessarily you know an answer
0:32:37 surely we can ask for an explanation so
0:32:38 where did it come from merely just
0:32:40 saying it's glued to the cognitive
0:32:42 makeup it was there in the original
0:32:44 human being well in actual in fairness
0:32:46 even the naturalist or the darwinian or
0:32:48 anyone who adopts a kind of naturalistic
0:32:50 perspective on this issue they would not
0:32:52 even say it's a brute fact because
0:32:53 they'll know the goal swings both ways
0:32:55 because if it's a brute fact then
0:32:57 logically you can say well the truth of
0:32:58 islam is a brute fact and the truth of
0:33:00 the quran is a brute fact and anyone
0:33:02 could just assert their own facts you
0:33:04 see so it becomes yeah yeah exactly so
0:33:06 you can't just bring in your own brute
0:33:07 fact whenever you want and say hey you
0:33:09 know what we can't explain this we're
0:33:10 going to call it a brute fact so no one
0:33:12 needs to explain it at all
0:33:14 which is to be fair i don't think many
0:33:16 people would argue this anyway you're
0:33:17 right you're right it's true the
0:33:18 important thing about what you're saying
0:33:20 here is it can't be a human being
0:33:22 because
0:33:23 if it was
0:33:24 um if it came from another human being
0:33:26 then where did this human being get d
0:33:28 from where did this human being get the
0:33:30 prior cognitive information from then
0:33:32 one would argue well it's another human
0:33:34 being well if it's another human being
0:33:35 that would be an infinite regress and
0:33:37 then you may argue where it was the
0:33:38 first human being but if it's the first
0:33:40 human being then we could still ask the
0:33:41 question where did that first human
0:33:43 being get d form where did that first
0:33:45 human being get the prior cognitive
0:33:47 information from and we're saying go
0:33:49 back to the question from them because
0:33:51 you're not you're not you're not
0:33:53 articulating an explanation you're
0:33:54 saying that's a brute fact so we're
0:33:56 saying the most rational thing to say is
0:33:58 it came from
0:33:59 something or someone or an entity
0:34:02 outside of that human being yeah is that
0:34:05 clear yeah yeah definitely
0:34:07 brilliant
0:34:08 am i a good student
0:34:10 like teacher
0:34:14 you know i try to do this so i hopefully
0:34:17 this is a new style because i think the
0:34:19 approach i think people will appreciate
0:34:21 this a little bit further
0:34:23 because i'm summarizing what you've done
0:34:25 and you're
0:34:26 you're never there for me
0:34:28 no no i'm looking at it i'm thinking
0:34:30 like you know
0:34:32 that clarity you know it's not really
0:34:34 the way you're presenting it here this
0:34:35 was taken from me what are you talking
0:34:37 about basically um uh yeah so moving
0:34:41 that to the side so
0:34:43 premise continue with previous number
0:34:44 three taken from ages five to seven we
0:34:46 have number two now we've dealt with the
0:34:49 uh human uh
0:34:51 possibility what about number two
0:34:53 non-human animals and i'm taking this
0:34:55 straight from your from your paper we
0:34:58 would be hard-pressed to give examples
0:35:00 for an intelligible account of how
0:35:01 non-human animal species could have
0:35:04 meaningfully interacted with human
0:35:06 beings based on some pedagogical setup
0:35:08 or approach i thought you'd be very
0:35:10 polite there you could have made it into
0:35:12 you should have said that's just a joke
0:35:13 how can any animal come and start
0:35:15 sitting down on a table or whatever
0:35:18 discussing things and giving you
0:35:20 information about things but you were
0:35:22 polite here but some people you know the
0:35:24 anthropomorph anthropomorphization of
0:35:26 animals you know some people might
0:35:27 believe
0:35:28 you know we've got it from simba or
0:35:30 something or something i don't know
0:35:31 somewhere
0:35:32 i'm not sure but i have to put that in
0:35:34 as an option right you know
0:35:36 but the the the point to note is that do
0:35:39 our animals
0:35:41 do they have pedagogical attributes and
0:35:43 and what i what i try to mean by that in
0:35:45 the paper is that do animals are they
0:35:47 knowledge endowed agents are can they
0:35:50 rationally explicate and teach and
0:35:52 instruct and guide in the way that you
0:35:55 know alhamdulillah you know insane human
0:35:57 beings are able to do that and you know
0:36:00 can they impart knowledge
0:36:02 in that kind of way and clearly from
0:36:04 what we know about animal psychology
0:36:07 animal minds
0:36:08 i think a naturalist would admit that
0:36:10 they lack the pedagogical attributes
0:36:12 that we we possess as human beings
0:36:15 so i think
0:36:18 d being being input in the first human
0:36:21 being by an
0:36:22 animal
0:36:24 i just i think it's quite incredulous i
0:36:26 think as as an option um yes
0:36:29 i would agree i would agree
0:36:32 you know so so it can't be then
0:36:33 non-human animals it can't be human it
0:36:36 can't be non-human animal
0:36:38 um
0:36:39 but you make an interesting point
0:36:41 because you also say and i mentioned
0:36:42 this here
0:36:44 even if
0:36:45 it were true
0:36:47 yeah even if say simba came along and
0:36:49 start teaching us about the intricacies
0:36:51 of
0:36:52 i don't know jungle life right yeah yeah
0:36:54 yeah
0:36:55 it would it would you still have the
0:36:57 problem that we had with the the human
0:36:59 uh
0:37:00 uh possibility because you'll have the
0:37:03 infinite regress where did simba get
0:37:05 d from where did simba get the prior
0:37:08 cognitive information from you say oh it
0:37:09 was the first type of symbol the first
0:37:11 line
0:37:12 well or did that first line get the
0:37:14 cognitive tract from the information
0:37:16 from so you say here to avoid an
0:37:17 infinite rigors here as well would have
0:37:19 to answer that something external to
0:37:21 them was the ultimate cause i used
0:37:23 rudyard kipling's jungle book as the
0:37:25 under the initial original um version i
0:37:28 took it out because i just thought you
0:37:30 know i i didn't want to be
0:37:32 patronizing you know like you know
0:37:35 mogley was taught by animals right um
0:37:38 you know a pamphlet a
0:37:41 a bear and a snake and everyone else
0:37:43 everything else um so i took that
0:37:45 example out i just thought it was
0:37:46 probably going to be just too
0:37:48 uh
0:37:49 some people might find it offensive that
0:37:50 i was stooping that low so you can you
0:37:52 could call it the rudyard kipling jungle
0:37:54 book analogy you know even those animals
0:37:56 right must have got from somewhere yeah
0:37:58 we can still ask the question
0:37:59 where did those animals
0:38:02 get their cognitive input from who talk
0:38:04 mowgli
0:38:05 yes no or those yeah so
0:38:08 it goes again back to an infinite
0:38:10 regress we we have a right to ask which
0:38:12 animals got it from here
0:38:14 you should have kept it in there it
0:38:15 would be nice
0:38:18 so number three so can't be from a human
0:38:20 can't be from a non-human animal number
0:38:23 three what about an animal object and
0:38:25 it's very easy we could just i think
0:38:27 continue and move on from this one very
0:38:29 easily
