Pascal's Wager | Thought Adventure Podcast #18 (2021-10-24) ​

0:00:05 i am
0:00:32 everybody um before i get into this i
0:00:36 want to make sure that i'm audible
0:00:38 because um
0:00:40 nobody
0:00:42 in the backstage could hear me so
0:00:45 okay so it seems like can you guys hear
0:00:46 me
0:00:51 just anybody's give me a yes
0:01:02 yes thank you okay
0:01:04 assalamualaikum everybody so yeah we're
0:01:06 waiting for you so if apologies for that
0:01:08 delay it's been it's it's it's it's been
0:01:10 a
0:01:11 difficult day for the two of us and
0:01:12 we're the only two joining the stream
0:01:14 today uh brother sharif might be joining
0:01:17 uh later
0:01:20 and
0:01:21 and we have
0:01:22 possibly brother hatim coming on as as
0:01:25 well so um
0:01:29 yeah so today we're talking about
0:01:31 pascal's wager right and uh and it's
0:01:34 basically a pragmatic argument for the
0:01:35 existence of god many of you guys are
0:01:37 aware of pascal's wager doesn't have a
0:01:40 very good reputation
0:01:42 and and you know in philosophy and in
0:01:45 apologetics i mean even on the theistic
0:01:47 side people don't really look up to that
0:01:49 argument as something that
0:01:52 has any kind of merit to to it but we're
0:01:56 gonna try and see whether that's
0:01:57 necessarily true um
0:02:00 and uh you know maybe we can shed some
0:02:02 new light on it
0:02:03 so um
0:02:06 so basically what what's the the first
0:02:08 important thing to note is that pascal's
0:02:10 wager is not a uh
0:02:13 it's more of a pragmatic
0:02:15 argument that relies on decision theory
0:02:18 uh uh for not for the existence of god
0:02:22 but for
0:02:23 the uh uh that basically tries to reach
0:02:26 the conclusion that given certain
0:02:28 considerations we ought to
0:02:31 choose to wager
0:02:33 on the existence of god and believe in
0:02:36 him or commit to him
0:02:39 which different arguments have different
0:02:41 formulations and different conclusions
0:02:43 so um so the the the gist of it is
0:02:46 really
0:02:48 that it relies on decision theory and it
0:02:49 tells us that you know all things
0:02:52 considered the best thing to do really
0:02:54 is to wager or vet as they put it on the
0:02:57 existence of god
0:02:58 um
0:03:00 that that might not sound like really
0:03:02 appropriate language
0:03:04 from from a
0:03:05 like islamic or theological point of
0:03:07 view but this is really for the agnostic
0:03:10 or the atheist
0:03:12 or maybe even the theist or the muslim
0:03:15 who is having like severe doubts and is
0:03:18 like on the verge of leaving islam and
0:03:20 doesn't really know what to do
0:03:22 um sorry if the babies if the baby's uh
0:03:26 making too much noise so so so uh yeah
0:03:29 so we're gonna get right into it i'm
0:03:32 just not sure if i should hear yusuf is
0:03:34 thank god this has been awkward
0:03:36 okay
0:03:39 so finally
0:03:42 i'm so sorry bro
0:03:44 it's okay story of our lives bro
0:03:46 yeah happens all the time you sleep with
0:03:48 the kid you want to put the kid to sleep
0:03:50 you end up falling asleep before then
0:03:53 but i've had yet a nightmare
0:03:56 so yeah that's fine so i was just
0:03:58 telling the brothers here uh but one
0:04:00 second because i'm bringing hattim on as
0:04:02 well
0:04:04 um
0:04:06 sorry give me a second
0:04:08 i'll tell everyone about my weekend
0:04:10 so yeah go ahead
0:04:13 so saturday i was up at 3am
0:04:16 because i fell asleep putting my
0:04:18 daughter to bed
0:04:19 at 8pm so i had a full night's sleep
0:04:21 alhamdulillah
0:04:23 but obviously i was up at 3 and then i
0:04:25 went to london
0:04:27 and then i wanted to go but at half nine
0:04:30 but then somehow i ended up on a live
0:04:31 stream
0:04:33 until and then i was with everyone till
0:04:35 like half two in the morning
0:04:37 so i was up for like nearly
0:04:40 24 hours and then i went to sleep and i
0:04:44 woke up for fajr four hours later
0:04:47 today
0:04:48 so i was up at house six at four hours
0:04:50 sleep after being awake for nearly 24
0:04:52 hours
0:04:53 and i
0:04:55 and i've uh
0:04:57 just come back from london now
0:05:00 and then literally the second i got back
0:05:01 i had to put my daughter to sleep
0:05:04 and get a bath than that
0:05:06 and uh
0:05:07 and then now here we are so
0:05:09 i am about
0:05:11 i mean i mean
0:05:13 i'm not sure how good
0:05:15 your uh
0:05:16 how well you're going to be able to to
0:05:20 to follow
0:05:22 any any of what's being said or express
0:05:24 your ideas but
0:05:26 or maybe you could even do it better i
0:05:27 mean some people are like that you know
0:05:32 okay so we're just giving i was just
0:05:34 giving the brothers like a very brief
0:05:36 intro right on on
0:05:38 pascal's wager and how it's more more of
0:05:40 a
0:05:42 an argument that ra relies on like
0:05:44 practical reason as opposed to like
0:05:46 theoretical reason
0:05:48 it's it's more of a pragmatist sort of
0:05:50 argument not for the existence of god
0:05:53 but an argument that tries to establish
0:05:56 that we should
0:05:58 wager
0:06:00 you know on the existence of god
0:06:03 considering the expected value right so
0:06:06 it relies on decision theory
0:06:08 decision theory is basically a a theory
0:06:11 that
0:06:12 we use in our everyday lives and it's
0:06:14 it's it's it's a very well developed
0:06:16 theory as well formally that basically
0:06:18 tells you how to make decisions based on
0:06:22 expected value in situations where
0:06:23 something might not be clear
0:06:26 what decision should you make and why
0:06:29 and and that's really the the foundation
0:06:32 of the argument so before we get into it
0:06:34 yusuf um do you have anything
0:06:37 to say in the beginning
0:06:40 yes
0:06:43 go for it bro
0:06:45 so
0:06:46 for me
0:06:47 i like pascal's wager
0:06:49 i think it's a good argument
0:06:52 and
0:06:52 i think
0:06:53 that it in and of itself like like we
0:06:56 said it's not
0:06:58 a proof for god
0:07:00 on its own
0:07:01 that's that's not what it is at all um
0:07:03 but it works well in tandem with lots of
0:07:06 other arguments
0:07:08 and so what it does is it adds another
0:07:10 weight
0:07:12 onto the scale of reasons to
0:07:15 be a theist um now obviously
0:07:17 there are people who don't agree
0:07:20 and uh there are atheists who have made
0:07:22 videos saying that they don't agree but
0:07:24 obviously we're gonna try and go over a
0:07:25 little bit today
0:07:27 but yeah like i say personally
0:07:30 i think it can be effective especially
0:07:32 if people are very
0:07:34 disenfranchised uh with life as an
0:07:37 atheist as well it's like you know if
0:07:40 you're if you're already sort of feeling
0:07:41 very run down about
0:07:45 you know just for example that
0:07:47 you sort of overcome with thoughts or
0:07:48 feelings of nihilism
0:07:50 and life is feels worthless and
0:07:53 pointless and you're sort of sick of
0:07:55 going in circles
0:07:58 um with the same kind of patterns like
0:08:00 you go
0:08:01 drinking and
0:08:03 chasing and
0:08:05 doing this and doing that
0:08:07 and you're not really getting any joy
0:08:08 out of it anymore if it feels
0:08:10 unfulfilling um because it's also
0:08:13 underpinned by these notions
0:08:15 we've got a special guest
0:08:17 sarah michael everyone it's the real
0:08:19 hatton
0:08:20 special they're real i was i wasn't
0:08:22 planning on joining but i'm desperate
0:08:27 i really needed you to save me there
0:08:30 thanks for showing up yeah yeah just
0:08:32 like here because i don't know if i'm
0:08:33 going to be
0:08:35 any what's that saying uh i'm going to
0:08:38 be no use no ornament is that the same
0:08:41 it doesn't either sound like a brother
0:08:43 no no you're you're you're you're you're
0:08:44 essentially so don't don't
0:08:47 okay don't worry you you will be needed
0:08:50 but uh what was i saying
0:08:57 yeah something about ornaments
0:08:59 yeah yeah so so i guess use if you were
0:09:02 talking about you know a whether people
0:09:04 like you're talking about the pragmatic
0:09:05 aspect of it and people who are certain
0:09:07 in search of meaning and stuff like that
0:09:09 right yeah so like like what have you
0:09:11 got to lose basically like if you if you
0:09:12 already think
0:09:14 like life as an atheist is pretty crappy
0:09:17 like and if everything feels pointless
0:09:19 and meaningless and blah blah blah blah
0:09:23 obviously
0:09:24 like what have you got to lose because
0:09:26 there there can be um
0:09:29 something in tasting
0:09:31 that like i give you know you can argue
0:09:33 about why you should
0:09:34 um eat apples all day long or whatever
0:09:40 and
0:09:41 you're not really gonna like understand
0:09:43 like how good an apple is until you've
0:09:45 had one
0:09:46 and so there's obviously there's the
0:09:48 pragmatic um
0:09:50 case of like well what have you got to
0:09:52 lose really like if you try it
0:09:54 and it works and it improves your life
0:09:58 uh there's also an argument here to um
0:10:02 say well you know that that can be
0:10:04 an expression of the wisdom within such
0:10:06 a system and the the wisdom
0:10:09 expressing itself in the experience of
0:10:12 living life as such for example praying
0:10:14 fasting
0:10:16 um you know doing thicker showing
0:10:18 appreciation being hopeful
0:10:21 all of these things
0:10:23 um
0:10:24 you know when if when they have a
0:10:26 positive effect on your life
0:10:28 that that can reveal the wisdom of these
0:10:30 particular things themselves which you
0:10:32 you can be blind to
0:10:33 and obviously like i said before in and
0:10:36 of itself
0:10:37 on on its own it's not a complete proof
0:10:40 for god but it at least you can begin to
0:10:43 sort of open your heart to certain
0:10:46 truths or to certain possibilities
0:10:49 um through that experience which you
0:10:51 wouldn't do
0:10:52 um if you just refuse to even engage in
0:10:56 these type of ideas and pascal's wager
0:10:58 can be a means by which um
0:11:00 you can sort of move towards that yeah
0:11:02 exactly that tasting the fruits have
0:11:03 been man
0:11:04 um and then seeing the the sweetness of
0:11:07 it
0:11:08 in that experience but
0:11:10 when you just sort of
0:11:12 refuse to step in the possibility of it
0:11:14 at all
0:11:15 um
0:11:16 then you close this world off to
0:11:18 yourself and and by that means as well
0:11:21 you close the ability of experiencing
0:11:23 any wisdom in that way of life at all
0:11:26 or mashallah you got a fan here hat him
0:11:31 why can't i hate you
0:11:38 i thought can you hear him
0:11:41 oh sorry i was muted
0:11:43 oh right yeah that's probably why i
0:11:44 couldn't know you were freaking out
0:11:46 i thought i went
0:11:48 i'm using my phone man i i'm moving out
0:11:51 of my apartment so i don't have any my
0:11:52 things
0:11:54 except the phone and a charger and your
0:11:56 phone's on set man
0:12:00 i mean
0:12:01 so go on wha what were you saying when
0:12:03 uh i was in panic mode thinking i had to
0:12:05 go on death
0:12:06 um
0:12:09 well
0:12:10 have you guys went into the objections
0:12:12 of pascal's wager yet i mean we no we
0:12:14 haven't really just initial thoughts i
0:12:17 just said that the argument relies on
0:12:18 decision theory and that
0:12:20 you know it's more of a pragmatic
0:12:22 argument rather than an argument that's
0:12:23 based in uh you know
0:12:25 yeah you know
0:12:27 theoretic uh considerations of reasons
0:12:29 and stuff like that so uh yeah maybe you
0:12:31 give us your initial thoughts then we
0:12:32 can maybe put forward a more structured
0:12:35 form of the argument rather than the
0:12:36 rambling we've all been
0:12:38 doing here then yeah
0:12:40 sure we can look at objections and i
0:12:42 think we can get uh some people to call
0:12:44 in and give us their thoughts on it
0:12:46 yeah well i think the formulation that
0:12:48 dr elizabeth jackson uses which is i
0:12:51 think the one we're uh he's trying to
0:12:53 represent here
0:12:54 is
0:12:55 um
0:12:57 is really strong and it's it
0:13:00 it increases in strength
0:13:02 as the evidence like for god increases
0:13:04 as well and that's because a lot of the
0:13:07 um
0:13:09 i believe this argument pascal's wager
0:13:11 it seems that it does rely on the like
0:13:13 permissive
0:13:15 like the permissiveness of evidence
0:13:18 um in that like let's say that that
0:13:22 it would be reasonable or rational to be
0:13:24 a theist
0:13:25 or to be an atheist you know like
0:13:27 assuming at minimum that's the case then
0:13:29 like this is it seems um it's it's more
0:13:32 like the tiebreaker you know and another
0:13:35 thing that i like about this argument
0:13:36 too is it's not just in
0:13:39 it's not like the typical argument like
0:13:41 we get for
0:13:42 for example a cosmological argument
0:13:44 which is more like
0:13:45 it's proving it is you know that like
0:13:47 god exists
0:13:49 um
0:13:50 this is more of an ought
0:13:52 so it's it's a different style argument
0:13:55 it's arguing why you ought to do
0:13:57 something
0:13:58 uh
0:13:59 and i i think that's why it's kind of
0:14:01 it's
0:14:02 it's going to be like both refreshing
0:14:04 and very interesting
0:14:07 yeah i i definitely i i think it's i
0:14:09 think it's interesting it's pascal's
0:14:11 wager has always been
0:14:13 interesting
0:14:14 to me and and uh
0:14:16 liz jackson who who uh
0:14:19 had to mention here is is uh has
0:14:21 published a few papers on this and she's
0:14:23 uh
0:14:24 she's she's uh sort of like
0:14:27 uh put forward her own formulation of
0:14:30 the argument that there's a pretty like
0:14:32 she takes like she makes a stronger
0:14:33 claim like you have you have other
0:14:35 formulations that work with specific
0:14:37 type of types of agnostics and stuff but
0:14:40 um i i think liz jackson makes the very
0:14:42 strong claim that that i believe
0:14:44 originally pascal was trying to make
0:14:46 that you know regardless of the credence
0:14:48 you give theism you should wager on the
0:14:50 existence of god so so let's just so so
0:14:52 a basic formulation that you know um
0:14:55 that or just a general idea of what the
0:14:58 argument is
0:14:59 is that
0:15:00 it deals with expected value right so
0:15:03 in life you should make decisions that
0:15:06 you know
0:15:07 uh you expect to give you the highest
0:15:09 value that have the highest expected
0:15:11 value
0:15:12 and in situations where you know the
0:15:14 credence for
0:15:16 one option versus the other
0:15:18 isn't very clear to you you should
0:15:20 always make the uh make a choice that uh
0:15:25 that you know all things considered is
0:15:28 more likely to give you the highest
0:15:30 expected value so
0:15:32 you you
0:15:34 come up with with a table this decision
0:15:36 uh
0:15:37 matrix where you say what belief in god
0:15:40 not belief in god god exists versus god
0:15:43 not exists
0:15:44 and the expected value
0:15:46 at the end of of uh you know
0:15:49 as the outcome of these situations so
0:15:51 you believe in god and god exists the
0:15:54 expected outcome versus you don't
0:15:55 believe in god and god exists not a
0:15:58 great outcome you don't believe in god
0:16:00 and god and god doesn't exist well
0:16:04 it doesn't really matter you believe in
0:16:05 god and god does ex
0:16:07 doesn't exist
0:16:09 doesn't truly matter either the
0:16:11 difference there is not going to be a
0:16:12 hugely significant so that's the general
0:16:15 idea now clearly there are a wave of
0:16:17 objections to this
0:16:19 yeah huge objections to this right so um
0:16:22 i don't know if hatim you want to bring
0:16:24 out one of them
0:16:26 one of the main objections that you've
0:16:28 come across
0:16:30 yeah um the irrationality objections
0:16:34 um it's along the lines of well it's
0:16:36 it's just irrational to
0:16:38 to basically do something that you don't
0:16:40 really believe you know like you ought
0:16:42 to align your actions with your belief
0:16:44 right so if you really believe that god
0:16:46 doesn't exist
0:16:47 then it's it's sort of irrational to ask
0:16:50 somebody to
0:16:51 you know like to to force themselves
0:16:55 to to kind of do something that they
0:16:57 don't really believe in and and that
0:16:59 it's more it's more
0:17:01 and like there's no evidence for i think
0:17:03 is it is actually like the important
0:17:05 part of that is it's not like the belief
0:17:08 that in these things is irrational to
0:17:09 begin with
0:17:10 yeah so
0:17:11 basically it's it's more like it's the
0:17:13 evidentialist objection
0:17:15 and
0:17:16 uh
0:17:18 and i mean thank you for starting with
0:17:19 an easy one because i mean that's uh
0:17:21 yeah so so so i mean the answer to this
0:17:23 is is so either you're dealing with uh
0:17:28 with a case of a commitment to act and
0:17:30 not a commitment of belief in the sense
0:17:32 that you're committed in terms of
0:17:35 uh your your your actions in terms of
0:17:38 your your attendance of like you know
0:17:40 friday prayers and and and uh
0:17:43 supplicating to god and asking him to uh
0:17:46 bring you closer to him and to show
0:17:49 himself to you and that you're truly
0:17:50 sincere and that's basically a
0:17:53 commitment of act that's not necessarily
0:17:55 a commitment of belief
0:17:57 also on the other side what had to
0:18:00 mentioned earlier about permissiveness
0:18:02 so epistemic permissiveness is basically
0:18:04 a situation where you have two options
0:18:07 or two theories or two ideas that you
0:18:09 think are both
0:18:11 rationally accessible in the sense that
0:18:13 they both have evidence for them right
0:18:15 you're not really sure which one is true
0:18:17 you might lean one way or another but
0:18:19 you you think that both positions can be
0:18:21 rationally held well you add
0:18:24 a pascal's wager into the mix here and
0:18:28 well it it does seem to be that the case
0:18:31 that you have uh um
0:18:33 because you have epistemic
0:18:34 permissiveness well you you are in line
0:18:37 with evidentialism and at the same time
0:18:39 you're taking decision theory into
0:18:40 consideration
0:18:41 and uh
0:18:43 also there could be different uh
0:18:45 different angles to to believe formation
0:18:47 right so it's so so you can have
0:18:49 different belief attitudes to different
0:18:51 angles of a theory right so so um
0:18:55 when we talk about utility and expected
0:18:57 value that can be one angle and we could
0:18:59 talk when we talk about the evidence for
0:19:01 the theory that can be another and uh
0:19:04 and generally speaking
0:19:06 for for the agnostic who does see
0:19:09 permissiveness i think it isn't a huge
0:19:11 issue
0:19:12 um
0:19:13 yes so that's that's the rationality
0:19:15 objection we can just go through them
0:19:16 quickly because i think we can uh i
0:19:19 think maybe we're gonna get through
0:19:21 something yeah go ahead
0:19:23 the whole um
0:19:26 what like so people sometimes muslims
0:19:28 say oh no you can't do pascal's wager
0:19:30 because it's it's gambling and
0:19:32 gambling's haram
0:19:34 well that's the yeah yeah so the yeah so
0:19:36 from within an islamic paradigm
0:19:38 yeah we want to be clear though it's not
0:19:40 like i just want to add like
0:19:42 it's not it's not it's not like that so
0:19:45 people when they hear it they hear oh
0:19:47 wager
0:19:48 and they
0:19:49 they sort of make it akin to like the
0:19:52 argument is to say oh you're just going
0:19:53 to roll a dice
0:19:55 and just pick whatever
0:19:57 you know it comes out at the end of it
0:19:59 like if it happens to fall on islam
0:20:01 then you know i i i actually haven't
0:20:04 i actually haven't heard that objection
0:20:06 i heard i heard a strong one
0:20:08 i think there was some like a kind of
0:20:11 similar objection to that being in the
0:20:13 comments um yeah
0:20:15 there's the usual that it's it's um
0:20:18 that like to not really believe in islam
0:20:20 and just do it is is sinful you know
0:20:22 because god's going to judge you as your
0:20:24 intentions but i think i think abdul
0:20:25 answered that already that that like
0:20:27 it's it's kind of like
0:20:29 i'm just just imagining the like an
0:20:31 individual whose heart is hardened right
0:20:33 but
0:20:34 he he just he has in his mind you know
0:20:36 like i i want to submit to god and he's
0:20:39 just going to commit to the
0:20:41 the acts
0:20:43 and just asks god to to like the stuff
0:20:45 in his heart yeah
0:20:49 it's definitely not equivalent to just
0:20:51 rolling the dice it's that so
0:20:53 it's a case of like like you said like
0:20:55 obviously certain people
0:20:57 it's just not going to convince if
0:20:58 they're already on like hard atheist and
0:21:01 they think that theism is completely
0:21:04 irrational and blah blah blah
0:21:05 all right pharaoh you're not going to
0:21:07 like this argument you know it's not for
0:21:09 you cinnabit you go dude i don't think i
0:21:11 i mean so it depends on which form
0:21:13 because somebody yes
0:21:15 liz jackson she tries to target that
0:21:17 somebody who thinks that there's any
0:21:19 non-zero probability for theism
0:21:21 so we'll go into that yeah and but the
0:21:23 the with the agnostic that you know
0:21:25 they're not sure
0:21:27 they're like you know it could be
0:21:28 couldn't be and what
0:21:31 with reasoning with logic it's not just
0:21:34 about deductive reasoning there is um
0:21:36 inductive reasoning
0:21:38 what is inductive reasoning it's about
0:21:40 inclining to probabilities
0:21:43 so you say there's a very good chance
0:21:45 that this is probably the case and so
0:21:47 i'm going to hold this as the most
0:21:49 likely answer based on you know the
0:21:54 available evidence i have
0:21:56 based on being um pretty convinced of
0:21:59 particular argumentation and
0:22:01 not just one argument in particular but
0:22:03 this plus this plus this plus this each
0:22:06 one adds another weight to the scale
0:22:08 here and it drops
0:22:11 more on this side
0:22:12 um and the arguments in here there may
0:22:15 be weight on the opposite side as well
0:22:17 like you you may be slightly convinced
0:22:19 that from the the problem of evil for
0:22:21 example or you may be slightly convinced
0:22:23 of
0:22:23 xyz whatever it is and that may add
0:22:26 weight to the disbelieving side of the
0:22:28 scale
0:22:30 but
0:22:30 ultimately
0:22:32 you know you
0:22:33 you
0:22:34 what what's the you know even if it's
0:22:36 even here and you think you know i'm not
0:22:38 100 sure you pascal's wager could be
0:22:41 something that says well
0:22:42 what have you got to lose here like if
0:22:44 you pick theism you know pascal was
0:22:47 famous for saying like
0:22:49 you know what you're gonna you're gonna
0:22:50 become a loyal friend like you're gonna
0:22:52 become become
0:22:53 someone who's responsible and
0:22:56 commits themselves to duty
0:22:58 and you know understands that they've
0:23:00 you know they've got responsibilities to
0:23:02 their family to their community etc in
0:23:04 such a way that um it's
0:23:07 you know absolutely binding whereas
0:23:09 obviously it's not to say that atheists
0:23:10 can't feel a sense of duty to people at
0:23:13 all but it's it's by no means
0:23:16 binding
0:23:17 you don't have to atheism is like like
0:23:19 they're famous for saying they don't
0:23:20 have a doctrine so why would they need
0:23:23 to necessarily have duty and things like
0:23:25 that it's not
0:23:26 you know it's not stamped into it so
0:23:29 although they can be it there's nothing
0:23:32 that says they have to be whereas within
0:23:34 theism it's like no no
0:23:36 like it's it's a part and parcel of the
0:23:38 theology you have to be good to your
0:23:40 neighbors you have to do um you have to
0:23:42 give charity it's part of the pillars
0:23:45 you have to pray you have to um be
0:23:47 truthful you have to xyz then they
0:23:49 they're you know
0:23:50 so and obviously there's the um
0:23:54 the benefits in doing these things as
0:23:55 well
0:23:56 how it affects your psyche in the long
0:23:58 run and all of that kind of stuff it's
0:24:00 um
0:24:01 that's the that's the thing it said what
0:24:03 is it got solution pascal is a a weight
0:24:06 on the side of theism
0:24:09 and obviously in conjunction with all
0:24:10 the other things because it's not even
0:24:12 like you've got to make it straight away
0:24:14 it's not like the other objection i
0:24:16 guess we can bring it up now
0:24:18 is uh
0:24:19 the pascal's robber
0:24:22 uh but wait after after this so sanad's
0:24:24 here saying the objection is
0:24:26 it is necessary i think so this is from
0:24:28 within islamic perspective to have
0:24:30 certainty in your belief past cause
0:24:32 wager is immune to skepticism so it's
0:24:34 very important here to note that this
0:24:37 we're not saying that this uh you know
0:24:40 uh is the uh desired destination that we
0:24:45 want a believer to be in it's not the
0:24:47 ideal state of belief what we're saying
0:24:50 it is
0:24:51 is that for an agnostic somebody who's
0:24:53 on the fence or a doubter who's about to
0:24:55 leave the faith this is just
0:24:58 a
0:24:59 step in the right direction just like
0:25:02 take that step it's better for you
0:25:04 and be sincere
0:25:06 and
0:25:08 maybe from there you will achieve this
0:25:11 state of belief that you're talking
0:25:13 about senate so nobody's saying
0:25:15 be a hypocrite or you know but you don't
0:25:18 believe but just pretend you believe
0:25:21 nobody's saying any of that so so you
0:25:24 know that's actually that's the point
0:25:26 that can actually be a double-edged
0:25:27 sword where
0:25:29 um and i don't think that that like
0:25:30 descendant is saying this but imagine
0:25:32 someone was like yeah you know i am
0:25:34 sincere um
0:25:36 and and like they actually thought they
0:25:38 they were instead of you know just like
0:25:40 continuously questioning and being
0:25:42 skeptical of their own sincerity you
0:25:44 know like that's what we're supposed to
0:25:46 do so that like we don't
0:25:48 you know like become arrogant and think
0:25:50 that like we're you know like the
0:25:52 perfect slaves of allah you know
0:25:54 so um yeah
0:25:56 it's it's it's always yeah like you're
0:25:58 always
0:25:59 like meant to be
0:26:01 questioning your own sincerity and
0:26:02 trying to improve
0:26:04 you know and just continue to ask
0:26:05 yourself like am i am i um
0:26:08 am i praying or like am i giving to
0:26:10 charity because like people are watching
0:26:12 me
0:26:13 you know or am i doing it for allah you
0:26:15 know for the sake of allah
0:26:17 so
0:26:18 yes
0:26:20 brother essan
0:26:21 who's a huge fan of ours is saying they
0:26:24 haven't mentioned any of the real
0:26:25 objections i can assure you that this
0:26:26 irrationality objection is one of the
0:26:30 big ones out there
0:26:31 although i think it's one of the easier
0:26:32 ones to deal with to be honest so yeah i
0:26:34 mean i'll give you that but we're
0:26:35 getting started so um hold your horses
0:26:42 yeah so so i think something like the
0:26:43 many gods or the mixed strategies
0:26:45 objection is something that's
0:26:46 seriously more challenging right so uh
0:26:49 what do you have to say about that
0:26:50 either you guys you could take it from
0:26:51 here so many sorry i found out then what
0:26:53 was the what was it many gods
0:26:56 objection i think that's that's that's
0:26:58 uh yeah yeah
0:27:00 in mind when he said real objections i
0:27:02 could i could take that one so
0:27:04 the it's it's more
0:27:08 i mean like you hear this all the time
0:27:10 like look like there's like three or
0:27:11 four thousand gods you know
0:27:13 what are we gonna do
0:27:14 you know like they can't all be true so
0:27:17 then like they just throw the baby out
0:27:18 with the bath water but the i i think
0:27:20 the
0:27:22 issue here is that like they're not
0:27:23 taking probability seriously you know
0:27:25 and
0:27:26 and
0:27:27 and probability does matter
0:27:29 and um i think dr liz she she's a really
0:27:31 good example
0:27:33 um it's it's a thought experiment
0:27:36 to show that
0:27:38 that like probabilities matter
0:27:40 um
0:27:42 so but so i mean like justin like a
0:27:44 common sense uh
0:27:46 perspective
0:27:48 you're
0:27:49 you're meant to look and investigate
0:27:52 um
0:27:53 and like to see for yourself which
0:27:55 religion is more likely you know and
0:27:57 like you can do that it's it's not
0:27:59 something that's like
0:28:01 um kind of reasonable to do
0:28:04 and you're able to like to cut through a
0:28:06 lot of them just by doing this so it's
0:28:09 it's it's kind of a weird objection the
0:28:11 whole like mini gods thing
0:28:12 yeah
0:28:14 and so
0:28:15 this kind of links as well to that what
0:28:16 i mentioned earlier the pascal's robber
0:28:19 um which is an objection like oh someone
0:28:21 called you and they're like
0:28:23 uh give me all your money and
0:28:26 maybe i'll give you an infinite amount
0:28:28 of money later now the thing is is like
0:28:31 with the pascal's rubber objection it's
0:28:32 not really a good analogy one because
0:28:35 you've not got time like the pascal's
0:28:37 rob is just like
0:28:39 you've got to make this decision now and
0:28:41 you can't look into anything about me
0:28:43 you've not got that option you know
0:28:45 either you give me your wallet now and
0:28:47 take that risk
0:28:48 or you know you'll miss out on this
0:28:50 opportunity whereas with the the
0:28:52 pascal's wage was like well no like
0:28:54 you've got a life
0:28:57 you know go away
0:28:58 look into the the the particular
0:29:01 claims of the particular religions and
0:29:04 you don't have to look into every single
0:29:06 one there's ten thousand religions three
0:29:08 million gods
0:29:10 like you can
0:29:11 go through that process
0:29:13 of
0:29:14 um
0:29:15 what's the word i'm looking for my
0:29:16 mind's gone dead process of reduction uh
0:29:20 no that's not it that doesn't sound
0:29:22 right
0:29:22 process of elimination that's the one
0:29:25 that's why we've got him here
0:29:26 masha'allah the process of elimination
0:29:29 so you can break them into categories so
0:29:32 you don't need to look into every
0:29:33 polytheistic religion you just ask if
0:29:36 polytheism is is uh
0:29:39 what's the word again rational if
0:29:41 polytheism is rational and if you can
0:29:43 say if you can show
0:29:45 why polytheism doesn't make sense or why
0:29:48 trinitarianism doesn't make sense and or
0:29:50 why pure tauheed maybe makes more sense
0:29:53 then you can write off a swath of
0:29:55 religions
0:29:56 if it turns out polytheism is absurd you
0:29:59 don't need to look into what 95 percent
0:30:02 of the religions on the earth
0:30:04 yeah yeah yeah
0:30:06 and you could just cross atheism off the
0:30:08 list immediately because like there's no
0:30:09 expression value there anyway
0:30:11 yeah there you go we just we just
0:30:13 increased your chances exactly so so
0:30:16 then you like okay so i've written off a
0:30:19 lot of the religions if you're obviously
0:30:21 this was what i did i didn't have to
0:30:24 look into like
0:30:26 that i was looking into things like the
0:30:27 new age religion and hinduism
0:30:30 but i didn't need to like
0:30:31 look into things like
0:30:33 thor
0:30:34 and whether or not you know the thor is
0:30:37 a particular character that has
0:30:39 epistemic value because it was like no
0:30:40 no forget that let me just check to see
0:30:43 if politics makes any sense
0:30:45 and for me on my journey it was like no
0:30:47 no
0:30:48 for me monotheism just makes more sense
0:30:51 monotheism
0:30:52 yeah it's just more coherent it suffers
0:30:55 from less problems than
0:30:57 other forms of
0:30:59 um
0:31:01 you know
0:31:02 the god belief where there's
0:31:03 multiplicity in that and so it was like
0:31:06 all right well what monotheistic
0:31:07 religions are there and you can go
0:31:09 through this
0:31:11 like in much less time than it would
0:31:12 take to have to look into every single
0:31:14 one so and you've got the time and so if
0:31:17 if you really want to make the pascal's
0:31:18 rob a thing fair it's like
0:31:21 uh yeah i if you give me your wallet
0:31:24 i'll give you an infinite
0:31:25 uh amount in return but you you i'll
0:31:28 give you
0:31:29 as much time as you want you've got you
0:31:31 know until you die go and look into me
0:31:34 like check out what people said about me
0:31:37 have a look to see what evidences there
0:31:38 are about my character about what kind
0:31:41 of person i'm if i have a good track
0:31:42 record or a bad track record
0:31:44 and
0:31:45 like that and you know and if you like
0:31:47 what you hear at the end of it then give
0:31:49 me your wallet
0:31:50 so you know it's a very reasonable
0:31:51 robber
0:31:53 like he's you know he's giving you the
0:31:55 opportunity to really look into him as a
0:31:57 person and
0:31:59 and then maybe come back later and
0:32:00 here's my address you know like comment
0:32:02 me down and give me that if you feel
0:32:04 like it in 10 years time and then you'll
0:32:07 get xyz so yeah and and brother mustang
0:32:10 there the comment he just put up there
0:32:11 is very important as well that um you
0:32:13 know about uh
0:32:15 you know leading a happy life theism and
0:32:17 wellbeing i think there's a lot of
0:32:18 empirical evidence that would point to
0:32:20 the direction that you know
0:32:23 theism does uh lead to
0:32:26Music 0:32:27 a happier more fulfilled life for many
0:32:29 angles of course there are exceptions to
0:32:31 that but i mean there is empirical
0:32:33 evidence there are
0:32:34 empirical studies that show this
0:32:36 i actually have some of them listed
0:32:38 somewhere so yeah i can pull them up
0:32:41 do you really have to convince them i
0:32:43 mean aren't aren't the atheists the ones
0:32:44 that say like you just believe in
0:32:46 religion because it makes you feel good
0:32:48 i mean it's like
0:32:51 exactly but at the same time at the same
0:32:53 time i think a lot of atheists believe
0:32:56 disbelieve i think the psychological
0:32:57 factor really goes both ways i mean
0:32:59 maybe you don't want to commit right
0:33:02 maybe maybe maybe the idea of the
0:33:04 existence of god and this ultimate
0:33:05 accountability is just scary so the
0:33:08 psychological factor i think it goes
0:33:09 both ways but i think i think we can say
0:33:12 uh uh that that that there is
0:33:15 considerable empirical evidence that
0:33:16 shows that there is very uh significant
0:33:19 utility for religion in this life and it
0:33:21 does lead to happiness and well-being uh
0:33:24 even you know higher life expectancy and
0:33:27 and many things so i can pull up some of
0:33:29 those studies
0:33:31 but one of the most interesting thing
0:33:33 about the things about the many god's
0:33:35 objections i i think i think to be
0:33:37 honest i think it's a good objection in
0:33:38 the sense that um
0:33:41 well i mean at least at least at least
0:33:42 consider
0:33:44 considering the fact that just makes you
0:33:45 really think because when you're dealing
0:33:47 with infinities right
0:33:49 the the general idea here is that if
0:33:52 there is a non-zero
0:33:54 right if there is a non-zero
0:33:56 probability to for for the existence of
0:33:59 god
0:34:00 or for the truth of something that would
0:34:03 lead to this
0:34:05 infinite utility
0:34:06 then well you should really take that
0:34:08 seriously and adopt it and and and i
0:34:10 guess
0:34:11 the move here is to say well if you're
0:34:13 talking about non-zero probabilities
0:34:15 then well hey i mean
0:34:17 me uh you know um flipping a coin
0:34:21 and and and
0:34:23 the coin landing on heads
0:34:25 leading me to
0:34:27 infinite happiness or infinite infinite
0:34:29 utility is is something that
0:34:32 you have to say at least the probability
0:34:34 of that
0:34:36 from an epistemic perspective it's like
0:34:37 so there's no there's no logical
0:34:39 impossibility there so it's not a
0:34:40 logical contradiction so there is a
0:34:43 non-zero probability so i mean i guess
0:34:45 that would be the reasoning that would
0:34:47 be the move they'd want to make in the
0:34:49 sense that you know
0:34:50 the credence we assign to belief in god
0:34:53 is similar to that
0:34:55 which you assign to the probability of
0:34:58 you know doing something completely
0:35:01 silly and irrelevant
0:35:03 uh leading you two to infinite happiness
0:35:05 so um so i i think i think that is an
0:35:09 interesting objection
0:35:10 and and uh
0:35:12 first of all i mean there's what hatim
0:35:14 said so what had him said was basically
0:35:16 that probabilities matter and and uh
0:35:19 and uh
0:35:20 the way dr liz jackson puts it is that
0:35:22 well if you have two doors
0:35:25 one of which you know uh has you it has
0:35:28 a probability of 90 percent you know
0:35:32 that you know it's likely it has a 90
0:35:36 likelihood to lead you to an infinite
0:35:37 happiness or
0:35:38 a huge amount of money
0:35:40 another one but it has to be infinite
0:35:43 and the other one has a
0:35:45 0.0001 chance of leading you to an
0:35:48 infinite amount of money well if you do
0:35:49 the math there and you multiply
0:35:51 uh the the uh
0:35:53 the finite you know probability by
0:35:56 the infinite outcome then you know so so
0:35:58 i mean if infinity has this property of
0:36:01 absorption where it would just they'd
0:36:02 just both be the same
0:36:04 so what the what the objector would say
0:36:07 basically is that
0:36:08 well
0:36:09 um if we're taking the math fury
0:36:11 seriously
0:36:13 those two should be the same really they
0:36:16 should be the same
0:36:17 uh
0:36:18 if we're not then pascal's wager fails
0:36:21 because because in the same way i'm
0:36:24 gonna say hey choose the one with like a
0:36:25 90 credence right or or likelihood
0:36:29 well the the the
0:36:31 the atheist is going to say that well
0:36:34 you know there's there's there's
0:36:37 there is a likelihood for something
0:36:39 completely trivial and insignificant and
0:36:42 seemingly silly
0:36:43 to lead you to infinite happiness as
0:36:45 well so if you're taking the math
0:36:47 seriously and the credences seriously
0:36:50 then we should really
0:36:52 respect this property of absorption and
0:36:54 just completely uh dissolve the whole
0:36:57 argument all together so that's really
0:37:00 the gist of israeli mathematical
0:37:01 arguments so
0:37:03 i don't know do you do any of you guys
0:37:04 want to comment on that or
0:37:07 yeah
0:37:08 but i just wanted to bring this up as
0:37:09 well so i don't know why he thinks this
0:37:11 is greek philosophy
0:37:13 because
0:37:15 from what i remember pascal was
0:37:16 definitely not greek
0:37:19 yeah greek philosophy so and it's not
0:37:21 gambling we've already said it's not
0:37:23 gambling i don't know if you were here
0:37:25 brother before or after or like i went
0:37:28 through this it's not about gambling