0:38:30 inanimate objects do not have cognitive
0:38:32 abilities or functions or the ability to
0:38:34 teach instruct or pass on cognitive
0:38:36 information yeah
0:38:38 so volcanoes cliffs mountains
0:38:42 you know yeah absolutely you know
0:38:45 it's but
0:38:46 it's possible it's a possible one in the
0:38:48 natural
0:38:49 you know in the naturalist sphere right
0:38:52 um
0:38:53 you know but so we're just trying to go
0:38:54 for it one by one if it's not likely
0:38:57 from what we know about geology
0:38:59 um
0:39:00 and what we know about the world from
0:39:01 from a naturalist perspective from
0:39:03 scientific perspective not just
0:39:04 naturalists i think at the moment
0:39:07 inanimate objects don't have pedagogical
0:39:09 attributes um yes yes it's not likely
0:39:13 even if they did for argument's sake
0:39:15 again we can ask
0:39:17 where did the mountain get it from
0:39:19 did the mountain get it from the cliff
0:39:20 did the cliff get it from the rocks do
0:39:22 the rocks get it from
0:39:23 you know you'd have a bigger problem
0:39:25 because you'd have to explain that they
0:39:26 have a form of consciousness from the
0:39:28 naturalistic paradigm and that's very
0:39:30 problematic yeah that's right and this
0:39:31 is what i mentioned in an article that
0:39:32 it becomes quite incredulous you're
0:39:34 stretching now
0:39:36 i want to be less metaphysical you see
0:39:38 in this argument i want to try and be as
0:39:40 you know as pinned
0:39:42 to empiricism as much as i can for the
0:39:44 sake of the argument so i don't want to
0:39:46 go into the metaphysical speculation but
0:39:48 you're right you'd have to bring in
0:39:50 you'd have to enchant nature right a bit
0:39:52 yes yes and that's actually the word
0:39:54 that you use it's a very very powerful
0:39:56 interesting story of looking at things
0:39:58 so it can't be an animal object let's
0:40:00 now move on to charts and i think it was
0:40:03 so well articulated it was worth just to
0:40:04 put the quote here but i'll i'll read it
0:40:06 and you could you could unpack it for us
0:40:08 the major problem with this possibility
0:40:10 is that it is not remotely clear how
0:40:12 chance can do anything chance is not
0:40:15 metaphysically a thing an entity it has
0:40:17 no being and is not a cognizing potency
0:40:21 or power it is a term that is
0:40:23 inadvertently endowed with a creative
0:40:25 power and efficacy in fact for a chance
0:40:27 to be a candidate for inputting d just
0:40:29 to remind you which is prior cognitive
0:40:31 import
0:40:32 would be to grant it with an all
0:40:34 pervasive power reserved only for
0:40:36 something that we would we would
0:40:38 describe as living to do this however is
0:40:40 to commit the fallacy of reification
0:40:43 which consists of attributing concrete
0:40:45 characteristics to something
0:40:47 non-concrete or abstract by arguing that
0:40:50 chance did x created y and selected said
0:40:53 obscures something deeper taking place
0:40:56 and that is making chance a cause when
0:40:58 it is
0:41:00 it is mere mathematical possibilities in
0:41:02 abstract
0:41:04 in effect to attribute chance as a cause
0:41:06 for organizing for originating d
0:41:09 is tantamount to saying nothing
0:41:12 originated d i think this is beautifully
0:41:14 poor if you want to summarize it again
0:41:15 for us and unpack it again please do so
0:41:18 i mean just the basic point was if if
0:41:22 if we're taking chance according to
0:41:24 mathematical scientific understanding i
0:41:26 know there's nuances but i don't think
0:41:28 any of them
0:41:30 even if they do start to give a concrete
0:41:33 concept or an idea or model or whatever
0:41:36 however we want to describe it or
0:41:37 process
0:41:38 properties pedagogical properties
0:41:42 i just i just find that difficult to
0:41:44 accept
0:41:46 you know how chance then be can become a
0:41:49 conscious
0:41:50 agent that inputs specific
0:41:53 information into other agents and
0:41:56 you know how it becomes selective and
0:41:59 so i i just thought that's hard as a
0:42:02 process to try and say it came from
0:42:04 chance when chance
0:42:05 according to scientists don't really
0:42:08 do anything
0:42:09 um it's rather more
0:42:12 you know possibilities and statistical
0:42:14 sort of models and things like that
0:42:15 rather than actually how things behave
0:42:18 in the world in the natural world so
0:42:20 that was it really just to put it in
0:42:22 that way and i don't think that's a if
0:42:24 that is the case with chance i can't see
0:42:27 that being a possibility now genuine
0:42:29 possibility where chance puts things
0:42:32 into the human mind
0:42:34 um
0:42:36 i just find that difficult uh well even
0:42:38 even under naturalist or scientific
0:42:40 perspective they wouldn't even cite
0:42:42 chance as an explanation for similar
0:42:43 things
0:42:44 so when you when people usually and this
0:42:46 is this is the art of basically
0:42:48 discussing with people when they
0:42:50 postulate a possibility when they say
0:42:53 it could have been chance yes yes accept
0:42:55 it for a moment in abstract to use your
0:42:57 words just accept it for a moment
0:42:58 understand right what is the
0:42:59 implications of accepting the chance
0:43:02 hypothesis here
0:43:04 well let's apply it to all the other
0:43:06 similar things that they try and explain
0:43:07 which is similar to what we're talking
0:43:09 about today
0:43:10 would they say it was just chance no
0:43:13 so when you what you see here is what i
0:43:14 would call i don't know some kind of
0:43:17 uh
0:43:18 contradiction yeah or an inconsistency
0:43:21 in the way of reasoning and usually when
0:43:24 there's an inconsistency in one's way of
0:43:26 reasoning it could be because they don't
0:43:28 reason very well or it could be they
0:43:30 have prior metaphysical commitments or
0:43:33 prior intellectual commitments that they
0:43:35 don't expose yeah there's something all
0:43:37 behind it sure yeah absolutely and
0:43:39 that's why when it comes to things like
0:43:41 chance
0:43:43 accept it for a moment in abstraction
0:43:45 and then apply it to similar things that
0:43:47 they provide explanations for
0:43:50 and then you say hold on a second why
0:43:51 didn't they say chance for this it
0:43:54 usually shows that they have other pride
0:43:55 commitments which you may need to unpack
0:43:57 yeah philosophical commitments like
0:43:59 they're like an you know a strong
0:44:01 atheist or whatever the case may be yeah
0:44:03 so yeah okay good that's because
0:44:05 that's so important
0:44:08 right this was the final one which
0:44:10 premise number three page this was taken
0:44:12 from page seven
0:44:13 um
0:44:15 and you say natural selection so you do
0:44:17 talk about a few things considering
0:44:18 natural selection because there was so
0:44:20 much in there to unpack and there's so
0:44:21 much in the academic literature yeah
0:44:25 i wanted to take this this point because
0:44:26 i think this was the strongest point in
0:44:28 my view yeah although obviously you
0:44:30 could you could discuss the other points
0:44:31 but i thought this was conceptually
0:44:33 philosophically maybe the more kind of
0:44:35 surgical point that you're getting yeah