0:37:30 it's about moving in
0:37:33 towards
0:37:34 weighing the evidences
0:37:36 and inclining to that which um in the
0:37:40 end you think is going to convince you
0:37:42 the most
0:37:43 um and so there was an addition to this
0:37:45 as well um so using probability for
0:37:48 those okay
0:37:56 i'm not sure i want to say anything
0:37:57 about that
0:37:59 probability for the dawah so basic
0:38:01 probability and that was basically
0:38:05 maybe if it is may allah forgive us and
0:38:06 guide us
0:38:07 i mean anyway
0:38:09 anyway you know
0:38:11 now back to that more serious objection
0:38:14 right uh what do you guys think about
0:38:16 the whole absorption thing uh i had to
0:38:18 be already said something about that but
0:38:20 but i think there's there's that more uh
0:38:23 you know
0:38:24 that i mean i think the the way i just
0:38:26 expressed it is that really if
0:38:28 you're taking the math seriously and
0:38:30 you're taking the numbers seriously and
0:38:31 the whole
0:38:32 argument is founded on the idea that
0:38:35 even if it is a
0:38:37 very very low non-zero probability
0:38:40 uh of likelihood for the idea of god's
0:38:43 existence to be true then you should
0:38:44 wager on that
0:38:46 if you're taking the math seriously
0:38:48 there why don't you just apply it across
0:38:50 the board and just everything collapses
0:38:53 yeah well i mean if
0:38:55 if you're treating infinity like a
0:38:57 number which i don't think you should
0:38:58 then yeah it that's true but i think um
0:39:01 what dr liz does at least in in her
0:39:03 papers is that they offer
0:39:05 so so they offer um
0:39:08 like they would use limits or like
0:39:10 tending towards infinity so that way you
0:39:12 can still
0:39:13 um
0:39:15 so that would like the expected values
0:39:16 could still make sense
0:39:18 um so that's just one solution but
0:39:21 i mean
0:39:22 it's just it's it's not obvious that
0:39:25 like for example in the example you gave
0:39:26 where like you have a 99 or like 90
0:39:28 probability of infinite happiness versus
0:39:31 10
0:39:31 i mean who in the right mind would go
0:39:33 for the 10 because well because you know
0:39:35 maps and probabilities you know it's
0:39:37 it's it's an absurd thing to think
0:39:40 but yeah i mean like so it's more
0:39:43 it's more like you're not meant to treat
0:39:44 infinities like a number and you can
0:39:47 think of
0:39:48 uh
0:39:49 she gives some other thought experiments
0:39:50 like imagine there was a
0:39:52 like you're in in this heaven or
0:39:54 something where where like every day
0:39:58 it's um like the happiness level that
0:40:01 you have is like
0:40:03 let's say like you're getting an a on
0:40:05 your report card or something for school
0:40:07 right and then like there's another
0:40:09 heaven where
0:40:10 um every day the happiness level
0:40:14 is like the best day of your life where
0:40:16 i don't know like maybe like you jumped
0:40:17 out of a plane
0:40:18 i i i don't know you went to
0:40:21 do like the six flags or something i
0:40:22 don't know if you guys have six flags in
0:40:24 the uk sorry but like a carnival early
0:40:27 but so so like just a
0:40:29 really exciting day you know and and
0:40:31 like these days like they tend towards
0:40:33 infinity both of them you'd imagine that
0:40:35 like one of them would have more value
0:40:37 because
0:40:38 in each and like in each individual day
0:40:41 there um
0:40:43 there's more happiness there you know so
0:40:46 to speak so that it's not it's not
0:40:48 entirely obvious that
0:40:50 that like we should treat infinities
0:40:52 like we would
0:40:54 um
0:40:55 that like we would numbers
0:40:57 so
0:40:58 yeah
0:41:01 i don't think i've got the brain to talk
0:41:03 about it
0:41:05 yeah yeah so i
0:41:07 i think the whole limits uh approach is
0:41:09 is very reasonable um
0:41:12 was it was actually proposed by a
0:41:15 philosopher who's specialized in like a
0:41:18 probability and decision theory
0:41:20 uh his name was alan hayek or something
0:41:23 right that
0:41:25 what it means when you use limits is
0:41:26 that well you're not gonna just multiply
0:41:28 everything by infinity you're just gonna
0:41:29 take periods
0:41:30 and you're just gonna
0:41:32 keep adding uh so you're gonna have
0:41:34 you're gonna have a table where with the
0:41:36 different world views and
0:41:38 you're gonna you're gonna you're gonna
0:41:39 have the credence there so let's say
0:41:41 0.1
0:41:43 credence versus 0.5 versus 10 versus 50
0:41:46 versus the expected utility
0:41:48 and the negative utility like for
0:41:50 example hell so all that stuff and then
0:41:54 in in the last column where where uh dr
0:41:57 liz jackson does this in her paper uh
0:41:59 salvaging pascal's wager
0:42:01 which is a very good paper you guys
0:42:02 should read it uh in that last column
0:42:04 you're going to have
0:42:06 the the
0:42:07 you're going to have the limit just
0:42:09 increasing
0:42:11 like as an approach to infinity it's not
0:42:13 going to actually be all multiplied by
0:42:15 by infinity and then
0:42:17 like when when when
0:42:18 like when the
0:42:19 increments you know
0:42:21 uh uh
0:42:23 get into a more stable pattern then you
0:42:25 really get an idea of what seems to be
0:42:28 the better decision
0:42:29 that's so that that's very important i
0:42:30 mean so i think i think
0:42:33 that probabilities do matter
0:42:36 but also there's this approach by this
0:42:38 guy wait i forgot his name
0:42:40 um
0:42:41 sorry
0:42:42 i because i was reading a paper by opi
0:42:45 uh in response to uh
0:42:48 this person sorry so i read a paper by
0:42:50 rp and then i read this guy's response
0:42:52 to uh
0:42:53 to to opi his name is something holcomb
0:42:56 i can't find his name his his full name
0:42:58 right now
0:42:59 and and he had an approach of this he he
0:43:01 thought because up he had that whole
0:43:03 approach that you know well the he was
0:43:06 basically talking about the mixed
0:43:07 strategies objection and the many gods
0:43:09 objection and he also made a very
0:43:12 interesting point uh about uh what's it
0:43:14 called um
0:43:16 the non-zero probability for a rational
0:43:19 atheist or agnostic is
0:43:21 infinitesimal
0:43:23 right it's not it's not really uh i mean
0:43:26 at least what he's saying is the
0:43:28 infinitesimal
0:43:30 likelihood is not taken into
0:43:31 consideration because if it's
0:43:32 infinitesimal
0:43:34 then you multiply that by the infinity
0:43:36 well it's going to be finite it's kind
0:43:38 of going to collapse they can cancel
0:43:39 each other out but then uh i think he
0:43:41 makes the stronger claim that for the
0:43:44 rational atheist or agnostic that
0:43:46 non-zero probability that's placed there
0:43:48 is infinitesimal and i haven't really
0:43:50 read enough to get his like complete
0:43:53 thoughts on this but i think that's just
0:43:54 absurd really i mean
0:43:56 so you thought
0:43:58 do you do you understand that hat tim
0:43:59 like
0:44:00 for the rational atheist and agnostic i
0:44:02 think dr oppy and this was you know a
0:44:05 paper back in the 90s so you know maybe
0:44:07 he changed his views now but but what he
0:44:09 thinks is that the credence
0:44:12 that a rational agnostic or atheist puts
0:44:15 on the uh likelihood of god's existence
0:44:19 is infinitesimally small
0:44:21 it's not something that's not a non-zero
0:44:23 probability that has any level of
0:44:25 significance i haven't heard that
0:44:26 objection before yeah but that sounds
0:44:28 crazy
0:44:29 that was like 20 30 years ago
0:44:32 yeah that was that was back in the 90s
0:44:34 and okay he probably doesn't hold that
0:44:36 view anymore i mean it seems just from
0:44:38 what i heard from him recently or like
0:44:40 the last few years where he says that
0:44:42 that that the
0:44:44 evidence for god is reasonable but not
0:44:46 like successful the arguments or
0:44:48 whatever right
0:44:49 yeah yeah and and so
0:44:51 so yeah so i mean it was a good paper he
0:44:54 he he uh um
0:44:55 that i mean i mean all these papers are
0:44:58 all interesting right so but then uh
0:45:00 yeah so this this this philosopher named
0:45:03 something
0:45:05 i don't know the word coming to mind now
0:45:06 is honeycomb but it's like halcum or
0:45:08 something so i'm just gonna say
0:45:10 honeycomb he he responded
0:45:13 by by by saying that uh he made many
0:45:16 critiques of opi's position even though
0:45:18 he was critiquing pascal's wager itself
0:45:20 like he was saying it doesn't work but
0:45:21 for different reasons however what he
0:45:23 was saying about this whole critique
0:45:25 about the many gods and the mixed
0:45:26 strategies objection is that it really
0:45:28 uh doesn't take what it does is that it
0:45:31 it it uh sort of merges these logicist
0:45:34 if that's how it's pronounced and
0:45:36 practical
0:45:38 approaches to reason so he's saying he's
0:45:40 saying that basically pascal's wager is
0:45:42 a pragmatic argument for the existence
0:45:45 of god and what many philosophers do is
0:45:48 that they take this strictly logical
0:45:50 approach to analyzing the actual
0:45:54 decisions
0:45:55 that the person is going to make
0:45:57 which of course there is a logical basis
0:45:59 to it however what he does say is that
0:46:02 there is in neglect of the
0:46:05 actual pragmatic side that's influenced
0:46:07 by so many things in human experience by
0:46:10 by you know society and
0:46:12 and experience and psychology and stuff
0:46:14 like that
0:46:15 uh and
0:46:17 that's that neglect or that you know
0:46:19 overlooking that factor is what makes i
0:46:21 think some philosophers uh
0:46:24 sort of um
0:46:25 you know
0:46:26 appeal to
0:46:27 all kinds of ridiculous things people
0:46:29 won't even uh you know take seriously
0:46:32 like the idea of
0:46:34 the god who rewards the atheist and not
0:46:36 the theist or the god who rewards you
0:46:38 because you know
0:46:39 you ate you eat candies on tuesday or
0:46:41 something like that that's a non-zero
0:46:43 probability it's just as likely as god's
0:46:45 existence and and and rp would come back
0:46:47 and say something like um
0:46:49 i hope he would come back and say
0:46:50 something well like well for the atheist
0:46:52 that's really what it is but then i
0:46:54 would seriously disagree we can we can
0:46:56 expand on that later
0:46:58 uh maybe we bring in some of the guests
0:47:01 here
0:47:06 okay
0:47:08 let's
0:47:10 drink on
0:47:12 sorry
0:47:13 sorry guys this is a weird day we're all
0:47:15 just
0:47:16 we look like i don't know
0:47:20 we're all it's the kids uh okay
0:47:36 but it's not just that it's like the
0:47:38 contrast
0:47:39 with how fresh hat him looks
0:47:43 more often bro
0:47:45 it makes me look even crappier you know
0:47:47 it's like when you've got
0:47:49 you're like when you make an all-right
0:47:50 cake so long as there's no other cakes
0:47:52 around it can look not too bad but then
0:47:54 you get like a proper top-notch super
0:47:56 cake and all of a sudden your cake looks
0:47:57 a lot poopier
0:47:59 next
0:48:00 so what's going on here i like how you
0:48:02 expressed that
0:48:03 uh brother jose
0:48:08 yeah so
0:48:09 i'm guessing the idea behind this
0:48:11 argument is that we're not discussing
0:48:14 the evidences for a specific
0:48:17 um
0:48:18 like position right
0:48:20 we can do as well because remember it's
0:48:22 it's being held in conjunction with
0:48:24 other things
0:48:25 and so that you may be someone who's
0:48:28 like not 100
0:48:29 you're confused or agnostic about all
0:48:32 the other arguments as well
0:48:34 but at least this one you can understand
0:48:36 like at least this one you can get yeah
0:48:38 but the evidence the evidence really
0:48:40 matters and i'm not sure if you heard
0:48:41 what had him said earlier because
0:48:43 the evidence matters is the point is
0:48:46 when we're given the example of the two
0:48:48 doors and the 99 percent versus 0.1
0:48:51 that's basically the credence that we
0:48:53 would assign to like you know the
0:48:54 likelihood of a religion being true of
0:48:56 course it's extreme just just to get the
0:48:58 point across but then
0:49:00 what we would say is because of the many
0:49:03 gods objection or what you're describing
0:49:06 as you know
0:49:07 arguing for a particular position
0:49:10 i think it's related to the objection
0:49:11 the point is that well there's going to
0:49:13 be a different degree of likelihood so
0:49:16 you go for the one that's
0:49:18 most likely
0:49:19 uh you know um if they're all the same
0:49:23 that's a different story i'd say
0:49:24 randomly yeah but then
0:49:26 the the the yeah it really depends on so
0:49:28 many things it's a bit complicated yeah
0:49:30 well i'm mentioning it because i was
0:49:33 actually discussing this the other day
0:49:35 but then an atheist brought up an
0:49:37 interesting point where they said what
0:49:38 if there's a god who sends all
0:49:41 non-atheists
0:49:42 to hell and only puts atheists in heaven
0:49:46 yeah we touched on that so that's the
0:49:49 so that's that's i don't know if that's
0:49:50 the many gods or mixed strategies i
0:49:52 confuse them sometimes i think some
0:49:53 strategies but then but then the point
0:49:55 the point here is that well
0:49:57 so so again
0:49:59 so if you have that let's assume you
0:50:01 have that religion where all the
0:50:02 atheists go to heaven right and then you
0:50:04 have islam right so let's assume you're
0:50:06 you're the kind of person who believes
0:50:08 that islam has a
0:50:11 credence that is significantly higher
0:50:13 you know than than this one
0:50:16 that you know the evidences for it are
0:50:18 way higher than this uh religion that
0:50:21 nobody believes in this hypothetical
0:50:22 religion that nobody believes in then
0:50:24 well then that should matter so the
0:50:26 point is it's not really just about the
0:50:27 mere
0:50:28 you know epistemic possibility right the
0:50:30 fact that something is a non-zero
0:50:32 probability you're just going to
0:50:33 consider everything and that's part of
0:50:35 the objection of of professor hong kong
0:50:37 as well where where he says that well
0:50:40 the the the the
0:50:42 proof that you guys him talking to a lot
0:50:44 of philosophers aren't really taking the
0:50:46 pragmatic side of this seriously is
0:50:48 really that you come up with all these
0:50:49 silly stuff you're really not
0:50:52 keeping in mind the the idea of you know
0:50:55 the pragmatic
0:50:58 process of decision making that humans
0:51:00 are going to go through they're not
0:51:01 going to really consider this you know
0:51:02 these silly stuff
0:51:04 yeah
0:51:05 so that argument seems like it seems to
0:51:08 be a concession that like we should
0:51:09 really just take the religion seriously
0:51:12 that have some sort of eternal
0:51:13 punishment or eternal hell or sorry
0:51:16 everlasting punishment slash hell
0:51:18 because um
0:51:20 the
0:51:21 i mean i just think of the rel that like
0:51:23 this hypothetical religion positive
0:51:24 right so like you go to hell
0:51:27 if you're in if you're if you're a
0:51:29 theist and you go to paradise if you're
0:51:31 an atheist right it's like okay so
0:51:34 so i mean
0:51:35 he could have just left it at atheism
0:51:37 and like not included the hell or
0:51:39 anything like that but so like he is
0:51:40 taking into consideration
0:51:42 uh like the idea of expected value and i
0:51:45 think when you do that you can cross out
0:51:47 a lot of you know going back to the mini
0:51:48 god's objection you can cross out a lot
0:51:50 of the
0:51:51 like religions on the list immediately
0:51:53 that
0:51:54 that don't have like some sort of uh
0:51:57 it's like everlasting
0:51:58 like let's say i mean the reason they
0:52:00 have to do that
0:52:01 if they don't because you see on i think
0:52:03 on like certain formulations of the
0:52:05 argument i mean the atheist or the
0:52:06 agnostic and even professor alfie
0:52:08 acknowledges this would be in a position
0:52:10 where he has to say that well you know
0:52:12 wagering on atheism has
0:52:14 higher or equal
0:52:16 expected utility
0:52:17 well i mean
0:52:19 it depends on what you mean by atheism
0:52:20 so this this this weird
0:52:22 religion where atheists go to heaven
0:52:24 hell right
0:52:25 the the the point is that well if you're
0:52:27 dealing with infinities and you're
0:52:28 taking for granted the absorption
0:52:31 problem the absorption property of
0:52:33 infinity and you're not going to do
0:52:34 anything about that like you know talk
0:52:36 in terms of limits or take for example
0:52:38 michael mike mike rota's approach where
0:52:41 he formulates an argument that doesn't
0:52:42 rely on infinities at all just very
0:52:44 arbitrarily high number that uh
0:52:47 and this this doesn't work for atheists
0:52:50 who think that there's a very very very
0:52:51 low probability but we're more for
0:52:53 agnostics and like people who give
0:52:55 religion a bit of a higher probability
0:52:57 somebody who sees the reason but it's
0:52:59 just maybe a bit confused so so mike
0:53:01 rota has that approach as well
0:53:02 infinities have nothing to do with his
0:53:04 uh
0:53:06 with his formulation of pascal's wager
0:53:08 and
0:53:08 and it works and he bases it on action
0:53:11 as well not belief so action that can
0:53:12 lead to belief but then uh but then yeah
0:53:15 the idea is that infinities have to come
0:53:16 in to the picture because um i mean
0:53:19 because because that's really the point
0:53:20 of the objection that well yeah you're
0:53:22 gonna have different views all of which
0:53:25 you know
0:53:26 would have a say in this idea of like
0:53:27 infinite utility
0:53:29 or infinite negative utility so so they
0:53:31 have to be taken seriously
0:53:33 yeah exactly exactly i was just about to
0:53:34 say that like it's
0:53:36 like there's no point in taking them
0:53:38 seriously unless there's that uh you
0:53:40 know the infinite like reward or
0:53:42 punishment
0:53:43 you know exactly
0:53:45 i i see what you're saying and that's
0:53:47 that's really
0:53:48 yeah that goes back i don't know if you
0:53:49 remember me saying you know the idea of
0:53:51 like when we're talking about the
0:53:52 problem of
0:53:54 infinite or eternal hell right and i and
0:53:56 i think yeah three of us were on we were
0:53:58 on a call when yusuf you did that whole
0:54:00 uh
0:54:03 i wish you could i wish you could
0:54:04 recreate it he doesn't mind doing it
0:54:06 live when i was saying that you know
0:54:08 imagine like you know so so we're
0:54:09 thinking of the afterlife as like this
0:54:11 this eternal resting place i think
0:54:13 generally human psychology i mean don't
0:54:14 quote me on this i'll have to look into
0:54:16 it but generally that our our uh when we
0:54:19 the way we look at the afterlife and
0:54:21 this ultimate accountability is not
0:54:23 really a place where oh guys you know
0:54:24 you're gonna
0:54:25 you're gonna suffer for like you know 10
0:54:27 years or a hundred years
0:54:28 i remember yeah i was like it seems like
0:54:31 the next life is this resting
0:54:35 place that doesn't know
0:54:37 in order for it to really carry its
0:54:39 true weight of like how serious it is
0:54:41 is this this place where okay that's
0:54:43 where you're going to be and that's it
0:54:45 and then use of i don't know
0:54:46Music 0:54:47 you will suffer a minor inconvenience
0:54:52 certain amount of time you may have an
0:54:54 itch