0:44:36 in natural selection
0:44:38 so what you basically say here was
0:44:41 um in other words if it is argued that
0:44:44 human ancestors attained d just to
0:44:46 remind people d is prior cognitive input
0:44:49 via organic evolution then there would
0:44:51 be no demarcation of d
0:44:54 that specifies or distinguishes it from
0:44:57 say some other set of cognitive
0:44:59 information
0:45:00 the asterix okay so
0:45:03 just to be clear for me if i've
0:45:04 understood you properly you're saying
0:45:06 if if it was organic evolution then we
0:45:10 couldn't make a distinction or
0:45:11 demarcation between
0:45:13 uh a a spec a specific
0:45:17 prior cognitive information
0:45:20 and another specific prior cognitive uh
0:45:23 input or information yeah you couldn't
0:45:25 make a distinction between the two or or
0:45:27 find out which one has more merit or
0:45:30 which one is better
0:45:32 in order for you to formulate judgments
0:45:34 and you continue and say
0:45:35 on what basis feature merit or
0:45:37 consideration would d
0:45:39 be preferred or selected over the
0:45:41 asterisks it seems that d is arbitrarily
0:45:44 designated as the cognitive input but
0:45:47 any arbitrary configuration of prior
0:45:49 cognitive data would not be conducive to
0:45:52 cognitive achievements because the right
0:45:54 kind of cognitive data is required to
0:45:57 realize specific ends yeah the more
0:45:59 plausible reason explained further below
0:46:02 would be to argue that the selection of
0:46:05 d
0:46:06 is consciously guided by a mind with
0:46:09 pedagogical attributes
0:46:11 so yeah so so yeah so what i was trying
0:46:13 to say there was if you've got one set
0:46:15 of information another set of
0:46:17 information
0:46:18 um
0:46:20 one of one set of information can be
0:46:22 important for us to cognitively flourish
0:46:24 to you know to go out in the world make
0:46:26 judgments accurate judgments about
0:46:28 things and then you know technology and
0:46:30 materially advance
0:46:32 but
0:46:33 which one on on on that kind of organic
0:46:35 evolution we how do
0:46:37 how do we demarcate one from the other
0:46:39 that is more merit what consideration
0:46:41 can we say
0:46:43 d had been chosen or evolved into our
0:46:46 cognitive makeup
0:46:48 over d prime or d asterisks
0:46:52 what you know on what basis what
0:46:54 consideration there is there can't be
0:46:56 and that's the problem of demarcation
0:46:57 generally
0:46:58 just thinking aloud here wouldn't say if
0:47:01 someone's an evolution reliabilist and
0:47:02 they would say well it's far more likely
0:47:05 that natural selection selected traits
0:47:07 that were the basis for
0:47:08 you know a functioning cognitive
0:47:11 apparatus
0:47:13 it was far more likely that natural
0:47:14 selection selected those traits over
0:47:17 traits that did not for example select d
0:47:21 it say selected d asterisks and what we
0:47:23 want is d but not the asterisks but
0:47:25 natural selection because d had more it
0:47:28 was more conducive to survival
0:47:29 reproduction
0:47:33 yeah that's a common argument that's
0:47:34 been that's made you know
0:47:36 um but you see we might have to step
0:47:39 back a bit you see
0:47:41 so if we're you know um
0:47:43 [Music]
0:47:44 the problem is anyway with
0:47:47 a darwinian darwinianist evolutionary
0:47:50 account
0:47:51 um is that
0:47:54 there can be no
0:47:56 um even before you know if you admit
0:47:59 selective pressures here can can
0:48:01 can choose or favor certain types of
0:48:04 information over another the bigger
0:48:06 problem here though is even if we grant
0:48:08 that for a second that you know
0:48:10 um evolution is for it's truth uh is for
0:48:14 truth orientation and and not for
0:48:16 survival orientation right
0:48:18 the bigger problem here though is
0:48:20 because you assume
0:48:22 a naturalist worldview
0:48:24 you cannot there cannot be any way the
0:48:26 mental
0:48:27 affects the behavior on the physical
0:48:30 so
0:48:31 how you know if that is the case on
0:48:33 evolution then one set of cognitive data
0:48:36 mental
0:48:38 would impact behavior the physical
0:48:40 but that that linkage
0:48:42 can't hold you see
0:48:44 on a darwinist darwinianist evolutionary
0:48:46 account and but that's the precise link
0:48:48 that you need so you adapt based on
0:48:51 behavior changes
0:48:52 according to the cognitive information
0:48:54 that you have right
0:48:56 but that interaction that that that link
0:48:59 between the mental and the physical that
0:49:02 can't hold you see on a evolutionary
0:49:04 account anyway so you're stuck there so
0:49:07 even if oh
0:49:08 i get it so even
0:49:11 yeah so it's not merely choosing d over
0:49:13 d asterix it's not merely choosing uh
0:49:16 prior congress of information or input
0:49:18 one over prior cognitive information
0:49:21 input two
0:49:22 or prior cognitive input two but it's
0:49:25 rather selecting one over the other and
0:49:28 being able to link it to the external
0:49:31 sense reality yeah there is that as well
0:49:33 but definitely you need to because part
0:49:35 of the
0:49:37 you're going to need the right cognitive
0:49:38 data to navi to allow you to navigate in
0:49:41 the world to do the things that you need
0:49:43 to do as a human community or society or
0:49:46 an individual if it's the first human
0:49:47 being to progress materially in life and
0:49:49 be not not just cognitively flourish but
0:49:52 then you know to materially flourish but
0:49:54 you see on a natural evolutionary point
0:49:56 the bigger problem is how then do
0:49:59 do does the mental adaptations of the
0:50:02 mental affect the behavior when there's
0:50:03 no link
0:50:05 there's no on a physical assumption on a
0:50:07 darwinian assumption your mental states
0:50:10 beliefs and desires are irrelevant for
0:50:12 behavior
0:50:13 can you see
0:50:14 it's irrelevant for behavior so how can
0:50:17 that interaction take place so that's
0:50:18 the problem and the other problem then
0:50:20 is how does the selection
0:50:23 guide you to have the kind of
0:50:25 information that you need so you can
0:50:26 cognitively flourish how is it guiding
0:50:29 it in what way
0:50:30 in what way does the guiding or system
0:50:33 they say is that there is a kind of
0:50:35 connection between truth
0:50:38 or
0:50:39 being able to make
0:50:40 rational judgments or being able to make
0:50:43 judgments about things and survivability
0:50:46 yeah but your behavior will now be
0:50:48 affected by your mental your mental
0:50:50 content yes but that's interesting that
0:50:52 connection
0:51:07 conclusion
0:51:08 paid from page seven
0:51:10 so it can't be from a human can't be
0:51:12 from a non-human animal can't be from an
0:51:15 animal object it can't be from
0:51:16 [Music]
0:51:18 chance yeah chance and it can't be from
0:51:21 it's not based on natural selection
0:51:24 therefore the this was one of the first
0:51:26 conclusions therefore it must be for
0:51:28 something not natural
0:51:29 and basically since the possible
0:51:31 naturalistic candidates to explain the
0:51:33 fail or they don't adequately explain
0:51:36 what we want explaining
0:51:38 then the reasonable conclusion is that
0:51:40 to explain d we must look for
0:51:42 non-naturalistic explanations and this