0:54:56 but you cannot scratch on the end of
0:54:57 your nose
0:54:59 have an eternal age
0:55:00 yeah eternal itch yeah i mean imagine
0:55:02 that was the warning really i mean yeah
0:55:05 it could be more severe than that but
0:55:06 you get the idea
0:55:07 so so yeah i think that's that's a good
0:55:09 point that that the infinities do matter
0:55:11 and they're very significant and uh
0:55:14 that's why they're brought into the
0:55:15 picture with this hypothetical atheist
0:55:16 religion
0:55:17 yeah but we might be ignoring brother
0:55:19 josiah so i don't know i'm sorry guys
0:55:22 so as well you know that example it's a
0:55:24 bit of a weird example as well because
0:55:26 it's like
0:55:26 so
0:55:28 who who's asking you to believe this
0:55:29 religion
0:55:31 it's not the atheist right well i think
0:55:33 because the atheist is saying no there
0:55:35 isn't a god but in that example it's
0:55:37 like
0:55:38 there's there is a god that only
0:55:42 i i think what they were trying to say
0:55:44 is like if we're gonna go solely based
0:55:46 on
0:55:47 like pragmatics and we're not going to
0:55:49 consider the epistemic probabilities
0:55:52 then no we still have we still have oh
0:55:54 how is that pragmatic though i mean i
0:55:55 know so here's a little bit worse
0:55:58 as well like here's where it would work
0:56:00 was i so if for the agnostic or the
0:56:02 atheist
0:56:03 this this the the the likelihood
0:56:06 or the credence he assigns to this
0:56:08 hypothetical non-existent religion where
0:56:10 all atheists go to hell and all these go
0:56:12 to heaven if the credence he assigns to
0:56:14 it is exactly the same or more that any
0:56:17 of like let's say the abrahamic faiths
0:56:19 you know
0:56:19 um
0:56:20 and whatever evidence they have then
0:56:21 then yeah that
0:56:23 might work
0:56:24 yeah that might work but then what
0:56:25 you're going to have to assume is that
0:56:27 when we so so once we step into the
0:56:30 realm of infinity so we make the
0:56:31 decision that okay i'm going to take
0:56:32 these this idea of an afterlife
0:56:34 seriously just because of the
0:56:35 possibility of it and i'm going to step
0:56:37 into that circle and look at
0:56:39 and then suddenly i find all these
0:56:40 different views that possibly lead to
0:56:43 infinite utility or
0:56:45 you know a negative infinite negative
0:56:47 negative infinite utility
0:56:49 then once you do that what you're i
0:56:50 think what you'd have to say is that in
0:56:53 comparing all of these views
0:56:56 um
0:56:57 they're they're they're all exactly the
0:56:59 same
0:56:59 i can't i can't prefer one over the
0:57:01 other even by like a very low
0:57:04 uh uh uh percentage i i don't think
0:57:07 that's plausible i mean considering how
0:57:08 many they are but i mean what they
0:57:10 really are saying is that the infinity
0:57:12 has this absorption property and it
0:57:13 doesn't matter whether you know one is
0:57:16 99.9999
0:57:18 you know one has that level of credence
0:57:20 and all of the rest have
0:57:23 0.0001 it doesn't matter because if the
0:57:26 infinity just absorbs them all
0:57:28 and that's that's that's mathematically
0:57:30 sound but it's pragmatically silly and
0:57:34 also there are ways to deal with that in
0:57:36 terms of uh you know just looking at it
0:57:38 in terms of limits uh which dr liz
0:57:40 jackson does
0:57:41 or even what mike roda does in terms of
0:57:44 like assigning a very
0:57:45 like arbitrarily high number
0:57:47 and and that works too like like the
0:57:49 math
0:57:50 works there as well
0:57:53 yeah i would honestly think desire that
0:57:55 this would really mostly
0:57:56 be suitable for like for my position
0:57:58 like for for the kind of agnostic who's
0:58:00 like i i don't know
0:58:02 but i like i think the kind of agnostic
0:58:04 who does see the permissiveness of both
0:58:07 sides and who does see
0:58:10 that you know this might be true for me
0:58:12 that's that's what would work i think
0:58:14 for for somebody who thinks that the
0:58:16 probability is that low
0:58:18 to be honest i just think that's
0:58:19 straight up irrational so i don't see
0:58:21 them really taking this argument
0:58:22 seriously because of
0:58:25 their inability to take all the other
0:58:27 arguments for theism seriously but
0:58:29 yeah i guess that's that that would be
0:58:31 if you have anything else to say you can
0:58:33 say it
0:58:34 and then we can move on inshaallah to
0:58:35 the next guest
0:58:36 that's good
0:58:37 it's just like welcome well you have to
0:58:39 get rid of them before we move on to an
0:58:41 another guest
0:58:43 yeah i want to address something okay
0:58:45 yeah go ahead so
0:58:47 uh
0:58:49 why so religious
0:58:51 i don't know who banned you
0:58:53 uh but to be honest i think i'm gonna
0:58:55 ban this account as well and i'll tell
0:58:57 you why
0:59:00 i'll tell you why because
0:59:02 you're really annoying
0:59:04 i'm just going to put it bluntly
0:59:06 you lower the quality of the podcast we
0:59:08 really don't mind having non-believers
0:59:10 on we have we've got plenty of them that
0:59:12 come on all the time it's not that we
0:59:13 don't mind we want non-believers yeah
0:59:15 that's the whole point we're inviting
0:59:17 them on and we're going to have them but
0:59:18 you
0:59:20 are insufferable
0:59:22 mate you're insufferable and i'm going
0:59:24 to bring up your last comment
0:59:27 just to kind of
0:59:29 prove the point here pascal's wager
0:59:31 doesn't even come close to proving allah
0:59:34 we're not talking about a proof for
0:59:36 allah like
0:59:39 no and the second part of that also use
0:59:41 one religion against the other and it
0:59:43 shows us
0:59:44 so i mean this like so so
0:59:47 i'm assuming i need to plug in
0:59:49 the computer
0:59:50 just so this is gonna look weird i need
0:59:53 to plug my computer in so i'm gonna go
0:59:54 ahead and i'm going under the desk i'm
0:59:56 gonna go ahead go ahead
0:59:58 it's like this this argument is this
1:00:00 comment really just just it just
1:00:02 makes me feel like you're not listening
1:00:03 so i mean maybe the objection works but
1:00:05 at least instead of restating the
1:00:07 objection that we already responded to
1:00:09 just maybe state the response and then
1:00:12 respond to that explain why the response
1:00:15 doesn't work yeah maybe our response was
1:00:17 silly but the point is it's been
1:00:18 responded to so yeah so you know people
1:00:20 aren't right or religious why so
1:00:22 religious go away
1:00:24 go away i don't want you here you're
1:00:26 annoying
1:00:28 you give me a headache you give me a
1:00:30 headache i'll just be honest
1:00:32 i've tried to tolerate you for a long
1:00:34 time
1:00:35 and i'm bored of it now i'm bored of it
1:00:37 i want good quality guests good quality
1:00:39 yes and they can be disbelievers they
1:00:42 can not like islam
1:00:43 that's fine
1:00:44 but when you're like
1:00:47 just sort of broken
1:00:49 with your responses
1:00:51 and you just disregard the points you
1:00:53 make and you make these silly points and
1:00:57 you're like you're just really annoying
1:00:59 i'll just be honest with you and i i
1:01:00 don't think we have to entertain
1:01:03 absolutely every guest that ever wants
1:01:05 to come on
1:01:06 um you can go to other podcasts you can
1:01:08 go annoy them uh so i'm gonna block you
1:01:11 on your second account
1:01:12 and whenever it becomes obvious that
1:01:14 it's you again i'm just gonna block that
1:01:15 one too because uh i'm bored here
1:01:18 yep and leave us alone
1:01:21 please
1:01:22 sleep yousef
1:01:33 be there
1:01:36 all right
1:02:04 the last guest was hilarious i have to
1:02:06 say
1:02:08 just randomly yeah
1:02:10 i mean why a hijab picture i don't know
1:02:13 yeah yeah how are you doing brother
1:02:15 nice to see you
1:02:17 again um
1:02:20 i just wanted to say
1:02:22 that i understand this argument doesn't
1:02:24 intend to prove god's existence
1:02:27 and
1:02:28 it much rather tries to
1:02:30Music 1:02:31 deal with stubborn agnostics
1:02:34 if i have the right impression
1:02:37 not even just stubborn just like or
1:02:38 believers who are on the verge of you
1:02:40 know
1:02:42 heading out
1:02:43 okay
1:02:45 well i believe it is a problematic or
1:02:48 unusual argument to use from uh
1:02:52 within the muslim tradition
1:02:54 you mean for anybody like it it's like
1:02:56 there's no situation in
1:02:58 in in in which this kind of reasoning
1:03:00 can be valid yes
1:03:02 okay explain why
1:03:05 i think such an argument would be used
1:03:07 if you have a stubborn agnostic or an
1:03:10 atheist which
1:03:12 does not want to concede that there are
1:03:14 any good reasons to believe
1:03:16 in a god
1:03:18 and these are the wager kind of tries to
1:03:21 coerce
1:03:22 the person and to
1:03:24 to at least consider the belief
1:03:27 i think there are many
1:03:28 better arguments particularly the
1:03:32 epistemological arguments to show that
1:03:35 theism as a default position is is
1:03:38 at least not irrational or even rational
1:03:41 to hold
1:03:44 yeah i mean they're they're definitely
1:03:46 better argument but better arguments in
1:03:48 establishing what i mean i mean it
1:03:50 depends on what the argument is trying
1:03:52 to establish yeah this is a different
1:03:54 it's not it's not trying to establish an
1:03:55 is it's it's an art you know like this
1:03:57 is what you ought to do
1:03:59 whereas uh
1:04:01 so so for example like what you're
1:04:02 speaking of yes it seems like
1:04:05 hey like theism is more reasonable or
1:04:07 irrational here's why you see it i mean
1:04:09 like that's it's a different
1:04:14 because the atheist
1:04:15Music 1:04:17 is adamant in that there's absolutely no
1:04:20 good reason
1:04:22 uh to
1:04:24 believe i'm not sure if i'm getting my
1:04:27 point across
1:04:28 sorry uh you seen i got distracted i
1:04:30 really apologize can you repeat that
1:04:31 last part
1:04:34 just the last point the achis is not
1:04:36 adamant in what
1:04:37 he is adamant in that there is no
1:04:40 absolutely no
1:04:41 good reason to believe in a god
1:04:44 i mean it depends
1:04:46 so it depends on what kind of atheist
1:04:48 you're talking about i mean
1:04:49 maybe he classifies himself as an
1:04:51 atheist he doesn't think that there are
1:04:54 no good reasons to believe in god
1:04:57 yes we are talking about the utility of
1:04:58 the argument of pascal's wager
1:05:01 okay okay okay so what you're saying is
1:05:03 what you're saying is is that it's not
1:05:05 gonna work
1:05:06 with the atheist or the agnostic it may
1:05:08 work
1:05:09 but from an islamic tradition it is
1:05:12 not
1:05:13 i believe not
1:05:15 a good one to use
1:05:17 why because because it leads to this
1:05:19 very weak state of belief are you saying
1:05:22 um
1:05:24 not necessary
1:05:25 well yes it ties into that because most
1:05:27 people agree that in matters of iman
1:05:32 and um
1:05:34 also
1:05:35 what's that what's the lead being done
1:05:36 here
1:05:38 they believe in a god
1:05:40 what in the existence of the world
1:05:42 what's the
1:05:43 so but what's the lead i don't know if
1:05:45 maybe i'm misunderstanding how you're
1:05:48 using that word i mean well
1:05:49 it means blindly following it's maybe uh
1:05:52 um
1:05:53 yeah but we're not asking anybody to
1:05:55 blindly follow anything
1:05:57 what is a belief that is not genuine
1:06:00 genuine
1:06:02 but again we're not asking anybody to
1:06:04 not genuinely believe something first of
1:06:06 all so there's also this discussion
1:06:09 it ties into this objection thank you
1:06:11 for bringing it up because we didn't
1:06:12 bring up this objection of um it's
1:06:14 called the impossibility objection right
1:06:16 so there's this thing in in in
1:06:18 philosophy called you know docsastic
1:06:20 volunteerism right there's the idea well
1:06:23 it's the question of whether we can
1:06:24 choose our beliefs it's just a fancy way
1:06:27 of saying you know whether we
1:06:29 choosing beliefs versus
1:06:31 in volunteerism where you really can't
1:06:32 choose your beliefs it's just you know
1:06:34 they're just zapped into your head
1:06:36 through your experiences or whatever
1:06:38 and and really
1:06:41 um it's it's a
1:06:43 long story short i mean one of the one
1:06:45 of the main objections is that wait how
1:06:46 does this argument work when i it's not
1:06:48 like there's a switch up there i could
1:06:49 just i can switch and ah okay suddenly i
1:06:51 believe in god right
1:06:53 uh but then there are a few ways to deal
1:06:56 with this uh one of the ways we
1:06:57 mentioned earlier which is it's not
1:06:58 really an argument that tells you to hey
1:07:01 believe it's an argument that tells you
1:07:03 to actually commit with your acts with
1:07:06 your actions and with the way you live
1:07:07 your life and maybe through that
1:07:10 will you try to be sincere and sincerely
1:07:12 ask god you know guide me maybe through
1:07:15 that you will attain that belief that
1:07:17 you're talking about which is not just a
1:07:19 fake belief
1:07:20 or on the on on the other side which i
1:07:23 think is not very different from what i
1:07:24 said right now when i'm thinking of it
1:07:25 now that i'm thinking of it is the that
1:07:27 there's a position in the middle called
1:07:29 indirect doxastic volunteerism where you
1:07:32 can indirectly control some beliefs so
1:07:35 again dr liz jackson speaks about this
1:07:36 and she says something like well you can
1:07:38 you i can't make you believe that one
1:07:40 plus one equals three right that's
1:07:43 there's there's no way so so there you
1:07:45 have no choice
1:07:46 but then
1:07:47 there are certain beliefs that seem to
1:07:49 be in a bit of a gray area right that
1:07:52 it's not really as straightforward as
1:07:54 one plus one equals three that you can
1:07:56 look at the world in a certain way and
1:07:58 choose to commit to certain things and
1:08:00 surround yourself with certain people
1:08:01 and read certain things
1:08:03 that would make you more open
1:08:06 to the view it's not as binary as one
1:08:09 plus one equals two so uh and again it's
1:08:12 not doing it in like a dishonest way
1:08:14 because you see permissiveness in there
1:08:16 you see that it's epistemically
1:08:18 permissive as in there's rational ground
1:08:20 for it
1:08:21 and there is utility there is utility in
1:08:23 the sense that okay uh it's the better
1:08:25 choice to make to actually commit to
1:08:28 this
1:08:29 because it's rational and there's
1:08:30 utility
1:08:31 uh but then maybe you're talking about
1:08:33 the atheist who sees no epis no
1:08:35 permissiveness in the sense that it's
1:08:36 completely irrational
1:08:38 yeah no i wouldn't use this argument i
1:08:40 would yeah i think you'd have much more
1:08:42 of a case there because that's what i
1:08:43 said before you came on that honestly
1:08:44 that's
1:08:45 that's the kind of agnostic i'd use it
1:08:47 with as for that atheist
1:08:50 i still think you can make a case so
1:08:51 it's not gonna so you're gonna lose the
1:08:53 permissiveness right so the atheist
1:08:55 doesn't see the rationale but what
1:08:56 you're basically telling him is that
1:08:58 he's a certain point he's at a certain
1:08:59 point in his life like as yusuf
1:09:01 mentioned earlier when he talked about
1:09:03 like being depressed and you know
1:09:05 reaching a dead end in your life and
1:09:06 stuff like that
1:09:07 and it doesn't have to be that but again
1:09:09 it's just a good analogy where where you
1:09:12 just need to make a decision that okay
1:09:14 just the fact that there is a
1:09:15 possibility means i'm going to take this
1:09:17 seriously right just just the fact that
1:09:19 there is a small possibility right
1:09:22 i can be so
1:09:24 rationally grounded and certain in my
1:09:25 atheism but at the end of the day what
1:09:27 does that really mean for a lot of
1:09:28 atheists who are like seriously
1:09:31 skeptical about even what we could know
1:09:33 about the world so just that small
1:09:35 epistemic possibility right just that
1:09:38 small i'm gonna take it seriously i'm
1:09:40 gonna step into the realm of this
1:09:42 infinite utility and see what i can take
1:09:44 seriously in this world i'm gonna commit
1:09:46 my life not to like allah right now i'm
1:09:49 believing i'm going to commit my life to
1:09:53 taking this question seriously and
1:09:55 finding the most reasonable position and
1:09:58 i'm going to be sincere in doing that
1:09:59 that's what there's nothing wrong or
1:10:01 dishonest about that i mean you're just
1:10:03 you're just acting based it's you're
1:10:05 just acting based on what you think has
1:10:08 the highest expected utility
1:10:11 well yes i wasn't necessarily claiming
1:10:14 dishonesty
1:10:16 maybe i um
1:10:19 misunderstood the application of the
1:10:21 argument
1:10:23 but yeah the so the argument again what
1:10:25 i told you is it depends so the argument
1:10:27 isn't really telling is not trying to
1:10:28 zap the belief into your head that okay
1:10:30 just believe move on that's not that's
1:10:32 not what anyone is trying to do yeah
1:10:34 okay so maybe if i didn't respond to you
1:10:37 if that wasn't a good response to you
1:10:38 then you can maybe
1:10:40 maybe reformulate because we have to
1:10:41 move on in a bit but maybe try to
1:10:42 re-express like what your concern
1:10:44 specifically is well the uh the argument
1:10:47 uses re reward
1:10:49 reward and punishment
1:10:51 as a
1:10:52 tool to move the
1:10:54 um the subject
1:11:01 we believe that
1:11:02 but um
1:11:04 all the uh supplementary arguments that
1:11:06 we use for god's existent existence
1:11:09 maybe lead you to
1:11:12 theism
1:11:14 and
1:11:15 the argument of postcards rage wager
1:11:20 presupposes i believe that
1:11:22 the existence of an afterlife
1:11:25 is possible if and only if god exists
1:11:28 but you could restate the
1:11:30 brother brother now you're going to a
1:11:32 different objection we touched upon that
1:11:34 and we didn't assume that it's possible
1:11:35 if and only if god exists we we talked
1:11:38 about the many gods and the mixed
1:11:39 strategies objection and all that stuff
1:11:41 i think that's a different consideration
1:11:42 because because i think you were talking
1:11:43 more within an islamic paradigm why it's
1:11:45 problematic and it seems like where you
1:11:47 were going with that is that you know
1:11:50 it basically scares people into
1:11:52 believing or something well i don't know
1:11:54 i mean if
1:11:55 if if something really might be scary
1:11:57 about the afterlife i want you to scare
1:11:59 me i mean i just it depends on what you
1:12:01 mean if is it like manipu manipulative
1:12:04 are we trying to emotionally manipulate
1:12:06 people
1:12:07 no it's not it's not about that it's not
1:12:09 it's not really about that there can be
1:12:11 a genuine case of you know
1:12:16 a genuine case where you actually have
1:12:19 good reason
1:12:20 to adopt a certain view or to take a
1:12:23 certain view seriously
1:12:25 based on certain fears you have or based
1:12:28 on certain
1:12:29 utility you want to get from it there's
1:12:30 nothing there's nothing inherently wrong
1:12:33 with that and as we agree allah uses
1:12:35 that in the quran with non-believers who
1:12:37 don't believe in hell talks to them
1:12:39 about hell and allah
1:12:41 explicitly mentions in a few places that
1:12:43 this is meant as a warning it is meant