0:51:46 continues with the rest of your
0:51:47 conclusions which was which were was
0:51:49 point five and six the most plausible
0:51:52 known natural source for prior cognitive
0:51:54 information must be a transcendent agent
0:51:56 cause that has the property of initiates
0:51:58 life and intelligence and number six the
0:52:00 non-natural agent calls in five
0:52:03 approximates approximates the god of
0:52:05 theism and you argue that it must be
0:52:07 living because an inanimate object does
0:52:09 not contain d does not have cognitive
0:52:12 prior information or the ability to
0:52:14 teach you or to instruct it and it comes
0:52:16 to an abstract
0:52:21 there's an abstract object
0:52:22 you know it you know the way it's
0:52:25 generally described is that you know
0:52:26 they're they're inert
0:52:28 entities and so
0:52:31 you know let alone having cognitive
0:52:33 properties that inert causally
0:52:35 so they're not doing anything
0:52:37 um so how can these abstract objects
0:52:40 then be agents of cognitive input or
0:52:43 how can they endow
0:52:45 cognitive prop information to us as
0:52:48 human beings yes because
0:52:50 you make the beautiful point that a
0:52:52 rational precondition for possessing any
0:52:54 pedagogical attributes
0:52:56 is that it must be living yeah so a rock
0:52:59 is not a living thing and it doesn't
0:53:00 have uh the necessary prior cognitive
0:53:03 input and it doesn't have the ability to
0:53:05 teach us
0:53:07 the necessary prior cognitive input
0:53:08 therefore
0:53:09 this
0:53:10 the being or the cause for this
0:53:12 information is a living being and then
0:53:15 you argue must be transcendent it must
0:53:17 transcend the regress
0:53:19 otherwise it would also need d would
0:53:21 also need prior cognitive information as
0:53:23 you said so when we talked about about
0:53:25 the
0:53:26 the the regress of humans or non-human
0:53:30 animals uh it has to transcend that
0:53:33 regress and that's the point that you're
0:53:35 making here
0:53:36 yeah definitely otherwise if it's part
0:53:38 of the genealogy as it were going back
0:53:40 if it's part of the temporal cognitive g
0:53:43 information genealogy we can always ask
0:53:45 who put the cognitive information in
0:53:47 that agent then yes
0:53:50 yes so yeah so has parallels with the
0:53:52 first cause you know absolutely and it
0:53:54 must be willing must have a will yeah
0:53:56 and you argue this means it must be a
0:53:58 kind of being that chooses what it wants
0:54:00 to do and so it can wittingly select the
0:54:02 prior cognitive information relevant to
0:54:05 and necessary for human cognitive
0:54:06 success or any other functional
0:54:08 objectives yeah
0:54:10 so it's got to choose the right
0:54:13 type of information that we're going to
0:54:14 need as human beings because what if i
0:54:16 got scrambled prior cognitive
0:54:17 information yeah
0:54:19 because in some process
0:54:20 the cognitive information wasn't fully
0:54:22 formed well well-formed
0:54:24 how am i going to use scrambled
0:54:26 prior cognitive data or deficient
0:54:28 cognitive data or
0:54:30 ambiguous
0:54:31 um irrelevant cognitive data to now one
0:54:35 cognitively flourish and fulfill any
0:54:37 material temporal functions
0:54:40 or even to be able to make judgments you
0:54:42 just need to kind of
0:54:44 uh adequate cognitive input absolutely
0:54:47 and then you argue this
0:54:49 this entity must be omniscient this
0:54:51 living willing transcendent agent cause
0:54:54 must possess immense knowledge to endow
0:54:56 with other intellect-bearing agents you
0:54:58 must also consciously select all the
0:54:59 relevant initial cognitive input and
0:55:01 justify that selection so let's unpack
0:55:03 that a little bit for us yeah so here
0:55:05 what i was trying to say was um
0:55:08 definitely it must have immense amount
0:55:10 of knowledge because
0:55:12 it must
0:55:13 know which ones are not important
0:55:16 relevant
0:55:17 um
0:55:18 you know and which ones are
0:55:20 in order for the human being now to
0:55:23 to endow that human being with and then
0:55:25 for them to progress it can't be
0:55:26 accidental right accidentally give
0:55:29 a particular cognitive information a set
0:55:32 of cognitive data um and input that in
0:55:35 the first
0:55:36 human being it must know which ones are
0:55:38 going to be relevant to kick-start
0:55:40 you know the human individual to now
0:55:42 explore go out in the world and
0:55:44 make judgments and and materially
0:55:46 program cognitive flourish and
0:55:47 materially progress
0:55:48 so it has to have that information yeah
0:55:50 yeah
0:55:51 so this makes sense so therefore we
0:55:53 argue that it must be a living
0:55:54 transcendent willing omniscient entity
0:55:56 and this makes sense the traditional
0:55:58 view of you know of of god and you would
0:56:00 even argue of allah we believe he is you
0:56:03 know the living we believe he is
0:56:05 transcendent laci chemistry we believe
0:56:07 he has
0:56:09 a he has a he has a will we believe he
0:56:11 is omniscient he is all-knowing all wise
0:56:13 he is
0:56:15 so these things just make perfect sense
0:56:17 from a theistic perspective
0:56:19 and what's beautiful about this argument
0:56:21 and this is the final slide before we
0:56:23 get to some questions because i know you
0:56:24 have to go in about
0:56:26 19 minutes
0:56:28 um
0:56:29 that there is exegetical precedent here
0:56:32 so allah subhanahu wa says in the quran
0:56:34 chapter 2 verses 32 33
0:56:37 remember when your lord sent to the said
0:56:39 to the angels i am going to place a
0:56:41 successive human authority on earth they
0:56:43 asked allah would you place it in it
0:56:46 someone who would spread corruption
0:56:48 there and shed blood while we glorify
0:56:50 your praises and proclaim your holiness
0:56:52 allah responded i know that which you do
0:56:54 not know he taught adam the names of all
0:56:58 things
0:56:59 then he presented them to the angels and
0:57:01 said tell me the names of these if what
0:57:03 you say is true
0:57:05 they replied glory be to you we have no
0:57:07 knowledge except what you have taught us
0:57:10 you are truly the all-knowing
0:57:12 all wise allah said oh adam inform them
0:57:15 of their names then adam did allah said
0:57:18 did i not tell you that i know the
0:57:20 secrets of the heavens and the earth and
0:57:22 i know what you reveal and what you
0:57:25 conceal
0:57:26 so talk to us about the exegetical
0:57:28 quranic president for this argument yeah
0:57:30 so you know the the broader context of
0:57:32 this of these noble verses is allah
0:57:35 azzawajal creating adam alaihissalam and
0:57:37 then
0:57:39 putting him on
0:57:40 sending him to earth to be a khalifa
0:57:42 um
0:57:43 and then the angels protesting in a why
0:57:46 allah azzawajal is creating uh such an
0:57:48 agent who
0:57:50 is endowed with you know free will and
0:57:52 and and it's going to create facade and
0:57:53 mischief or
0:57:55 the progeny will create facilities from
0:57:57 the earth and the whole tone is like
0:57:59 that kind of primordial epistemology you
0:58:01 know it's allah is talking about
0:58:03 knowledge
0:58:04 and knowledge bearers allah has created
0:58:06 adam blew into his