1:12:45 to scare them so
1:12:47 so uh so yeah i mean there could be a
1:12:50 certain context in which that's maybe
1:12:52 manipulative and you're just trying to
1:12:53 manipulate emotions and stuff like that
1:12:54 but that's not really how we're trying
1:12:55 to put it here
1:12:57 so i don't know you see if you had you
1:12:59 could you could just you could have the
1:13:00 final word say what you need to say and
1:13:02 then we need to move on inshaallah
1:13:04 uh no i thank you very much um i
1:13:06 appreciate your work and um i will
1:13:09 definitely look more into it maybe i
1:13:11 didn't grasp it fully the argument
1:13:14 yeah yeah please do it
1:13:16 and it's always a pleasure having you on
1:13:17 thank you
1:13:18 it's okay
1:13:21 all right we've got the uh yield famous
1:13:24 isan it's just uh it's just the same as
1:13:26 sun
1:13:27 yeah i think it's a sun yes
1:13:29 sorry i'm uh
1:13:31 i'm i'm i'm at my parents and they've
1:13:33 got very weak internet so um i've had to
1:13:35 kept the camera switched off that's okay
1:13:37 yeah no it's fine dory it's uh it's cool
1:13:40 how are you doing anyway you good
1:13:42 yeah hi okay so uh
1:13:45 yeah i'm good thanks it's uh good to see
1:13:47 you guys um so i've just gotta i mean
1:13:49 i've obviously listened to them and
1:13:50 you're probably aware of you know most
1:13:52 of the objections i might raise um
1:13:54 i think firstly there was the the many
1:13:56 gods argument
1:13:58 and you know you may be you may be
1:13:59 interested to know that the
1:14:01 the first ever recorded use of pascal's
1:14:03 wager was by a hindu philosopher in
1:14:06 something like two to three hundred bc
1:14:09 uh so
1:14:10 you know this you know this many gods
1:14:12 and you know it's not just many
1:14:14 different religions you've got several
1:14:16 different religions even within the same
1:14:18 god because you've got catholics who say
1:14:21 anybody who doesn't accept jesus as the
1:14:24 son of god is going to hell so that
1:14:27 includes all you muslims
1:14:29 according to their opinion
1:14:30 and um
1:14:32 and then obviously there will be some
1:14:33 muslims who say you know there'll be
1:14:34 some sunnis who say shias are heretics
1:14:38 and they won't go and so that's even
1:14:40 within one religion so you know i think
1:14:42 the the fact that yeah but you're just
1:14:45 so sorry to cut you off i just want to
1:14:47 try to maybe get the most out of this
1:14:49 period because some people are waiting
1:14:50 so so
1:14:52 but you're just repeating that um
1:14:55 you're just repeating that what's it
1:14:56 called um
1:14:58 uh uh the the many calls many god's
1:15:00 objection right we we we kind of already
1:15:02 addressed that and it's it's important
1:15:04 to keep in mind by the way that i mean
1:15:06 this argument for us is not like it's
1:15:08 it's it's it's this is for the agnostic
1:15:10 party we think that
1:15:12 clearly there is a very strong positive
1:15:15 rational case for theism and we think
1:15:18 that
1:15:19 uh
1:15:19 atheism
1:15:21 you know
1:15:22 i mean depending on how it's framed
1:15:24 can be irrational doesn't mean that all
1:15:26 atheists are irrational but atheism as a
1:15:28 position i think it's irrational now
1:15:30 that's not so that's not that's not the
1:15:32 the issue is right now we're addressing
1:15:34 a different kind of concern for a
1:15:36 specific kind of person who has a
1:15:38 specific kind of question
1:15:40 so um
1:15:41 so you're just repeating the many gods
1:15:43 objection we we we just
1:15:46 addressed that objection to me i think
1:15:48 that's quite an important thing um and
1:15:50 also you know uh
1:15:52 it's uh pascal's would you think another
1:15:54 problem is it's it's not an argument for
1:15:56 belief it's an argument for pretending
1:15:58 to believe and then you're no um
1:16:00 okay sorry son i'm i just i just i
1:16:03 assume you were listening so
1:16:06 at least so if you were listening then i
1:16:08 i the problem is
1:16:09 just instead of repeating objections
1:16:11 that we've responded to
1:16:13 maybe mention the responses we made and
1:16:16 explain why they're not satisfactory
1:16:18 because just repeating the objection
1:16:19 itself just assumes that we haven't we
1:16:21 haven't addressed it i've heard you know
1:16:23 i know you've mentioned them and i've
1:16:24 listened to what you said and you said
1:16:26 there's some utility um in doing the
1:16:29 actions because it might lead you to be
1:16:31 more religious and that's uh you know
1:16:33 that that's one
1:16:35 way to look at it but um you know i
1:16:37 think that belief has costs as well
1:16:38 because
1:16:40 even if you did go through the motions
1:16:42 of acting like uh you're religious and
1:16:43 you believe in it then uh you know
1:16:46 there's there's still harm so if you
1:16:48 don't believe in it and you're forcing
1:16:49 yourself to carry through the actions uh
1:16:52 there are risks there are consequences
1:16:54 you know the fasting you may cause you
1:16:56 some health problems you know you go on
1:16:57 had you might get in a hajj stampede or
1:16:59 something like that
1:17:01 yeah but you could say that way
1:17:03 so but if you're gonna so first of all
1:17:05 with the fasting it's not compulsory if
1:17:07 it's ever gonna cause hands to you
1:17:09 that's one thing
1:17:10 like
1:17:11 it could actually be said to be haram if
1:17:13 it's going to put your life in detriment
1:17:16 so fast you're not allowed to so that's
1:17:18 one thing uh secondly with regards to
1:17:21 the stampeding thing like you can make
1:17:23 that argument about crossing the road
1:17:25 you know if you cross the road there's a
1:17:26 possibility that a car might run you
1:17:28 over so you know that could be
1:17:29 detrimental to your health you shouldn't
1:17:30 really cross roads and you know
1:17:33 we're talking about like very rare
1:17:35 things that occur
1:17:37 very like
1:17:38 you know the chance is really really low
1:17:40 of something like that happening
1:17:42 so yeah why would you allow that
1:17:45 to
1:17:46 influence you to not become a muslim
1:17:48 because there's a tiny possibility that
1:17:50 if you go on hajj you might get started
1:17:52 well there'll be there'll be other
1:17:53 things so uh depending on your personal
1:17:55 viewpoint you may view many things in
1:17:56 the quran is immoral there's the you
1:17:59 know the scientific inaccuracies so yeah
1:18:02 although you guys are convinced of it so
1:18:04 it's not an issue but for somebody who's
1:18:05 on the borderline who's thinking of
1:18:06 leaving um or even it's you know some
1:18:08 agnostic uh it would be quite a it could
1:18:12 be quite a strain to pretend to believe
1:18:15 in it
1:18:16 uh so that's you know that's another
1:18:17 problem and you know i tend to think i
1:18:19 tend to follow the atheist wager
1:18:22 uh which which basically goes live a
1:18:24 good life and if there is a benevolent
1:18:26 god uh then he'll look kindly on that
1:18:28 and if you
1:18:29 if you don't um you know if you live
1:18:32 if you live a good life and the god is
1:18:34 unhappy that you've worshipped it then
1:18:35 that's not a uh that's not a benevolent
1:18:37 god
1:18:38 but so son i mean the last thing you
1:18:40 said i think i can take that a bit
1:18:41 seriously
1:18:42 i just i heard i heard
1:18:44 so
1:18:46 it stuck out because it actually made
1:18:47 sense so so what you said it was that uh
1:18:50 you know given certain considerations
1:18:52 science in the quran moral aspects or
1:18:53 whatever there could be a a very like
1:18:56 a comprehensive rational case
1:18:59 for why these positions are completely
1:19:01 irrational right so it's like you
1:19:03 couldn't get yourself to even
1:19:06 begin to yeah so yeah so so so so it's
1:19:09 basically the the idea that um
1:19:14 the idea that you wouldn't ever really
1:19:16 be committing because you don't
1:19:18 you're not really ever going to consider
1:19:20 that that that the possibility the
1:19:22 epistemic possibility of this being true
1:19:24 is worth considering at all in any case
1:19:28 right yeah so you know but that would
1:19:30 apply to the so so i think that's that's
1:19:32 a good objection but then i think that
1:19:34 would apply to the the the whole
1:19:36 infinitesimally small
1:19:38 uh you know probability that that was
1:19:40 raised earlier that i mentioned from
1:19:42 from from opi where he says that well
1:19:45 for him all but i think it's just to put
1:19:47 it more modestly some atheists
1:19:50 have that very
1:19:52 like
1:19:53 a an infinitesimally small uh percentage
1:19:57 of credence placed on on theism it's not
1:19:59 something that it's something that would
1:20:01 cancel out the infinity in that case
1:20:03 okay fine i mean i don't think yeah i
1:20:05 don't think you're personally
1:20:07 you know if you have this one you know
1:20:08 your new one life and you can't convince
1:20:10 yourself of it it'll cause you a lot of
1:20:12 distress and there is this of course you
1:20:14 go back to the many gods would you you
1:20:15 say you mentioned
1:20:17 but then the uh one other issue is you
1:20:19 know surely if you've got this
1:20:21 omnipotent knows everything god isn't
1:20:23 that god going to see through your
1:20:24 dishonesty and pretending
1:20:27 no because again it's not about
1:20:29 pretending it's about being open to the
1:20:31 possibility
1:20:33 and
1:20:34 try and get out to see
1:20:36 what happens
1:20:37 to see if it does help to convince in
1:20:41 making the
1:20:43 um the choice to step in that
1:20:44 possibility so it's not like
1:20:47 i disbelieve but i'm gonna pretend that
1:20:49 i believe
1:20:51 uh like it's it's not
1:20:53 that's not the argument at all um and if
1:20:55 you're gonna and the just the distress
1:20:58 on its own doesn't really matter i think
1:21:00 it's the distress plus the idea that
1:21:02 like like there's a
1:21:04 practically a zero percent chance of
1:21:06 this being true fine i mean why are you
1:21:07 going to give yourself a trouble but
1:21:09 then i think the so the stress on its
1:21:11 own is not really so if you put like a
1:21:13 10 or 20 or 30 percent likelihood for
1:21:15 this to be true then i don't think the
1:21:17 distress is a huge issue considering
1:21:19 everything else we've said so it's it's
1:21:21 it's it's it's it's significant
1:21:24 it's going to be tiny because yeah you
1:21:25 said you got tiny
1:21:28 even within religions you've got these
1:21:29 multiple
1:21:30 paths and you've got multiple you've got
1:21:32 different religions there's the same god
1:21:34 and then you've got multiple gods and
1:21:36 so
1:21:37 yeah it's uh
1:21:39 yeah so you would have to do some work
1:21:40 you'd have to do some work to assess the
1:21:42 probabilities
1:21:44 yeah right
1:21:45 we're not saying just
1:21:46 we're not saying okay except pascal's
1:21:49 wager and then roll the dice
1:21:52 like you know it's not the case that
1:21:55 like we just want you to be muslim now
1:21:58 that you've been convinced of pascal's
1:21:59 way not that you have been convinced of
1:22:00 it but if you were to say okay maybe
1:22:03 you've got a point with pascal's wager
1:22:05 um so what do i why should i just become
1:22:07 muslim though it's like well this is the
1:22:09 thing so if you've at least become
1:22:11 convinced
1:22:12 um that pascal's wager is going to be
1:22:14 something that motivates you well that
1:22:16 question is valid then well which
1:22:18 religion exactly so now
1:22:20 way up which one is going to be the most
1:22:23 likely we're telling you to continue
1:22:25 that train of thought
1:22:27 in exploring them and it's like we
1:22:29 mentioned with
1:22:30 the uh pascal's robber it's not like
1:22:33 you've just got to make your decision
1:22:35 right this second
1:22:36 it's just a case of exploring the
1:22:38 evidences try to be charts like for
1:22:40 example you mentioned the the scientific
1:22:42 miracles thing like there are other ways
1:22:44 of um approaching that particular so
1:22:46 there's other ways of approaching that
1:22:48 obviously we don't agree that they are
1:22:49 scientific inaccuracies so there's a
1:22:51 multi-layered approach hamza's currently
1:22:53 writing um
1:22:54 his masters on
1:22:56 that subject as well and and how
1:22:59 there's um there's certain ways of
1:23:00 understanding this thing but it wasn't a
1:23:03 book of science but it was a book of
1:23:04 signs and many of the things for example
1:23:07 like the the typical one that people
1:23:09 bring up is the um the sun sets in a
1:23:11 muddy pool
1:23:13 you know this could be understood and
1:23:14 people use this sort of language all the
1:23:16 time like i've used it when i've gone to
1:23:18 the beach and i say the sun's setting
1:23:20 into the ocean i don't mean it like that
1:23:22 it's a phenomenological description and
1:23:24 people generally when you use that kind
1:23:25 of language understand and even me as an
1:23:28 atheist when i was reading it
1:23:30 that that was like i only found out
1:23:33 about people thinking that it meant that
1:23:35 much later yeah when i was reading into
1:23:38 all of these other objections when i was
1:23:39 engaged and apologetic
1:23:41 i didn't read it as that discussion but
1:23:43 i mean that's a lot of people at the
1:23:44 time did it was literal but um you know
1:23:47 i just said there's a separate
1:23:47 discussion but i mean you know you said
1:23:49 you know you could have your belief and
1:23:51 it's quite possible that you know there
1:23:52 is no god but then you could you know
1:23:54 you could be fear a kocher or one of the
1:23:56 ancient greek gods or whatever after you
1:23:59 die and then you realize you're wrong
1:24:01 so yeah
1:24:03 it's possible but then that's i think
1:24:04 it's like you've got to make the effort
1:24:06 because you didn't
1:24:07 yeah
1:24:08 so i just think uh you know it is a
1:24:10 gamble uh it's a gamble to um you know
1:24:13 you do have to pretend because you can't
1:24:15 force yourself to believe um and you do
1:24:18 have to you know perform the actions
1:24:19 whether you believe in them or not and i
1:24:22 i just think the odds are
1:24:24 uh with the multiple religions multiple
1:24:26 sects within religions multiple gods
1:24:28 that it's not
1:24:29 um it's not it's not something i would
1:24:31 see as convincing
1:24:34 this wager yeah well i mean so the idea
1:24:36 is
1:24:38 is that like you shouldn't just take all
1:24:40 the claims seriously so so like we would
1:24:43 have to draw some lines somewhere
1:24:45 right with the
1:24:47 um because look if if there is no
1:24:49 infinite um like infinite reward
1:24:51 infinite punishment you know but let's
1:24:53 say some like religion x is true i mean
1:24:55 like why should you care
1:24:57 you know like it's not going to affect
1:24:58 your
1:24:59 like it's it's not going to affect you
1:25:01 at all is it
1:25:02 so no because you'll go so you narrow
1:25:05 down like you narrow down the list right
1:25:07 there you know like you narrow down the
1:25:08 list as to
1:25:09 like which ones you should take
1:25:11 seriously you have islam christianity
1:25:13 um i don't know about the
1:25:15 the rest but then
1:25:17 um like you mentioned like the sex well
1:25:19 then you could break those up into into
1:25:20 like different categories if you wish as
1:25:22 well and you can check the credence
1:25:23 level there but like you can still
1:25:26 uh the idea is that like
1:25:29 um
1:25:30 like which ones that like you do take
1:25:32 seriously again like probability matter
1:25:33 so you're gonna have to do work but
1:25:35 you're also gonna have to take into
1:25:37 consideration
1:25:39 the like rewards because that's the
1:25:41 whole point of of like a decision matrix
1:25:44 you know
1:25:45 yeah so
1:25:46 yeah i mean because all the rules will
1:25:48 be there because at least you know if
1:25:50 you have i mean i accept i only have one
1:25:52 life and i want to make the most of it
1:25:54 there's no guarantee of an afterlife
1:25:56 uh so those you know those
1:25:58 um
1:26:00 the from the evidence i've seen um i
1:26:02 don't believe any of the religions are
1:26:04 true i just don't think there's any um
1:26:07 so that means the chance of an afterlife
1:26:08 isn't there so i should just i'm just
1:26:10 going to focus on this life
1:26:12 and do the best and then just follow the
1:26:14 atheists wager of living as good a life
1:26:16 as possible and then if there is a
1:26:17 benevolent god out there then you'll
1:26:19 that god will recognize that
1:26:22 i guess that
1:26:23 obviously moves on to it
1:26:24 another subject as well it's like well
1:26:26 how are you determining to what degree
1:26:28 this life is good like what are you you
1:26:31 waging but that's i guess the separate
1:26:32 issue that sort of takes us away from
1:26:34 the current conversation but yeah yeah i
1:26:37 think the
1:26:39 the argument assumes the like
1:26:41 permissiveness of the evidence which is
1:26:42 something that like dr liz mentions a
1:26:44 lot that the uh this is assuming that
1:26:46 the evidence is reasonable on either
1:26:49 side and then this is uh it's more of a
1:26:51 tie breaker
1:26:52 wait guys wait
1:26:54 is this the real sheriff sure
1:26:56 is this
1:26:57 the real sharif
1:27:02 i'm your number one fan oh right
1:27:05 number one
1:27:07 i think that's the only reason she
1:27:08 refused because uh you know hatsune is
1:27:10 with us today and
1:27:12 that's right that's right
1:27:14 yeah
1:27:16 i was listening and i thought essans on
1:27:18 so
1:27:19 and uh our team's obviously here as well
1:27:21 so i thought it might as well just jump
1:27:23 on while i've got a bit of time in
1:27:24 charlotte but i mentioned a really
1:27:26 interesting point actually he said that
1:27:28 he lives a good life with the hope that
1:27:30 if there is a benevolent god
1:27:32 that
1:27:33 he will then reward him so there's a
1:27:36 form of pascal's wager going on
1:27:38 seems with essen
1:27:40 yeah it's called the atheists wager
1:27:42 right so you're doing that one so you
1:27:44 basically so in principle then you are
1:27:47 accepting that
1:27:49 you need to head your bets
1:27:53 yeah yeah there is there is uh the 80's
1:27:54 which is i mean it's it was created as a
1:27:57 tug-in-cheek response to pascal's wager
1:28:00 so
1:28:02 you don't believe those you need to
1:28:03 really hedge your bets then
1:28:06 um well i mean i'm obviously because i
1:28:08 can't be 100 certain that none of that
1:28:11 there's no god i can't be 100 certain
1:28:13 that
1:28:14 um all religions are wrong uh but um i
1:28:18 think even if it is true that there's no
1:28:20 religion no god it's still plenty of
1:28:23 merit in living a good life because at
1:28:26 least even after i've gone i'm
1:28:27 remembered for having a good life having
1:28:30 had a good life that's helped other
1:28:32 people
1:28:33 right okay so
1:28:35 so it's not you're not really hedging
1:28:36 your best then you're not really
1:28:37 interested in that you just want to be
1:28:39 remembered
1:28:40 of being a good person even though
1:28:44 yeah whatever happens you know whatever
1:28:45 happens whether there is an afterlife or
1:28:47 not uh there are benefits to me in this
1:28:49 life and others in this life for living
1:28:51 a good life and also benefits for other
1:28:54 people after i'm gone if i've done good
1:28:57 right okay although that only the limits
1:28:59 i don't think we had this discussion