0:58:10 and
0:58:11 um
0:58:12 has created this representative of
0:58:14 himself on earth to instill his commands
0:58:17 you know make make them realize he still
0:58:19 had his beautiful attributes
0:58:21 and so the ayah says
0:58:29 now i know there's a there's a massive
0:58:31 exegetical
0:58:32 spectrum of what a smart here and what
0:58:35 taught here means but what we do gather
0:58:37 from the ayah is it's come from
0:58:41 allah azzawajal so he's the
0:58:44 allah is the you know divine pedagogical
0:58:46 agent here in putting
0:58:48 in adam
0:58:50 one interpretation i think is plausible
0:58:53 is asma here being
0:58:55 the things that are named
0:58:57 so rather than the name i rather than it
0:59:00 being a nominal
0:59:01 uh a claim to just names right it's
0:59:04 rather acclaimed to the objects that
0:59:07 were named so adam ali salaam was taught
0:59:09 all the realities of objects and their
0:59:11 properties
0:59:13 um and then
0:59:14 he that knowledge of objects and
0:59:16 properties became his storehouse ali
0:59:19 salaam
0:59:20 of prior cognitive input that he now
0:59:23 uses to navigate himself to fulfill our
0:59:26 last commandments without which
0:59:28 if he just let a catalogue of names
0:59:30 just just the words of of of
0:59:33 of things not the actual realities
0:59:34 behind these these words
0:59:36 then he would have no prior cognitive
0:59:38 information to link
0:59:40 his sensation to to make judgments and
0:59:42 then cognitively flourish and materially
0:59:43 progress
0:59:44 so as matt here are the objects behind
0:59:47 the name
0:59:48 not just the name itself and just just
0:59:50 give an example um so suppose you're
0:59:52 learning a new language
0:59:54 again going back to our language uh
0:59:56 example just to keep him with the theme
0:59:58 and i said and you're starting out on a
1:00:00 new new language and i just gave you
1:00:03 a catalogue of words to just memorize
1:00:06 i've transliterated it into english and
1:00:08 greek you know which you know in arabic
1:00:09 so i translated it translated into the
1:00:11 language that you know for ease and i
1:00:13 say can you memorize these 500 words and
1:00:15 you memorized it
1:00:17 but you don't know what they mean or
1:00:18 what they refer to now that catalogue of
1:00:21 of of of words in your mind you can't do
1:00:24 anything with it
1:00:26 but if i told you now these words
1:00:28 represent a reality of of something and
1:00:30 their properties i.e the nature of
1:00:32 things and and the qualities that they
1:00:33 possess
1:00:34 you can now use that information and say
1:00:36 oh so this property is sharpness okay
1:00:39 sharpness an object okay so this is this
1:00:41 you know you start to make connections
1:00:42 when you're exploring the world well
1:00:44 then then then you have meaning and this
1:00:46 is very interesting yes yeah yeah that's
1:00:47 right this echoes in some way professor
1:00:50 john sells chinese room thought yeah
1:00:52 yeah i was gonna say that i didn't put
1:00:53 it in the paper but it's very much like
1:00:55 that yeah yeah yeah it's brilliant
1:00:57 because you know the chinese room full
1:00:58 experiment was really it allowed you to
1:01:01 make a distinction between soft ai and
1:01:03 hard ai yeah
1:01:05 can computer programs or machines can
1:01:08 they have
1:01:09 consciousness like we have now we're not
1:01:11 talking about being able to have you
1:01:13 know rational insights from the point of
1:01:15 view of doing great mathematics
1:01:17 computers can do that yeah they have
1:01:20 do they have
1:01:21 the ability to make rational insights
1:01:23 like the way you talk about make
1:01:24 judgments in a meaningful way in the
1:01:26 chinese room full experiment i think
1:01:28 john so developed this i think in the
1:01:29 70s 80s on a plane i think it was on a
1:01:31 plane and he and he just said well if
1:01:34 you're in a room right you're in this
1:01:36 room and there's people there's chinese
1:01:38 speakers around you and in this room you
1:01:41 have an english book that tells you when
1:01:44 you get some chinese symbols with this
1:01:47 and other chinese symbols then you need
1:01:49 to
1:01:50 produce these combinations of chinese
1:01:53 symbols or characters
1:01:54 and so people are
1:01:56 putting in like chinese symbols in the
1:01:58 room and you're putting them in you're
1:02:00 looking at the english rule book and
1:02:02 you're trying to put them together and
1:02:03 then you're passing them out and you're
1:02:04 getting all the answers correct for
1:02:06 example exactly exactly people outside
1:02:08 of the room think that you know chinese
1:02:10 but you don't know chinese at all yes
1:02:12 right because what you're doing is
1:02:14 symbolic
1:02:16 uh arrangements it's uh right between
1:02:19 semantics and syntax
1:02:23 yeah
1:02:25 you're right this is why he was against
1:02:27 functionalism and computationalism yeah
1:02:36 you've hit the nail on the head of the
1:02:37 chinese room it is computationalism and
1:02:40 functionalism
1:02:42 you know the mind is is it just merely
1:02:44 functional and compensation it's more
1:02:46 than that it's more than yes because the
1:02:48 i mean we don't have to get into the
1:02:49 whole chinese thought experiment but the
1:02:51 idea is the reason you don't know the
1:02:52 chinese language because you have no way
1:02:54 of attaching meaning to the symbols all
1:02:56 you've done is you you know how to
1:02:58 uh
1:02:59 just just put together the syntax not
1:03:02 the semantics so you don't have a way of
1:03:04 adding meaning to those chinese symbols
1:03:07 or characters right so this is this very
1:03:09 it's very similar to that we're not
1:03:10 going to unpack it there's more to it
1:03:11 than that yeah yeah you have the systems
1:03:14 reply then you have this that and the
1:03:15 other but notwithstanding that um it's i
1:03:18 just wanted to add that it was it sounds
1:03:20 very it's important it was it was
1:03:21 important you add that because that's
1:03:22 that links it to a contemporary example
1:03:26 because now allah azzawajal is teaching
1:03:28 adam
1:03:42 so adam ali mastered the realities of
1:03:46 these um the the the realities of
1:03:49 objects and their properties so now he's
1:03:51 got the prior cognitive information
1:03:54 inputted by allah remember not that he
1:03:56 picked it up through trial and er era
1:03:58 ali salaam allah taught it
1:04:00 got the the cognitive storehouse
1:04:03 you know lighted up and now adam ali
1:04:06 salem can now function
1:04:08 um
1:04:10 for those cognitive ends and mater and
1:04:12 you know material ends so that was a
1:04:14 kind of um
1:04:17 take on that and then there is some
1:04:19 precedence in the exergetical literature
1:04:20 as well
1:04:22 um you know you know what
1:04:24 because
1:04:25 we could go on for hours on this issue
1:04:27 do you suggest you do i think you should
1:04:30 in my i know this is a suggestion you
1:04:32 should take up this as a brook book
1:04:33 project
1:04:35 expand it further because it links to
1:04:37 philosophy of language to meaning to
1:04:39 intentionality to consciousness there's
1:04:41 so much there
1:04:43 and you know if there's anything i and
1:04:46 sapiens can do to support that then
1:04:50 i think it's going to be it's such an
1:04:52 amazing and amazing argument and
1:04:54 hopefully we've done it justice
1:04:58 and we only i think we're going to go
1:04:59 about 10 minutes for questions so
1:05:01 ancient link brothers and sisters
1:05:04 for you to join us anyone wants to come
1:05:06 and ask a question
1:05:08 um
1:05:10 so it's you can see it right here it's
1:05:12 streamyard.com forward slash all those
1:05:15 letters and and that number
1:05:17 okay so
1:05:19 let's have some people join us if they
1:05:20 want to ask any questions
1:05:25 if you don't ask the questions like live
1:05:27 face to face and you could ask the
1:05:28 questions on the comment box
1:05:38 okay this this format has really helped
1:05:40 me as well until you see you know
1:05:42 laying it out like that um often you
1:05:45 don't get a chance to see your own work
1:05:46 this in a disembodied way
1:05:49 i i know i have to admit you were very
1:05:52 patient and brave because you know if
1:05:54 someone did that to me
1:05:56 i'm thinking like you know you always
1:05:58 think chess isn't it like sometimes if
1:05:59 you're strategically minded you're
1:06:00 thinking okay well did i really say that
1:06:03 well i just thought of another
1:06:04 implication now i didn't think about
1:06:05 that
1:06:06 originally and this is actually a
1:06:08 beautiful way of reviewing your own work
1:06:09 yeah yeah for sure for sure yeah um and
1:06:12 but i do apologize that it it wasn't
1:06:14 intended that way but it was intense but
1:06:15 i'm glad it was like that can you see
1:06:17 yeah it was intended to have a
1:06:18 pedagogical uh uh
1:06:21 impact so
1:06:22 you know i've read your paper i'm
1:06:25 summarizing it and you're trying to
1:06:26 correct me and shape it up and people
1:06:28 are watching that process so hopefully
1:06:29 they've learned something from that as
1:06:30 well but if you know something like that
1:06:32 oh then that's just amazing
1:06:34 and i guess
1:06:35 okay so we have let's just uh put this
1:06:37 together like this now
1:06:39 let's remove the thing
1:06:42 let's put a comment up
1:06:47 okay so we have it's d nine
1:06:50 salaam alaikum
1:06:52 oh they've disappeared
1:06:54 okay they disappeared let's see anyone
1:06:56 else who wants to come on board
1:07:02 uh
1:07:03 okay we have
1:07:06 okay by the way brothers and sisters
1:07:08 make the questions because we only got
1:07:10 about six or seven minutes make the
1:07:12 questions specific to today's topic
1:07:15 inshallah okay um let me just give you
1:07:17 the
1:07:18 link to join us again
1:07:23 where are we
1:07:24 i have to put it back on one second
1:07:32 just bear with me there you go so anyone
1:07:35 who wants to join us
1:07:36 just let us know
1:07:38 or just ask questions from
1:07:41 the
1:07:42 the comment box
1:07:47 looks like not many people want to join
1:07:49 us today
1:07:50 [Music]
1:07:52 okay we have a question
1:07:56 okay question
1:07:58 do you think an actress could give a
1:08:00 justification for memories not randomly
1:08:02 being linked to wrong incidents if you
1:08:05 know what i mean
1:08:06 who would vote in chance here who would
1:08:08 invoke chance here
1:08:11 um
1:08:12 doctor please try and i don't i i i
1:08:15 not sure if i really understand the
1:08:16 question but i'll leave that to you
1:08:19 i'm not sure you know how
1:08:22 how they give a justification for
1:08:23 memories not randomly being linked to
1:08:24 wrong incident um what are we talking
1:08:27 about some the memory not corresponding
1:08:29 to how things were or something like
1:08:31 that
1:08:31 if that's the case definitely
1:08:34 in general naturally on naturalism we
1:08:35 have the problem of correspondence
1:08:37 between subjective experience and the
1:08:39 objective world anyway
1:08:41 that you know on naturalism that is
1:08:43 going to be very very hard
1:08:45 to explain um so
1:08:47 i'm not sure if i got the question right
1:08:48 but i wouldn't know what to say um
1:08:51 you know i think what they may be trying
1:08:53 to say is
1:08:54 that natchez would say that
1:08:56 you you that
1:08:57 um
1:08:58 memories are not randomly linked to to
1:09:01 wrong incidents so you have a memory
1:09:03 which can which can be a prior cause or
1:09:06 input of uh conceptual or informational
1:09:09 important cognitive input in some sense
1:09:12 and linked to an experience and then
1:09:15 when they experience that thing again
1:09:17 then they have their own link
1:09:19 sure sure
1:09:21 yeah i don't have to i'll have to think
1:09:22 about how memory
1:09:24 um
1:09:26 i had it on mine
1:09:27 yeah
1:09:29 well in order for them to have that
1:09:30 memory though that memory would have to
1:09:32 be a
1:09:33 judgment right yeah about something
1:09:36 yeah original
1:09:37 um
1:09:39 yeah yeah for sure you have the same
1:09:40 problem you still have the same problem
1:09:41 were they
1:09:43 from an experience of something at some
1:09:46 point
1:09:47 unless we want to go down plato's route
1:09:49 and have this recollection thesis you
1:09:51 know sort of idea
1:09:53 but but a but a um
1:09:56 i don't think a naturalist would want to
1:09:57 want to maybe go down that route you
1:09:59 know that we've got this
1:10:01 um
1:10:02 these innate ideas you know that we've
1:10:03 forgotten um
1:10:06 yeah yeah we're good that's true so uh i
1:10:08 mean from that perspective i would just
1:10:10 argue that if you're thinking the
1:10:11 memories are part of that prior
1:10:13 cognitive import well in order for them
1:10:15 to even have that memory of an
1:10:16 experience and form a judgment of that
1:10:19 experience they will still require prior
1:10:21 cognitive input and you go back to the
1:10:22 same question where did they get
1:10:24 from yeah yeah
1:10:26 right right this is we'll only have time
1:10:28 for one more question because the doctor
1:10:30 has to go in five minutes so let's add
1:10:32 on marwan
1:10:38 so um
1:10:40 my question is just uh sorry like i came
1:10:42 like just at the end of the the
1:10:44 presentation
1:10:46 like why can't you say that
1:10:48 uh
1:10:49 it couldn't just come from evolution
1:10:51 basically i don't really believe in
1:10:52 evolution but why can't we say it just
1:10:54 evoluted like with time
1:10:58 yeah yeah i think we went over
1:11:00 um the natural selection stuff yeah
1:11:02 maybe explaining the natural selection
1:11:04 stuff
1:11:05 i think the slide you know hamilton we
1:11:07 spent a bit of time on
1:11:08 why it can't be
1:11:10 why it's very unlikely that it could be
1:11:12 natural selection and one of the
1:11:14 arguments we focused on
1:11:16 there are other arguments that you know
1:11:18 you know definitely i need to look at
1:11:19 you know we had a chat
1:11:21 i had a chat hamza about that as well
1:11:23 there are other arguments i want to put
1:11:24 in
1:11:25 but really it's about
1:11:27 the argument that we looked at is how
1:11:30 on an evolutionary
1:11:31 account
1:11:33 um
1:11:34 do we have
1:11:36 non-arbitrarily demarcated data
1:11:39 non-arbitrarily demarcative remember so
1:11:42 it can't be arbitrary because as human
1:11:44 beings the type of
1:11:46 cognitive data we need the set of prior
1:11:48 cognitive information we need is is