1:29:00 when we had the neither we did like
1:29:02 touched on it yeah yeah so basically
1:29:04 saying ultimately that's worthless
1:29:05 anyway but yeah but on this issue of
1:29:07 pascal's wager see i've always found
1:29:10 that it's you know as a entry point to
1:29:13 an atheist it's not a very good entry
1:29:15 point because
1:29:16 they're just completely dismissive of it
1:29:19 but i think this is a discussion more
1:29:20 than about the entry point of an atheist
1:29:23 and yeah you should believe in god now
1:29:25 it's more about and i think abdul rahman
1:29:27 and joseph mentioned it earlier it's
1:29:29 more about a decision-making process
1:29:31 that in a decision making process when
1:29:33 you've got reasonable options
1:29:35 then you're going to look at the one
1:29:37 which has the least harm and you would
1:29:39 agree with that wouldn't you
1:29:41 yeah jeff would go with reason i mean as
1:29:43 an argument it's probably for some it
1:29:45 has its greatest strength in somebody
1:29:46 who's wavering on leaving the religion
1:29:49 uh that's you know that's what i would
1:29:51 say it's probably so it's those people
1:29:53 who has it it's great to strengthen but
1:29:55 then i could say you know could be
1:29:56 whichever religions with somebody who's
1:29:58 waving on leaving catholicism or you
1:30:00 know i wouldn't just say wavering or
1:30:02 leaving but i'm wavering on becoming as
1:30:04 all it's yeah the wavering it's also on
1:30:08 the edge those on the fence
1:30:10 yeah because i think yes
1:30:11 we have to
1:30:12 appreciate isn't it that
1:30:14 there are a lot of reasonable arguments
1:30:16 for the existence of a of a god isn't
1:30:18 that
1:30:19 theism
1:30:23 arguments do they they bring out
1:30:25 reasonable arguments
1:30:27 i mean i'm not convinced of anything no
1:30:29 but
1:30:30 would you not say the reasonable
1:30:33 whether or not you're convinced that's a
1:30:34 separate thing it's just like
1:30:36 do you think that we are completely
1:30:37 unreasonable in our position that we are
1:30:39 just
1:30:42 no because if your personality tends you
1:30:43 towards theism and then uh then you'll
1:30:47 be pushed you're more likely to accept a
1:30:49 religion so that's uh i wouldn't say
1:30:51 it's unreasonable it just depends on how
1:30:52 you how your own viewpoint is um
1:30:55 because some people are generally more
1:30:57 religiously inclined yeah but wouldn't
1:30:59 you argue wouldn't you even even your
1:31:01 position would argue that the the
1:31:04 theistic position have logical
1:31:06 reasonable arguments for the existence
1:31:08 of god
1:31:11 i'll say there are there are some
1:31:13 logical uh
1:31:14 arguments uh and i obviously i'm aware
1:31:17 of virtually all of them uh but i don't
1:31:19 find them consufficiently convincing
1:31:22 right so you've got reasonable arguments
1:31:26 uh let's say for example let me give an
1:31:28 example here one of the arguments
1:31:30 against the cosmological argument
1:31:33 uh is how do we know
1:31:36 that this principle that whatever begins
1:31:38 to exist has a cause
1:31:40 or has a you know an explanation for its
1:31:42 beginning outside of itself how do we
1:31:45 know that this exists outside of the
1:31:46 universe
1:31:48 is that would that be one of the
1:31:50 contentions you have
1:32:01 are you thinking isaan or is your
1:32:03 connection gone
1:32:07 uh
1:32:08 i mean yeah i mean i'm sorry i wasn't
1:32:10 expecting to discuss but yeah i mean the
1:32:12 kalama has got um i mean
1:32:14 the climb has its conclusion that the
1:32:16 universe has a cause that's that's it
1:32:17 doesn't have any other
1:32:19 um
1:32:20 um any place to go after that um i know
1:32:22 you've got you had your other
1:32:23 discussions watched your previous shows
1:32:25 but the reason why is the reason why i'm
1:32:27 talking about the calamities i'm not
1:32:28 talking about the column because now
1:32:29 we're just talking about different
1:32:30 subject matter i just wanted to
1:32:32 demonstrate a particular point in
1:32:33 regards to this particular stream which
1:32:36 is related to the column relates one of
1:32:38 the contentions one of the contentions
1:32:40 is
1:32:41 that some atheists bring up is well how
1:32:43 do i know that whatever begins to exist
1:32:46 has a cause
1:32:48 that principle
1:32:49 exists outside of the universe or before
1:32:52 the universe begins
1:32:54 how do i know it holds true yeah
1:32:56 yeah it's not it's an argument that says
1:32:58 that the universe has a cause and yeah
1:33:00 the kalam it's used by people of many
1:33:02 different religions as well there's some
1:33:04 very famous christian apologists who use
1:33:06 it as well so well
1:33:08 so it's arabic but anyway but well
1:33:10 that's the orange it's the same
1:33:12 principle
1:33:13 yeah sorry i'm not i'm not my point is
1:33:15 this is not
1:33:17 i'm not arguing per se
1:33:19 about whether the principal uh say
1:33:23 whether the particular argument works or
1:33:24 not or is it used by other people all
1:33:27 i'm saying is that
1:33:28 would you would you accept that one of
1:33:31 the contentions one of the main
1:33:33 contentions against the argument is that
1:33:36 this
1:33:37 the first premise whatever begins to
1:33:39 exist as a cause
1:33:40 that that some people say cannot be
1:33:43 extended outside of this
1:33:48 universe uh i'm not certainly because
1:33:51 you've got i mean there are theories uh
1:33:53 i'm not i'm not a cosmologist but there
1:33:55 are theories of the multiverse uh
1:33:57 uh there are other various other
1:33:59 cosmological arguments um based on based
1:34:02 on people's knowledge of the cosmos and
1:34:04 experiments so
1:34:06 um
1:34:26 whatever begins to exist so it doesn't
1:34:28 really deal with things that have always
1:34:30 existed it just deals with things that
1:34:31 begin to exist and
1:34:34 one like i said one of the key
1:34:36 contentions against belief in a creator
1:34:38 is to say that how do we know the laws
1:34:40 of logic hold true outside of this
1:34:42 universe
1:34:46 um i mean outside of this universe we
1:34:47 don't know because all uh
1:34:49 basically our entire mechanism for
1:34:51 finding um
1:34:53 their all that entire mechanism of
1:34:54 science you know our science is just
1:34:57 within this realm of this universe so
1:34:58 right
1:35:00 so so here we've got a contention yeah
1:35:04 now all of our
1:35:06 you know
1:35:07 experience knowledge
1:35:10 even the fact that we need these types
1:35:12 of
1:35:12 fundamental logical principles as axioms
1:35:16 for rational thinking all of these
1:35:17 things are necessary yeah an atheist
1:35:20 might come out and say yeah but how do i
1:35:22 know it's true outside of this universe
1:35:24 now in that situation wouldn't be
1:35:26 wouldn't it be correct
1:35:28 for this atheist to say well look i've
1:35:31 got all this track of evidence
1:35:33 that leads me
1:35:35 to the understanding that there is a
1:35:37 necessary being yeah some sort of thing
1:35:39 that exists
1:35:40 as a necessity
1:35:42 and
1:35:43 you know
1:35:44 if i've got this .001
1:35:46 whatever chance or probability or you
1:35:50 know doubt that that really is not
1:35:53 substantial for me to say well i'm going
1:35:55 to reject belief in god because i don't
1:35:57 know if logic holds outside of the
1:35:59 universe because now i'm going to use a
1:36:01 decision-making process like pascal's
1:36:03 wager
1:36:05 no but you you could have a quantum
1:36:06 environment as the uh you know
1:36:09 as this necessary um existence and then
1:36:12 um even if you even if you do somehow
1:36:14 make a jump to deism you've still got
1:36:16 there's a huge jump from theism to
1:36:18 theism
1:36:19 um and then there would then it's case
1:36:21 of another massive jump to which
1:36:22 particular
1:36:23 theism uh whichever religion
1:36:26 yeah but yeah
1:36:28 at the moment we're not really talking
1:36:29 about specific religion we're talking
1:36:31 about whether it is reasonable on a
1:36:33 decision-making process to say actually
1:36:36 yes i should in fact i should
1:36:39 you know adopt at the very least the
1:36:41 very least premise that there is a god
1:36:43 exists and that the contention against
1:36:46 it would not be sufficient for me to
1:36:49 bet and wager my whole of my potential
1:36:52 afterlife and that this will be the
1:36:55 first step
1:36:56 for me to investigate further
1:36:59 it's not the final step we should we
1:37:01 should invest we should investigate
1:37:03 further but um
1:37:04 you know this is still the risk the
1:37:06 chances are still tiny um from from what
1:37:09 i can see
1:37:12 you need to convince somebody there is a
1:37:14 god and then you've got to go from there
1:37:15 to um
1:37:17 but i'm saying that there's which
1:37:18 particular
1:37:24 if a person he says he's an atheist and
1:37:26 he says the reason why i don't believe
1:37:29 in god and the reason why i don't
1:37:31 believe that as an example the
1:37:33 cosmological argument doesn't work
1:37:36 is because i believe that the laws of
1:37:39 logic cannot be extended outside of this
1:37:41 universe
1:37:42 now in that situation you would say well
1:37:45 you know what it's more reasonable for
1:37:47 him to believe than not to believe
1:37:49 there's more you know this
1:37:51 decision-making process would allow us
1:37:53 would push us towards accepting the
1:37:55 belief in a god in this situation then
1:37:58 the position of rejecting belief in the
1:38:01 god because he's trying to claim some
1:38:03 sort of
1:38:04 special pleading uh idea that outside
1:38:06 the laws of the outside of the universe
1:38:08 the laws of logic do not hold in that
1:38:10 situation if he if he only had that as
1:38:13 the only argument essa you would say
1:38:16 it'd be more reasonable for him to
1:38:17 believe in god as opposed to reject
1:38:19 wouldn't you
1:38:22 um i mean if you think if you think that
1:38:23 then you'd have to conclude that the uh
1:38:26 causal universe was a necessary being
1:38:28 and then you'd have then you'd have to
1:38:30 move on to the next stage um yeah yeah
1:38:32 that's fine
1:38:33 but all i'm saying is that because i
1:38:35 come across a lot of atheists who try to
1:38:38 argue for whenever they criticize maybe
1:38:40 like the cosmological argument they
1:38:42 tried to say to me that it's reasonable
1:38:44 and it's rational to believe that there
1:38:47 is
1:38:47 that that your argument leads to the
1:38:49 belief in a in a creator but i just
1:38:51 can't accept it because how do i know
1:38:54 the laws of logic
1:38:56 extend beyond the universe
1:38:59 now in that situation you would say
1:39:02 their decision-making process should
1:39:04 side with belief in god rather than uh
1:39:08 holding on to this atheistic perspective
1:39:10 atheism because really
1:39:13 that contention is not sufficiently
1:39:15 warranted for for us to then reject
1:39:17 belief in god on that particular point
1:39:20 on that particular principle
1:39:23 i will put up and listen to that what i
1:39:25 would say is uh i don't think that the
1:39:27 column is sufficiently strong to point
1:39:29 to a particular to point to
1:39:31 any god or just all it says is that the
1:39:34 universe has a cause um and then you can
1:39:36 try and extrapolate from that into
1:39:38 whether it's uh
1:39:40 what type of first goals it is and i
1:39:42 know i know you've said and you may be
1:39:44 trying to lead towards it being a god
1:39:45 but um i'm i'm not entirely convinced
1:39:48 that uh the necessary thing if there is
1:39:50 such a thing um
1:39:52 is a conscious um agent
1:39:55 no but it's on i i'm sorry i'm trying to
1:39:57 reduce the point down i'm not trying to
1:39:59 say oh somebody might turn around and
1:40:01 argue this somebody might argue that
1:40:03 against the column cosmological argument
1:40:04 i'm saying if he accepts all the lines
1:40:08 of the reasoning all the way up to a
1:40:10 conscious god yeah or conscious
1:40:12 necessary being but his only criticism
1:40:15 would be
1:40:17 that
1:40:17 you know how can we extend the laws of
1:40:20 logic beyond this universe
1:40:23 yeah uh to outside of this universe
1:40:26 that if that was his only contention
1:40:29 that wouldn't be sufficiently warranted
1:40:31 would it
1:40:33 because they created every argument
1:40:37 in the chain of reasoning that leads
1:40:39 back to a necessary being with a will
1:40:42 yeah
1:40:42 if you i mean okay i'm not convinced but
1:40:44 let's say somebody is convinced by that
1:40:47 then they'll be more likely to believe
1:40:49 that god is the creator yes no but then
1:40:51 he says no but i'm not going to believe
1:40:52 because i don't think we can extend the
1:40:54 laws of logic outside of this universe
1:41:01 um
1:41:02 yeah okay i'm going to because i'm
1:41:03 trying
1:41:04 basically i'm trying to think for
1:41:05 somebody else now because that's not
1:41:06 what i would believe but um
1:41:08 you know i see your point right okay
1:41:10 cool so that i think that's where the
1:41:13 that's where pascal's wager
1:41:16 and these types of decision-making
1:41:17 processes operate it operates where
1:41:21 you look at somebody's contention
1:41:24 the person might think in his own mind
1:41:27 that he has a reasonable contention
1:41:29 but
1:41:30 when you think about within the grander
1:41:32 schemes of a decision-making process you
1:41:34 would say actually no that wouldn't be
1:41:36 the process that we'd make for example
1:41:38 there are there are cases where people
1:41:41 have suffered from severe side effects
1:41:43 for the astrozenica covid vaccine
1:41:45 haven't they yes um you've been a doctor
1:41:47 you'd know about this there are there
1:41:49 are people who've had side effects yes
1:41:50 yeah and some of them quite severe some
1:41:52 of them been hospitalized some of them
1:41:53 have even had blood clots in their lungs
1:41:55 and things like that yeah yeah that has
1:41:57 happened yeah now
1:42:00 as a pascal's wager on this what would
1:42:03 your uh how would you what would your
1:42:05 thought process be
1:42:08 uh well for aside it's clear cuts we
1:42:10 know covid is real we know the vaccines
1:42:12 are real
1:42:13 so
1:42:14 um
1:42:16 what this means is that this the
1:42:17 matrices
1:42:18 um are much smaller
1:42:20 because the variables are known uh the
1:42:23 unknown variables are much smaller in
1:42:25 number much fewer in number so on that
1:42:27 basis the uh the decision tree is for
1:42:30 having the vaccine right because the
1:42:32 consequence the the
1:42:35 the harms
1:42:36 and the number the probability of
1:42:39 suffering from harms regards to covet
1:42:41 vaccine covet
1:42:44 disease is greater than yeah infection
1:42:47 then it is regards to the potential side
1:42:49 effects i you might have a one in a
1:42:52 million or one in one hundred thousand
1:42:54 uh adverse reaction from the covid
1:42:58 vaccine but you would have maybe a point
1:43:00 nine percent uh potential fatality
1:43:03 regards to a coveted infection
1:43:09 yeah so i think the stream here today is
1:43:12 not to say that this is the argument for
1:43:15 belief in god or even belief in islam
1:43:17 but rather that this is an overarching
1:43:21 way
1:43:22 of judging arguments yeah would i be
1:43:25 right abdulrahman
1:43:29 yeah yeah so it's about it's a it's more
1:43:32 of a pragmatic argument it's not yeah so
1:43:34 is that what we should do yes it's a
1:43:36 pragmatic argument where you take the
1:43:39 weight of evidence
1:43:40 yeah and when you take the weight of
1:43:42 evidence and then you're using this as
1:43:44 an overarching
1:43:46 uh you know sort of pragmatic
1:43:49 methodology then you would say actually
1:43:51 yeah
1:43:52 with that we have a strong rate of
1:43:54 evidence for belief in a creator
1:43:57 that outweighs atheism by a lot people
1:44:00 might turn around and say you know
1:44:02 you're not necessarily uh
1:44:05 you know uh 100 percent yeah in your
1:44:08 mind because the person's coming from
1:44:10 non-islam to islam so he's not tasted
1:44:12 the food it's not absurd
1:44:14 so
1:44:15 it's not really but just about the
1:44:16 weight of evidence it's also about like
1:44:17 the atheist position so if the argument
1:44:20 is successful i mean whichever form i
1:44:22 mean you could think about the one that
1:44:23 addresses only the agnostic who assigns
1:44:26 like a let's say a 50 percent state
1:44:29 religion or the one who thinks there is
1:44:31 a just a not very low non-zero
1:44:32 probability if any of these arguments is
1:44:35 successful it forget about the evidence
1:44:37 for theism it just makes
1:44:39 the the
1:44:41 the decision of
1:44:43 being an atheist or staying as an
1:44:45 atheist irrational that i think that's
1:44:47 the point of it
1:44:49 and i i think that's pretty
1:44:50 straightforward i mean that's what the
1:44:52 argument tries to establish
1:44:53 that regardless of these considerations
1:44:55 if you take
1:44:56 um you know
1:44:58 the the expected utility into
1:44:59 consideration then then just down its
1:45:02 own the idea of it makes um
1:45:05 staying as an atheist or an agnostic uh
1:45:07 irrational
1:45:09 yeah
1:45:10 are you guys able to hear me okay we can
1:45:12 agree with you yeah
1:45:14 yeah agree to disagree it's why the
1:45:15 argument's been on for hundreds of years
1:45:17 so
1:45:20 that's why they've been on for hundreds
1:45:22 of years
1:45:23 son i mean what pascal's wager has been
1:45:26 discussed for many hundreds of years
1:45:28 because it's a it all boils down to if
1:45:30 you believe in the if you believe in the
1:45:32 first place then there's utility and
1:45:34 pascal wager if you
1:45:35 if you disbelieve uh and and you want to
1:45:38 focus more on this life that you'll get
1:45:40 the only life you're guaranteed to have
1:45:42 then pascal's wager doesn't work in that
1:45:44 way
1:45:45 no but it seems like
1:45:46 because because there's been
1:45:48 philosophical disagreement on an issue
1:45:50 for hundreds of years that somehow says
1:45:51 something about the rationality or lack
1:45:54 thereof of one of the positions i mean
1:45:57 yeah and you're making it seem like you
1:45:59 can't do both you're making it seem like
1:46:00 you can't
1:46:01 you know just
1:46:03 like you can't like follow a religion
1:46:05 and having an
1:46:07 enjoyable life
1:46:08 i mean remember this is aimed at a
1:46:10 specific kind of
1:46:12 non-theists with specific kinds of
1:46:14 credences assigned to theism versus you
1:46:17 know
1:46:18 specific kinds of uh commitments to
1:46:21 decision theory and how they make
1:46:24 decisions based on expected utility and
1:46:25 stuff like that i mean there are many
1:46:26 consider so it's a
1:46:28 it's it's an argument that is uh for a
1:46:31 specific kind
1:46:32 of uh atheist i mean that doesn't mean
1:46:35 that the premises can't be defended and
1:46:37 argue for and you know held reasonable
1:46:40 but then
1:46:41 uh it's it's just really uh under
1:46:44 certain circumstances yes i mean i would
1:46:45 agree that it doesn't work so for if you
1:46:47 assign a zero percent probability
1:46:50 for theism then it doesn't if you assign
1:46:53 a especially if you sign a significant
1:46:55 nonzero probability or a high
1:46:58 probability
1:46:59 uh then then then it definitely works
1:47:01 definitely works it's just a pragmatic
1:47:03 consideration i mean i don't know i mean
1:47:05 even i like for a theist who's like