1:11:51 relevant and necessary for our uh
1:11:54 cognitive success i i our our thinking
1:11:57 our success as thinking agents
1:11:59 um how
1:12:01 we can get that on an evolutionary
1:12:02 process
1:12:03 that is not
1:12:05 it's non-arbitrarily i it can't be an
1:12:07 arbitrary random set of uh information
1:12:12 um that is quite problematic i think
1:12:14 anyway on a
1:12:16 on a sort of evolutionary account
1:12:19 because the kind of cognitive data we
1:12:21 need
1:12:22 is going to be necessary
1:12:24 and if it's
1:12:26 and if it's necessary then some kind of
1:12:27 selection
1:12:29 some kind of conscious
1:12:31 selection was made for that data to be
1:12:33 input in the first human being but on an
1:12:36 evolutionary account you can't you don't
1:12:37 get that
1:12:39 um it would be non-arbitrarily
1:12:41 input in there
1:12:43 so
1:12:43 you know so that's that was one of the
1:12:45 reasons we went through let's hodl come
1:12:46 back come back on the point
1:12:49 yeah so this pretty much comes back to
1:12:51 to the point that refutes evolution
1:12:54 like
1:12:55 from the beginning like without even
1:12:57 getting into
1:12:58 uh cogni cognitive things or or like the
1:13:01 consciousness uh topic so
1:13:04 right right because once we start
1:13:06 talking about selection we're thinking
1:13:08 about as if it's
1:13:09 it was done like intentionally just to
1:13:12 select
1:13:13 sure to have this kind of a result right
1:13:15 that's right that's pretty much the
1:13:16 that's right i think hanzo on the first
1:13:18 slide at the beginning mentioned about
1:13:19 you know he said it was a provocative
1:13:21 title you know um adversities of reason
1:13:24 but one of the the facts about
1:13:26 a physicalist naturalist
1:13:29 um account is
1:13:30 it's mechanistic isn't it that's it's
1:13:33 bedrock principle and what i mean by
1:13:34 mechanistic is non-teleological so
1:13:37 there's no intentionality intentionality
1:13:39 with an s
1:13:40 behind anything
1:13:42 it's just so even even when you reason
1:13:45 so when you
1:13:46 when you use your powers of logic let's
1:13:49 say to to
1:13:50 take propositions and come to a
1:13:51 conclusion you infer or you use a rule
1:13:54 of inference
1:13:56 really on a mechanistic view a
1:13:58 physicalist view
1:13:59 there's just physical causes to that
1:14:01 there's no intentionality there's no
1:14:03 reasoned
1:14:04 um
1:14:06 factor behind your
1:14:08 your cognitive activity
1:14:09 so
1:14:11 yeah so that would pick the i'm sure you
1:14:12 know your whole hamster's got that
1:14:14 cornered so you know you know no no
1:14:18 you know we mentioned if we for example
1:14:20 if we go through your premises as an
1:14:22 example say we were to go through your
1:14:23 premises right
1:14:25 uh and your premises have conclusions so
1:14:27 you said number one prior cognitive
1:14:30 information is necessary for humans to
1:14:31 produce thought number two the ultimate
1:14:33 source of prior cognitive information is
1:14:34 either natural or natural number three
1:14:36 the ultimate source of prior cognitive
1:14:38 information cannot be from something
1:14:39 natural number four a conclusion
1:14:41 therefore it must be from something
1:14:42 non-natural number five the plausible
1:14:44 non-natural source for prior cognitive
1:14:46 information must be a transcendent agent
1:14:48 cause that has the property of
1:14:49 omniscience life and intelligence and
1:14:51 final conclusion uh the non-natural
1:14:54 agent caused in the previous conclusion
1:14:56 approximates the god of theism what
1:14:58 we've done we've taken premises
1:15:01 and we've basically put them together to
1:15:03 form a conclusion in some way you could
1:15:06 call it irrational insight it's a
1:15:08 rational reasoned process
1:15:10 physicalism has a problem as the doctor
1:15:12 said because it has the problem of
1:15:14 intentionality i don't think they've
1:15:15 solved this problem anyway
1:15:17 intentionality with the s
1:15:19 intentionality is about is aboutness
1:15:22 for example
1:15:23 uh my thought processes now are
1:15:26 something
1:15:27 external to my mind it's about
1:15:30 our engagement it's about i'm looking at
1:15:32 the computer screen and the camera and
1:15:35 so on and so forth it's something um
1:15:38 about something else
1:15:40 um and intentionality is also connected
1:15:42 to meaning and it's
1:15:44 linked to what dr south spoke about
1:15:46 concerning link the linkage right right
1:15:50 because that linkage between the prior
1:15:52 cognitive import and the sense reality
1:15:56 that link itself or also is connected to
1:15:59 intentionally in some sense
1:16:01 now under physicalist point of view all
1:16:03 you have are blind code physical
1:16:04 processes what i mean by blind blind
1:16:06 means they don't have any intentional
1:16:08 force going anywhere no intentionality
1:16:10 and no intention in terms of
1:16:13 intent right yeah and they're cold or
1:16:16 from the point of view that they're not
1:16:17 aware of themselves aware of something
1:16:18 outside of themselves so how can you
1:16:21 have these rational insights and this
1:16:23 reasoned process where you take the
1:16:25 premises that we discussed of uh
1:16:27 doctor's argument and we've formed a
1:16:29 conclusion in our minds we've taken them
1:16:31 and we've
1:16:31 we've it's about something right and
1:16:34 we've taken that journey it's like
1:16:36 having
1:16:37 uh
1:16:38 a taxi driver and if two passengers call
1:16:40 them premise number one and premise
1:16:41 thomas ii went inside and said take me
1:16:43 to work
1:16:44 take me to north london and the guy puts
1:16:47 a blindfold on he ain't going nowhere
1:16:49 because he's a physicalist taxi driver
1:16:51 right
1:16:52 he doesn't know where he's going he's
1:16:54 there's no intentionality he's just the
1:16:55 mechanics of the car
1:16:57 but under a theistic point of view the
1:17:01 taxi driver is not doesn't have a
1:17:02 blindfold on he can see right so he
1:17:05 knows his journey is about taking them
1:17:07 to a journey and he knows where to go
1:17:09 it's not just the mechanics right and
1:17:10 just going into any direction
1:17:13 i don't know if i've explained that whoa
1:17:15 yeah yeah it it actually reminds me of
1:17:18 an an example that you gave
1:17:20 in
1:17:21 because it's 17 minutes
1:17:23 okay and uh doctor had to leave that
1:17:25 quarter past i do apologize
1:17:27 let him finish inshaallah and of course
1:17:29 if there's another question i'll take
1:17:31 another question yeah okay yeah it was
1:17:33 just about the the example of a car and
1:17:35 the driver right like if you take for
1:17:36 example like a self-driving car like
1:17:39 it's like about input output right you
1:17:41 just like it can go from point a to
1:17:44 point b
1:17:45 but it's not like there is a driver
1:17:46 inside and he knows about the experience
1:17:48 and like he knows why and you know
1:17:50 everything about like the meaning of
1:17:52 that
1:17:53 like
1:17:54 uh the drive itself right so maybe i'm
1:17:57 not sure if this uh
1:17:59 goes back to the same what you've been
1:18:00 saying like
1:18:02 because this has been discussed with in
1:18:04 the other similar about consciousness