1:47:06 leaving theism or something assume
1:47:08 they're confused and stuff
1:47:10 i mean the the problem is i mean for me
1:47:12 a lot of times what it's been is really
1:47:14 that like
1:47:15 okay i mean what is
1:47:17 what what is there in this theistic uh
1:47:20 you know sorry atheistic worldview right
1:47:22 or you know atheistic position
1:47:25 that is attractive i know i was
1:47:28 literally about to ask that up yeah
1:47:30 it's a very interesting position like
1:47:32 everything you do is uh
1:47:38 that's not the point i mean the point is
1:47:39 yeah so you so the the the idea here is
1:47:41 that if if you are confused indeed
1:47:44 i mean i mean the the the issue is uh
1:47:47 the logic here is that well don't if
1:47:49 don't go for the one that
1:47:51 actually uh from our perspective
1:47:54 destroys uh like the foundations of of
1:47:57 meaning and purpose and
1:47:59 make the world uninteresting and make
1:48:01 you know
1:48:02 uh certain certain repercussions that we
1:48:05 wouldn't like what is there on the
1:48:07 atheistic worldview that's attractive
1:48:09 what can you do that i can't drink
1:48:12 i mean seriously the the the the thing
1:48:15 is
1:48:15 the thing is uh uh however you can live
1:48:19 a good life i can't what a good life is
1:48:21 well i mean we're going to disagree on
1:48:22 that but even theists who who who um you
1:48:27 know have certain weaknesses and and and
1:48:29 stuff like that well they sin
1:48:30 they don't have to completely leave the
1:48:32 faith
1:48:33 to to get that temporary hedonistic
1:48:36 enjoyment that you do the point is that
1:48:38 really what is there for atheism to
1:48:40 offer everything that you can do on your
1:48:43 atheistic
1:48:45 whether that's like you know well-being
1:48:47 because we have empirical evidence that
1:48:50 you know religious societies and
1:48:52 religious persons
1:48:53 do uh uh um experience higher degrees of
1:48:57 like you know like life expectancy and
1:48:59 well-being and happiness and
1:49:00 relationships and stuff like that
1:49:01 that's empirical evidence that you
1:49:03 should take seriously and whether it's
1:49:05 anything else like taking science
1:49:06 seriously and being a scientist
1:49:08 community what yeah can i uh
1:49:15 sorry i just want to hear what someone's
1:49:16 saying i know i'm just saying goodbye
1:49:18 because i'm really tired you're going
1:49:20 back to sleep okay i need to go to sleep
1:49:22 because i'm struggling
1:49:24 but yeah it was neces
1:49:41 yeah absolutely would you talk about
1:49:42 those studies a lot of them show that
1:49:43 the benefit from um the theistic um
1:49:47 lifestyle is from being in a community
1:49:50 because there's a lot of uh studies that
1:49:52 show it's ice being isolated and lonely
1:49:54 which causes
1:49:56 yeah of course so that's a benefit
1:49:57 religion gives you that atheism is not
1:49:59 really likely to give you maybe maybe
1:50:01 atheism is going to evolve and then a
1:50:03 lot of those studies a lot of studies
1:50:05 were done on um church church people in
1:50:08 america so no no so so those studies are
1:50:10 not just about community but also
1:50:12 psychological states of belief and
1:50:14 and you know what what is more likely to
1:50:16 to to lead to happiness and sustainable
1:50:18 relationships and life expectancy and
1:50:20 stuff like that
1:50:21 it's not it's not just the communal
1:50:22 aspects that were taken into
1:50:24 consideration
1:50:25 so there's a lot of things i'm just
1:50:26 saying that that if somebody's in the
1:50:28 middle really there's no reason
1:50:31 your side has anything
1:50:34 to offer that would that would i think
1:50:37 make a person
1:50:39 yes and i i know you've heard this
1:50:41 before but if you say this all the time
1:50:44 you only believe in god or religion
1:50:46 because it makes you feel better
1:50:48 and now is an example
1:50:50 where religion actually does have value
1:50:52 i mean a lot of atheists
1:50:54 you know
1:50:55 if they do say this right so it's it's
1:50:57 not even
1:50:58 i mean now it just it just seems like
1:51:00 now it's like well no it actually
1:51:02 doesn't have value well i mean what were
1:51:04 you guys arguing for for like 20 30. i
1:51:06 appreciate the community effect that uh
1:51:08 being in a religion brings yeah what
1:51:10 about what about belief in the after
1:51:11 like what about belief in in in and i
1:51:14 can seeing your dead children again one
1:51:15 of your dead parents again you don't
1:51:16 think that has died
1:51:18 you know i admit uh it's it's it would
1:51:20 be uplifting um it would be i mean i
1:51:23 think i think it would that doesn't
1:51:24 necessarily make it true
1:51:27 yeah yeah i know but this is a
1:51:29 pragmatic are you talking about somebody
1:51:30 who's in the middle somebody's undecided
1:51:36 you're even more likely to be a good
1:51:38 person my son so i mean if you're
1:51:40 talking to the community
1:51:41 there's there's evidence for all of this
1:51:44 so yeah
1:51:46 so i just again so for that person i
1:51:48 think
1:51:49 even you you should say well the
1:51:51 reasonable thing to do is clearly
1:51:53 just believe in god
1:51:55 um i mean commit commit to this if that
1:51:58 person will anyway has the absolute
1:52:00 capacity as well yeah it's it's it's
1:52:03 it's it's sad that you won't but
1:52:05 considering you you seem like the kind
1:52:07 of guy who wants good for people i think
1:52:09 you should uh
1:52:10 say that at least in this situation
1:52:11 where a person is kind of like in the
1:52:13 middle not very convinced why one way or
1:52:16 another and sees that there's epistemic
1:52:17 permissiveness both ways i think
1:52:20 considering not just considering the the
1:52:21 expected utility in the hereafter
1:52:23 considering what i just said right now
1:52:25 about you know living a well life here
1:52:28 on this earth not that atheists can't
1:52:29 live a good life that's what i'm saying
1:52:31 saying given the empirical evidence we
1:52:32 have or the benefit of of of uh you know
1:52:36 religion and ha its impact on people's
1:52:38 well-being and happiness both on the
1:52:40 level of the individual and the
1:52:41 community
1:52:43 then i think
1:52:44 if someone's ever confused their son
1:52:46 just you know
1:52:48 tell them to
1:52:49 stay atheist
1:52:51 so yeah it was good talking to yourself
1:52:56 nice talking to you take care thank you
1:53:01 uh i think
1:53:02 sanat has been waiting for quite a while
1:53:07 hi guys
1:53:09 hey
1:53:16 um
1:53:17 i've been listening to this uh to this
1:53:19 guy uh
1:53:20 for quite some time and
1:53:22 i don't understand why you guys allocate
1:53:24 him so much time
1:53:26 to bring up you know his pathetic points
1:53:28 i i just don't understand that
1:53:31 okay he's a fan he's a big fan that's
1:53:33 why
1:53:34 well there's nobody there's no bigger
1:53:36 fan than me actually i've seen all of
1:53:38 your podcasts
1:53:41 every single actually every single one
1:53:43 of them do you imagine no it's not like
1:53:44 clips or whatever like the whole things
1:53:47 all of them
1:53:48 hey i am the number one fan i am
1:53:52 no i don't miss jericho i do miss jake
1:53:55 though jake he'll be back
1:53:57 soon man jake will be coming back soon
1:53:59 in charlotte just he's been uh he's been
1:54:01 away he's been in morocco
1:54:03 so he had like uh walima that he had to
1:54:05 organize there for himself hamdillah so
1:54:08 you know so he's there
1:54:10 that's that's good i i hope you uh
1:54:14 yeah it's been there for four weeks but
1:54:15 just just as a
1:54:16 son is a he's a you know he's a pleasant
1:54:19 enough uh person i know he's obviously
1:54:21 we disagree a lot and he does come out
1:54:23 with various arguments and criticisms
1:54:25 that we strongly disagree with but
1:54:28 he's a good sounding board he's a good
1:54:30 way to uh express
1:54:33 the arguments and the ideas
1:54:35 with him i think maybe he's committed
1:54:38 and wedded to his particular position
1:54:40 uh and so therefore he's always looking
1:54:42 for an argument against theism
1:54:46 but i think even in the discussion we
1:54:48 just had with him he sort of agreed that
1:54:51 you know in the decision-making process
1:54:54 it would be best to adopt
1:54:57 theism
1:54:58 if you're 50 50 or if you have a
1:55:02 contention which it may not be fully
1:55:06 you know
1:55:07 rigorous against one of the arguments
1:55:10 for the belief in a creator
1:55:12 and he sort of seemed seemed to come to
1:55:14 the conclusion that
1:55:15 you know
1:55:16 it would be correct in that case to
1:55:18 maybe use this type of approach
1:55:21 uh i don't really like using pascal's
1:55:22 which i never use pascal's voyager but
1:55:25 yeah but under that
1:55:27 i can i can see some
1:55:29 i can see some benefit in it because uh
1:55:32 when i was reading god delusion by
1:55:33 richard dawkins and when i saw him in
1:55:35 that no intelligence allowed the
1:55:38 uh documentary tool he didn't say 100
1:55:41 you know
1:55:42 there's no god or anything like that he
1:55:43 actually does assign percentage even he
1:55:46 is not sure about it
1:55:48 you know so even person like that can be
1:55:50 maybe talked to about this way i i can
1:55:52 see the benefit as like a kind of like a
1:55:53 stepping stone
1:55:55 i don't see a
1:55:56 it's not theologically beneficial i mean
1:55:59 you know this will be rejected by allah
1:56:02 completely if you base your belief just
1:56:04 on this yeah i mean at least
1:56:06 at least the wager i mean for me it
1:56:08 doesn't for me i wouldn't use it with
1:56:09 everybody i think there are people i
1:56:11 think the wager can be very beneficial
1:56:13 for they they would have to have a
1:56:14 certain view on religion and what it's
1:56:16 good for is at least i mean i i actually
1:56:19 think ideally actually to take you to
1:56:21 the position where
1:56:23 i'm going to take religions seriously
1:56:27 and i am going to sincerely
1:56:30 look for the most
1:56:31 reasonable explanation that religion has
1:56:34 out there for the rest of my life
1:56:35 because this is an important question
1:56:37 while living your life perfectly
1:56:38 normally and everything else yeah
1:56:41 the problem with this with this uh thing
1:56:43 is uh
1:56:44 i think that most of them don't actually
1:56:46 do proper analysis
1:56:48 to actually
1:56:49 you know epistemologically you know
1:56:52 weigh all the options
1:56:53 and uh
1:56:55 they don't go far enough
1:56:57 to actually be able in a position to
1:56:59 assign the percentages
1:57:01 uh you know on on any kind of uh
1:57:04 uh what what do you call it you know to
1:57:06 give it proper statistics or bell curve
1:57:08 or whatever you know they they are not
1:57:09 able to do that unless they go properly
1:57:12 through years and years of analysis
1:57:15 it's about subjective probability that's
1:57:17 another important point you need to
1:57:18 mention so it's about a person the
1:57:19 subjective probability the person the
1:57:21 sciences this is a pragmatic argument
1:57:23 really anyway so it's about the
1:57:25 subjective probability the person
1:57:26 assigns to the position that which one
1:57:28 you see is more likely you don't have to
1:57:30 go but that's dependent but that's
1:57:32 dependent on your prior knowledge
1:57:34 that's subjective probability so so in
1:57:36 order to make a proper subjective
1:57:38 probability you would need to have a
1:57:40 proper
1:57:41 uh
1:57:41 amount of information and analysis
1:57:44 to get to the to the you know uh more
1:57:46 more probably the more the more you have
1:57:48 the more accurate it's going to be the
1:57:49 point is that in any given situation the
1:57:52 pragmatic thing to do is always going to
1:57:54 depend on what you already know i mean
1:57:57 so yeah you can improve that knowledge
1:57:59 but you could also be in a situation
1:58:01 where you can make the best decision
1:58:03 possible based on what you already know
1:58:05 so i mean the the point of it being a
1:58:07 subjective probability is that it's it's
1:58:09 you know it's based on the person's uh
1:58:12 you know personal uh view of these
1:58:14 things and and the credences they assign
1:58:16 to the different positions yeah i think
1:58:17 i think what sunday is trying to say is
1:58:19 that people
1:58:20 atheists have never taken it seriously
1:58:23 enough
1:58:24 to really investigate the arguments for
1:58:26 theism
1:58:27 uh they might come on shows like our
1:58:30 show
1:58:31 but have they really taken it properly
1:58:34 uh you know properly contemplated on the
1:58:36 arguments i'm not saying
1:58:38 atheists are like this
1:58:40 no no they they always they always
1:58:42 exhibit minimal theological knowledge
1:58:44 they absolutely know nothing of islamic
1:58:46 creed
1:58:47 like
1:58:49 almost every time you know even even
1:58:50 dawkins himself they always show that
1:58:52 they they don't know anything even the
1:58:54 most basic
1:58:55 claims that the that the religion makes
1:58:58 they they never show that they they're
1:59:00 aware of this
1:59:01 so how can they
1:59:03 how can they actually think about it no
1:59:05 or make the decision
1:59:07 i agree with with some atheists that is
1:59:09 the case definitely which is uh and you
1:59:12 know we had aaron rawr on our channel uh
1:59:15 you know i saw that yeah yeah
1:59:19 that was a serious ass kicking
1:59:23 but what it was was that he it comes
1:59:25 across as though
1:59:27 he has already wedded himself to a view
1:59:31 and he's dismissed all of the views
1:59:33 while at the same time claiming i'm open
1:59:35 for evidence yeah
1:59:37 and one of the things that we try and do
1:59:40 in our shows and just generally as you
1:59:42 know muslims what we try and do anyways
1:59:44 if we're trying to critique another
1:59:45 person's view we try to understand it as
1:59:47 best as possible we try to be in a
1:59:49 position where we can argue his position
1:59:51 better than maybe he could argue it
1:59:53 really understand it take it seriously
1:59:56 pretty yeah and what we would expect is
2:00:00 maybe atheists have the same sort of
2:00:02 position when it comes to theism or
2:00:04 islam in particular but theism in
2:00:07 general which is that really try to
2:00:09 understand the argument and try to
2:00:11 really understand why
2:00:13 people use these various arguments and
2:00:16 evidences for the existence of greater
2:00:18 and take it seriously all for islam
2:00:19 generally and take it seriously and then
2:00:22 critique it yeah try to really
2:00:24 appreciate it be in a position to steal
2:00:26 money then be then turn around and say
2:00:28 okay this is why i don't agree with it
2:00:31 but i think to be honest and obviously
2:00:33 it's my personal opinion is that if they
2:00:34 were to do that they would realize that
2:00:36 islam is true and become muslim yeah and
2:00:39 i do think that with a large proportion
2:00:41 of atheists out there it's more of a
2:00:43 psychological problem that
2:00:45 they have against a belief in god and
2:00:48 belief in islam as opposed to really a
2:00:50 real intellectual argument you know even
2:00:52 some of the top atheist philosophers out
2:00:54 there i've heard some of their their
2:00:56 discussions read some of their works and
2:00:58 it does come across that they just have
2:01:00 a bias
2:01:01 against religion yeah and part of their
2:01:04 work as atheist is to sort of
2:01:08 substantiate that particular bias
2:01:10 uh
2:01:11 view that they have
2:01:13 everyone except for malpass considering
2:01:16 he's coming on our channel very soon so
2:01:19 that's right sharif
2:01:20 um can i can i can i please have a can i
2:01:23 please have two more minutes of your
2:01:25 time please and then i'll be going this
2:01:28 is uh
2:01:29 i do have a little bit of a concern
2:01:31 about one thing
2:01:32 it is related to this stream but it also
2:01:35 is a you know kind of like a in its own
2:01:38 thing
2:01:39 um i'm worried about one thing when it
2:01:41 comes to the argument for necessary
2:01:42 existence and uh i will tell you what my
2:01:44 what my worry is
2:01:46 uh so number one i'm absolutely
2:01:48 convinced allah exists and the 100 no no
2:01:51 issue there
2:01:52 but i'm talking about the argument
2:01:53 itself
2:01:55 which i i don't need personally but uh
2:01:58 i'm just talking about analyzing of the
2:01:59 arg
2:02:00 i i wondered if uh if a division to a
2:02:04 necessary being and a contingent being
2:02:07 i'm wondering if it's if it's an
2:02:08 arbitrary division i'm i'm worried that
2:02:11 the objection can can be like
2:02:13 well why don't you consider everything
2:02:14 to be necessary
2:02:16 obviously absolute nothingness cannot
2:02:18 exist
2:02:19 so there is there is some existence that
2:02:21 we can we have to say that it cannot
2:02:22 fail to exist
2:02:24 but why don't you call that why don't
2:02:26 you call the whole existence
2:02:28 why do you have to do
2:02:30 why do you have to do arbitrary
2:02:31 divisions
2:02:32 uh saying like okay a person is a
2:02:34 contingent being uh whatever atomic
2:02:37 atomic structure could be a contingent
2:02:39 being okay but why why are you giving
2:02:41 these uh
2:02:42 why are you giving these arbitrary
2:02:45 divisions if it could be seen as one
2:02:46 existence
2:02:48 the whole thing could be seen as just
2:02:49 one existence and these these manifest
2:02:52 parts could be just some kind of
2:02:54 representation
2:02:55 of something else
2:02:58 that's not contingent upon any
2:03:01 so this this sort of leads to some kind
2:03:02 of like a maybe pantheism but if you
2:03:05 exclude the consciousness
2:03:07 so it would be
2:03:08 maybe eliminated to pantheism oh that's
2:03:10 a new one okay
2:03:12 so
2:03:16 oh sorry yeah so there's two
2:03:18 there's two issues here i should reflect
2:03:21 to say a lot it's two issues so the
2:03:23 first thing is um there's an epistemic
2:03:26 uh
2:03:27 like epistemological implications
2:03:29 so and it's related to um like your
2:03:32 principle of sufficient reason which is
2:03:33 simply just
2:03:35 like a reason or
2:03:37 it's
2:03:38 um it's a principle that you have that
2:03:40 like things require explanations of some
2:03:41 sorts
2:03:42 so
2:03:44 um
2:03:45 the assignment
2:03:46 of like whether something is necessary
2:03:49 or contingent is important because
2:03:51 that's how you would decide if it
2:03:52 requires an external explanation to it
2:03:55 now if you were to say well look suppose
2:03:56 everything's necessary right so
2:03:59 i mean what does this mean in motor
2:04:01 logic and and it's not arbitrary by the
2:04:03 way it's it's been in um
2:04:05 like these terms are started in motor
2:04:07 logic but so like that so that which is
2:04:09 necessary is that which existence it
2:04:11 cannot fail and contingent is the
2:04:13 opposite its existence can fail so if
2:04:16 you think for example of an apple
2:04:18 say you had an apple on your hand right
2:04:20 at one moment it exists and then you eat
2:04:22 the apple where did they go it's not
2:04:23 there anymore
2:04:24 you know so the apple in and of itself
2:04:26 is no longer uh it no longer exists
2:04:29 but that's just the term
2:04:31 that's just the term that's just the
2:04:32 term that changed the form that's all
2:04:35 that happened that you it didn't vanish
2:04:36 out of existence
2:04:38 it's just some kind of return
2:04:41 no no we assigned we assigned we