1:18:06 i'm not sure it was like three weeks ago
1:18:08 i guess yes i think i think
1:18:11 it does relate to because intentionality
1:18:14 is is is is involved in the whole domain
1:18:16 of knowledge concerning consciousness uh
1:18:18 but this is probably something we need
1:18:19 to unpack another time uh and another
1:18:22 day yeah thank you so much thank you i
1:18:24 really appreciate it
1:18:26 so it's just just a very good question
1:18:28 for you i thought already somewhere
1:18:30 in in yeah so just in some
1:18:32 intentionalities that our reasoning is
1:18:34 about in this context is our reasoning
1:18:36 is about or of something and physicalism
1:18:39 can't really explain that because it's
1:18:40 just mechanics isn't it from that
1:18:42 perspective
1:18:43 okay good so
1:18:44 let's take another question for doctor
1:18:47 safarook chowdhury we have someone here
1:19:06 um i actually have a question so first
1:19:08 like
1:19:09 uh i just want to say uh so hums i read
1:19:12 your book it's an amazing book
1:19:14 and it actually helped me a lot so but i
1:19:16 do have a few questions so
1:19:18 this part on rationality i've
1:19:21 understood really well and
1:19:23 like
1:19:25 um but how to say it so i i'd really
1:19:28 have problems with the arguments that
1:19:29 you that you made but
1:19:30 with the part of morality
1:19:33 it also makes sense to me but there's
1:19:35 just one thing i'm getting mixed up with
1:19:36 because
1:19:37 i understand that so for
1:19:39 the atheist point of view there's
1:19:42 so um
1:19:43 they don't have any foundations for
1:19:45 moral laws so they will say that
1:19:47 objective morality is true but if you
1:19:49 ask them mohammed is if this question is
1:19:51 not directly right to the topic we have
1:19:53 a live stream
1:19:55 uh uk time at 9 30 today so the whole
1:19:58 savings team say team is going to be
1:20:00 there and we're going to have a general
1:20:02 q a there uh i just want to because
1:20:05 stuff has given us doctor has given us
1:20:07 his precious time he's only got a few
1:20:08 minutes left so you have to be a
1:20:10 specific question for doctors i'm sorry
1:20:12 because i wrote something in the chat i
1:20:13 thought you picked me because i wrote
1:20:14 that question oh no i didn't see it
1:20:31 and uh tell them about what you're doing
1:20:33 and how they can follow you and see your
1:20:35 work and anything else you want to say
1:20:38 first of all now hamlet it's been
1:20:39 brilliant doing it like this man
1:20:40 honestly handler you know it's uh it
1:20:42 really is
1:20:44 i enjoyed it like this i'll be honest
1:20:45 with you and it's it's and i think the
1:20:48 viewers would know if they just read the
1:20:50 paper it would have been a dry
1:20:52 paper but doing it like this
1:20:54 you know hamsa would you know you're
1:20:55 gonna you could probably gonna come to
1:20:56 the video rather than re read the dryer
1:20:59 paper it's alhamdulillah he's brought
1:21:01 wonderful examples he's really colored
1:21:04 the paper you know giving it giving it
1:21:06 you know
1:21:07 sharpen the contours
1:21:09 and give examples where you know
1:21:11 better than mine so it really really has
1:21:12 helped me either you know follow up the
1:21:15 on the video if you have time again for
1:21:16 those perhaps who came in late um he
1:21:20 hamza set it up really well and the
1:21:22 context of it so i really appreciate it
1:21:23 yeah so we went through the argument um
1:21:26 some stuff that i'm working on now is in
1:21:27 the area of epistemology
1:21:30 so i'm looking at different aspects of
1:21:32 epistemology whether in the quran hadith
1:21:36 um does the quran point to a kind of
1:21:38 ideal reasoner
1:21:40 what are intellectual virtues what are
1:21:42 intellectual vices that's what i'm
1:21:43 looking at did the prophet alihem
1:21:46 talk about
1:21:48 bad qualities of reasoning and good
1:21:50 qualities of reasoning so i'm trying to
1:21:52 unpack all of that philosophically
1:21:54 um
1:21:55 and so that's my current project
1:21:58 and um so inshallah you know hopefully
1:22:00 slowly by slowly in the next couple of
1:22:02 years
1:22:03 you know bits of that will come out and
1:22:04 and obviously you'll i'll be engaged
1:22:07 um
1:22:08 and the academic sort of stuff on that
1:22:10 but obviously with with sapien some of
1:22:11 that will be
1:22:12 coming out as well so we hamza was
1:22:14 talking about the beginning
1:22:16 getting the academic and the
1:22:18 non-academic
1:22:20 bridged so you know in child life
1:22:22 let's see what happens with that content
1:22:23 as well the epistemological stuff
1:22:26 but yeah so really it's been it's been
1:22:28 brilliant how can they follow you bro
1:22:31 where are you on social media i'm i'm
1:22:33 not really on any way any social media
1:22:35 but my lame website that's sort of half
1:22:37 up and running is islamic analytic
1:22:39 theology.org
1:22:41 and hopefully if you want to get
1:22:43 involved just email me there's an email
1:22:45 website address there
1:22:46 um
1:22:48 and you know it's just
1:22:49 furthering
1:22:51 um the field of islamic studies but
1:22:53 using the methods of analytic philosophy
1:22:56 so that that's that's mostly what i'm
1:22:58 trying to do
1:22:59 on that website otherwise i'm
1:23:01 i'm a neanderthal man yeah
1:23:03 i'm not
1:23:08 we're going to have you back in here
1:23:09 again for sure insha allah
1:23:11 may be unpacking more stuff concerning
1:23:13 this paper maybe unpacking other things
1:23:15 maybe even summarizing your
1:23:17 your uh book concerning the problem of
1:23:20 evil um because that needs to be
1:23:22 popularized much more when lots of
1:23:23 people buying it from amazon and reading
1:23:26 it and and giving feedback as well to to
1:23:29 dr suffolk charlotte it's very important
1:23:30 that we give constructive feedback to
1:23:34 top down and bottom up constructive
1:23:37 feedback is very important especially in
1:23:39 this field because sometimes there could
1:23:40 be a watertight argument but it's very
1:23:42 hard to apply then you can feedback
1:23:45 how can i apply it so it goes both ways
1:23:47 and that's what sapiens wants to do we
1:23:49 want to you know create that kind of
1:23:51 emergence between the two so we could be
1:23:54 productive in in really defending the
1:23:56 honor of
1:23:57 defending islam sharing islam and
1:23:59 educating people on what islam is really
1:24:01 about and getting them close to the
1:24:03 merciful loving lord the loss of hanoi
1:24:05 to allah and you know facilitating
1:24:07 people's guidance by the will of allah
1:24:09 subhanahu wa to anna so that's what
1:24:10 we're about and we want to do that
1:24:12 intellectually and as academic and
1:24:14 scholastic as possible so
1:24:17 what lies always a pleasure
1:24:19 uh may allah bless you i wanna know what
1:24:21 your life feeds you because you seem not
1:24:23 to age at all send me the recipe allah
1:24:37 thank you for your time and we'll be in
1:24:38 touch very soon
1:24:40 by the way brothers and sisters we have
1:24:42 a live stream ninth day uk today uh it's
1:24:45 the six months update of sapiens most of
1:24:47 the team are going to be there uh and
1:24:49 we'll have an update and some question
1:24:50 answers
1:24:56 on