2:04:43 assigned the term to it our our
2:04:46 assignment could be arbitrary
2:04:48 our assignment to the term could be
2:04:49 assigning assigning a name for it is
2:04:51 arbitrary
2:04:53 yeah
2:04:54 yeah so so senate your argument would be
2:04:57 is you've got a collection of atoms
2:04:59 these are the fundamentals this is what
2:05:01 exists
2:05:02 it became what we call an apple and then
2:05:06 once it rotted and came into the ground
2:05:09 those fundamental particles still exist
2:05:11 it just became something that we call
2:05:13 now soil
2:05:15 or dirt
2:05:17 is that is that what you would say
2:05:18 senate so there's no idea that the thing
2:05:22 itself had an existence called an apple
2:05:25 is really arbitrary didn't really have
2:05:28 its existence called an apple it was
2:05:30 really just the fundamental particles
2:05:33 no no no it's not even just about
2:05:35 fundamental particles it's
2:05:37 it's why uh why does the the division
2:05:39 the labeling the naming the assignments
2:05:42 why does this even matter in this in a
2:05:43 discussion of existence if you get if
2:05:45 you really get down to it to try to say
2:05:48 what's the most fundamental thing you
2:05:50 wouldn't be able to do this
2:05:51 and your assignments would be irrelevant
2:05:54 to any kind of uh any kind of trying to
2:05:56 identify what the fundamentals are as
2:05:59 well as the necessity explanation you
2:06:01 wouldn't actually need an explanation
2:06:03 for this
2:06:05 so so uh
2:06:06 so what you're saying is that the demand
2:06:09 for explanation is arbitrary itself
2:06:11 it becomes arbitrary yeah yeah that's i
2:06:13 mean that's the claim but so what you're
2:06:15 saying is that we we ca there we can't
2:06:18 make a reasonable non-arbitrary
2:06:20 distinction between necessary and
2:06:22 contingent is that what you're saying
2:06:25 i'm saying i'm i'm afraid of this
2:06:26 objection that's all i don't i love the
2:06:28 argument i i personally like it yeah i
2:06:30 get it i get it but so
2:06:32 i'm trying i'm trying to i'm trying to
2:06:34 test the argument with the with the
2:06:35 toughest with the toughest thing that
2:06:37 can affect it that's all again so in
2:06:39 terms of the logic do you understand the
2:06:41 difference like in terms of modal logic
2:06:44 do you understand the difference between
2:06:46 something necessary and something
2:06:48 contingent because the difference there
2:06:50 is very clear it's not arbitrary right
2:06:52 yeah necessary something that cannot be
2:06:54 any other way and contingent has many
2:06:56 possibilities
2:06:58 i mean
2:06:59 so so that's that's that's an aspect of
2:07:01 it but then the point the point is the
2:07:03 most basic
2:07:04 uh uh uh definition in modal terms is
2:07:07 that something necessary exists in all
2:07:10 possible worlds
2:07:12 and what that means basically is that
2:07:14 there couldn't be
2:07:16 a state of existence or
2:07:18 the world couldn't exist in any way
2:07:21 where these necessary things didn't
2:07:23 exist so for example it could be like
2:07:25 necessary propositions like like
2:07:27 mathematical truths so
2:07:29 one plus one equals two is necessary in
2:07:32 all possible worlds
2:07:34 but the grass being green
2:07:37 right is not necessarily all possible
2:07:39 yeah it's this is a problem one plus one
2:07:42 equal to two would be
2:07:44 would be correct in all possible worlds
2:07:46 if you're talking in in terms of
2:07:47 discreteness but not in the in the terms
2:07:50 of for example uh
2:07:52 uh do you call it greatness what do you
2:07:54 mean discreteness
2:07:57 like uh like if you talk about something
2:07:59 in mathematics mathematics is called a
2:08:01 romanian integral for example or a
2:08:03 lebastic integral it would be
2:08:05 it would be some kind of you know
2:08:07 infinitesimal subdivisions which you can
2:08:09 still identify as units
2:08:12 in that case i can see how how uh
2:08:15 how
2:08:16 you know these mathematical facts can be
2:08:19 true in every possible world i can see
2:08:20 that but what if that's not their true
2:08:22 nature what if what what if being
2:08:24 subdivisions is not the true nature of
2:08:26 those subdivisions no
2:08:28 this is an abstract claim senate just
2:08:30 think of the abstract one plus one
2:08:32 equals two forget about all that stuff
2:08:34 right and just assume for the sake of
2:08:36 argument because i'm trying to get
2:08:37 across the idea of what necessary is so
2:08:40 you might disagree that this particular
2:08:42 thing is necessary but the idea is
2:08:44 generally speaking humans agree
2:08:46 that one plus one necessarily equals two
2:08:49 is those necessary so there's no way the
2:08:51 world could have been the world couldn't
2:08:53 have been constructed in a way where
2:08:55 this i'm talking about the abstract this
2:08:57 proposition 1 plus 1 equals 17 for
2:09:00 example it's just so that's just not
2:09:02 possible but the world could have been
2:09:04 constructed in a way where grass was
2:09:06 blue right that's not there's no
2:09:08 contradiction there so
2:09:10 the way we the way we make a distinction
2:09:12 between necessary and
2:09:14 and possible things or contingent things
2:09:16 at a very basic level is through
2:09:19 contradictions right so a contradiction
2:09:21 thing seems
2:09:23 a contradiction seems impossible that
2:09:25 there is no possible world with a
2:09:26 contradiction anything that's not a
2:09:29 contradiction seems logically possible
2:09:32 and anything
2:09:34 that
2:09:35 you know which its denial entails a
2:09:37 contradiction seems logically necessary
2:09:41 so that's a very meaningful
2:09:42 non-arbitrary distinction between
2:09:45 necessary possible contingent impossible
2:09:49 that's that's not arbitrary you do you
2:09:51 do you get that
2:09:54 i
2:09:56 i want you to understand what your thing
2:09:57 because what you're thinking of is but
2:09:59 what if the world the matter behaved in
2:10:02 a way
2:10:03 that that's not in line with one plus
2:10:05 one equals two that's i'm thinking i'm
2:10:08 thinking what what if our notions of any
2:10:10 kind of
2:10:12 constructive mathematics or logic
2:10:15 what what if that what if does this
2:10:16 actually does not apply what what if
2:10:18 it's irrelevant
2:10:19 well so but then it seems so do we know
2:10:22 any do we know any objective truth
2:10:24 that's necessary i mean do we know any
2:10:26 logically necessary truth or are we just
2:10:28 uh yeah it seems like what you're saying
2:10:30 is you know it's going to make any kind
2:10:32 of explanation yeah any kind of
2:10:33 categorization impossible it does it
2:10:35 does collapse
2:10:38 if you take what you're seeing seriously
2:10:40 yes it would collapse but then i mean
2:10:41 yeah it does go that's the point it does
2:10:43 collapse so i'm saying maybe maybe we
2:10:45 don't need these things
2:10:47 to come to the belief maybe maybe we
2:10:49 just need uh
2:10:50 whatever our personal scene is okay is
2:10:53 gonna answer you but then it's
2:10:54 forgettable we
2:10:56 it's not that it's why should i take
2:10:58 what you're assuming about the nature of
2:11:01 the world seriously as opposed to just
2:11:04 going by what seems to be logically
2:11:06 necessary and logically contingent
2:11:09 there's no reason for me to go into a
2:11:11 speculation just because you're saying
2:11:13 it could be the case well the you you
2:11:16 see any line of reasoning you're gonna
2:11:17 put forward for whether i know or how it
2:11:19 could be the case is going to rely on
2:11:22 these axioms of thought and logic
2:11:24 it can't be the case that these axioms
2:11:27 that you're using are not necessary
2:11:28 because you're building your case you're
2:11:30 building your case for skepticism
2:11:32 relying on certain axioms that seem to
2:11:35 be necessary so i don't know this i
2:11:37 don't i mean you're yeah sure if i want
2:11:39 to take that path i can be escaped
2:11:43 that's my that's my point that's my
2:11:45 point in this kind of discussions
2:11:47 it just depends what a person is going
2:11:49 to use to define things for example if
2:11:51 we say to him okay there
2:11:54 there is consciousness we say to him
2:11:55 there's consciousness prior to the
2:11:57 material existence well all he can do is
2:11:59 extend extend the consciousness to the
2:12:02 prior existence that's all he can do he
2:12:05 can he can stretch the definitions yeah
2:12:07 brother
2:12:09 yes any in any argument any person can
2:12:11 accept or reject premises at will and
2:12:14 they could just use their
2:12:16 you could they could use their
2:12:17 subjective or you know dishonest maybe
2:12:20 they can even be dishonest and rejecting
2:12:21 what they want to reject based on some
2:12:23 kind of bias or cognitive dissonance
2:12:25 that's not the point the point that's
2:12:26 not the point of arguments is for
2:12:28 sincere people really it's not it's not
2:12:30 to beat someone it's not to shovel
2:12:34 is if the person is sincere and
2:12:36 reasonable he's gonna accept it the
2:12:37 point isn't to like the argument isn't
2:12:39 successful if every person in the world
2:12:41 accepts it if that's your standard or
2:12:43 successful argument then no argument
2:12:44 works really
2:12:45 nicely
2:12:46 a response
2:12:49 yes okay yeah so so when you were saying
2:12:52 that what if like for example um for one
2:12:55 plus one equals two like you presented
2:12:57 the doubt what if the true nature
2:13:00 of like the definitions of these words
2:13:02 you know like we're not that we don't
2:13:03 know the true definition or something i
2:13:05 mean couldn't someone ask the same about
2:13:07 the sentence that that
2:13:09 the skeptic presented you know how do
2:13:11 you know the true meaning of the yeah so
2:13:13 so it's like
2:13:14 like if
2:13:15 like if we ought to take that objection
2:13:17 seriously then why shouldn't he take the
2:13:19 objection seriously upon himself
2:13:22 you know it's it's it's it's more
2:13:25 like it
2:13:26 like that objection just seems like so
2:13:27 insincere like abdu was saying you know
2:13:29 it's it's i'm just that's not my
2:13:32 that that's not my aim my aim is to
2:13:34 demonstrate something else my aim is to
2:13:36 demonstrate that it all depends
2:13:38 it all depends about definitions where
2:13:41 how are you going to apply them
2:13:43 these definitions and and what
2:13:45 attributes are going to apply to certain
2:13:47 concepts for example somebody can say
2:13:49 like like the previous person he said
2:13:50 okay there's a quantum world
2:13:52 prior quantum existence prior to the
2:13:55 existence of this universe which would
2:13:56 cause whatever and you can object to him
2:13:59 okay well
2:14:00 it would take infinite amount of motions
2:14:03 to reach
2:14:04 the the initial conditions of our
2:14:06 present state
2:14:07 and then he can just all he all he has
2:14:09 to do is stretch the definition
2:14:11 to that quantum world he has to say to
2:14:14 it yeah it's possible all he did was
2:14:16 assign attribute to it from his own mind
2:14:19 in order to reject
2:14:20 all you're saying is that the person
2:14:22 isn't convinced and he's gonna come be
2:14:24 coming up with new objections fine yeah
2:14:25 okay have a good day bye bye
2:14:28 i don't know what you the way you the
2:14:29 arguments are they're not meant to just
2:14:32 basically settle the argument every
2:14:35 single time you have the discussion
2:14:37 listen if a person rejects logic for
2:14:38 example okay have a good day bye-bye i
2:14:40 mean i'm not going to try to force
2:14:43 them to accept logic but that's okay so
2:14:46 the arguments work based on certain go
2:14:47 ahead
2:14:48 i'm saying these i'm just trying i'm
2:14:50 saying these arguments these arguments
2:14:52 are not conclusive in on in and on on
2:14:54 them in and of themselves that's all i'm
2:14:56 saying so senator that is wrong
2:14:58 i'm trying to understand your particular
2:15:00 argument so are you just simply saying
2:15:02 that somebody could just arbitrarily
2:15:04 assign this term necessary
2:15:06 to something that we might turn around
2:15:08 and say it's contingent
2:15:11 yeah
2:15:11 i'm saying that they can
2:15:14 use their own
2:15:16 uh
2:15:16 terms which
2:15:18 this is why i stopped studying
2:15:20 philosophy for example i read the last
2:15:22 i'll explain something last book i read
2:15:24 was a necessary existence by joshua
2:15:26 rasmussen and
2:15:28 alexander prus
2:15:29 that's the last book i read i i went
2:15:31 through the argument several times and
2:15:33 what i'm seeing over and over is that
2:15:35 people
2:15:36 like findlay for example on the opposing
2:15:39 camp of the of the argument
2:15:41 what they do is they they already come
2:15:43 with the bias man they already come with
2:15:44 the destination that they have in the
2:15:46 mind where they want to drive the
2:15:47 argument too they take the argument to
2:15:50 the to the point that they want to drive
2:15:51 it to and they bring their own personal
2:15:54 feelings into the argument their own
2:15:55 preconceived ideas yeah yeah they put
2:15:58 this into it and it's implicit it's not
2:16:00 explicit and they all claim okay well
2:16:02 well uh well you know
2:16:04 obviously the natural way that the
2:16:06 argument takes us to this point is is a
2:16:08 direct path but it's not you know you
2:16:10 you can see how it smells of their own
2:16:13 of their own you know order of their men
2:16:15 that doesn't mean it's inconclusive
2:16:17 i mean you're saying it so on what basis
2:16:19 do we determine something is conclusive
2:16:21 or inconclusive so say science for
2:16:22 example if someone brings me a very well
2:16:26 founded you know established theory of
2:16:29 scientific theory
2:16:30 all the evidence in the world you can
2:16:32 imagine it's all there
2:16:34 uh
2:16:35 you know if you're talking about under
2:16:36 determination i can i can explain the
2:16:38 evidence in a different way i can just
2:16:40 arbitrarily redefine things and say no
2:16:42 no the explanation is is is this other
2:16:45 thing does that mean that my objection
2:16:47 is reasonable i think to take
2:16:49 unreasonable objections and say that on
2:16:51 the basis of unreasonable objections i'm
2:16:53 going to say that this argument is
2:16:55 unreasonable it's just like throwing all
2:16:57 of human knowledge away so
2:16:59 the best scientific theory you have i
2:17:01 can do the same thing
2:17:03 i'll explain why this is relevant
2:17:05 the the theism okay the islamic theism
2:17:08 specifically it demands something that's
2:17:10 called that's called certainty you
2:17:12 cannot have doubts in your belief
2:17:14 no so if you he could be psychological
2:17:17 the certainty the certainty is not gonna
2:17:18 come from the contingency argument the
2:17:21 arguments are not meant to establish a
2:17:23 high degree of iman and spiritual
2:17:25 awareness and closeness to allah that's
2:17:27 not the function of them the certainty
2:17:30 the psychological certainty you're going
2:17:32 to get that's going to come from
2:17:34 remembrance reciting the quran praying
2:17:37 to allah understanding truly pondering
2:17:39 upon the quran and its meaning and the
2:17:42 rational basis we have for our views in
2:17:45 islam and the way the quran interacts
2:17:47 with your intellect all of that stuff
2:17:49 that's a the point of the contingency
2:17:51 argument isn't to get you to certainty
2:17:53 so you're what you're arguing is that
2:17:55 well it's inconclusive because it
2:17:57 doesn't get you to certainty but then
2:17:59 it's not even meant to get you to
2:18:00 certainty so i don't know i don't know
2:18:02 how uh that's a good critique of the
2:18:04 argument the argument is not meant to
2:18:06 make you
2:18:07 certain of anything it's just an
2:18:08 argument for a proposition
2:18:11 and and and uh it it gives you reason to
2:18:14 believe in it in certain cases maybe you
2:18:16 maybe even deductively you can make a
2:18:18 deductive case but the point is that it
2:18:21 just it gives you strong reason to
2:18:22 believe in it or at least strong reason
2:18:25 to consider it take it seriously yeah
2:18:27 the certainty nobody's saying stop here
2:18:29 and that's your islam you can die now
2:18:31 nobody's saying that yeah so
2:18:34 you started off by saying that how you
2:18:36 know the definition between necessary
2:18:37 and contingent or woolly definitions
2:18:41 he said that well we can say one
2:18:43 definition of necessary being is that
2:18:45 which exists in all possible worlds and
2:18:47 a contingent being is that which exists
2:18:49 in some possible worlds yeah
2:18:52 so that is a quite a clear arbitrary
2:18:55 definition between the two yeah now how
2:18:57 do we identify what's necessary and
2:19:00 identify what is uh contingent then that
2:19:03 might be slightly different but one of
2:19:06 the key ways is obviously we say
2:19:08 something that we cannot conceive of to
2:19:10 be other than the way it is yeah so if
2:19:14 we can conceive of water boiling at more
2:19:16 than 100 degrees celsius all the
2:19:18 properties of the thing could have been
2:19:20 another way or the properties are not
2:19:22 defined by its own existence
2:19:24 yeah or the fact that it can fail to
2:19:26 exist all of these things would be
2:19:29 definitions for contingent possible
2:19:31 beings yeah
2:19:32 so that's one way of determining that
2:19:35 now somebody as a result cannot now
2:19:37 arbitrarily say well a quantum foam
2:19:40 could be
2:19:41 the necessary being because now you know
2:19:44 if the quantum foam is following certain
2:19:47 laws based on quantum mechanics and we
2:19:49 know that the laws of quantum mechanics
2:19:51 could have been another way then by
2:19:53 definition it is a contingent being it's
2:19:56 no longer a necessary being how do you
2:19:58 know it could they could have been
2:19:59 another way
2:20:00 because the laws of quantum mechanics we
2:20:02 can at least conceive of we can think of
2:20:05 in our mind we can imagine and that's
2:20:07 the problem and that's and that's the
2:20:09 that's the problem your projection
2:20:10 you're projecting your thoughts onto the
2:20:12 reality so are you projecting your
2:20:14 thoughts onto scientific theories and
2:20:15 interpreting the data because i don't
2:20:17 care about those
2:20:19 yeah but that's you see that's the point
2:20:21 that's the point so i'm telling you so
2:20:22 right now scientific theories is
2:20:24 something that i think everybody here we
2:20:26 accept that scientific theories you know
2:20:28 are a good method to to gain knowledge
2:20:30 about the world right now
2:20:32 there are no
2:20:33 so are you a skeptic do you know nothing
2:20:36 is there anything no
2:20:37 i am a hundred percent believer in allah
2:20:40 and islam
2:20:42 brother you don't need these arguments
2:20:43 i'm not telling you you need these i'm
2:20:44 not that's not my argument i'm saying
2:20:46 i'm asking right now apart from your
2:20:49 belief in allah or is there any other
2:20:52 method through which you can gain
2:20:53 knowledge
2:20:54 is is science a means to gain knowledge
2:20:59 only practical knowledge instrumental
2:21:00 knowledge to help us you know uh
2:21:03 you know okay design are the
2:21:05 interpretations of scientific is the
2:21:07 interpretation of a specific set of like
2:21:10 scientific data for example are those
2:21:12 interpretations
2:21:14 should they be taken seriously
2:21:16 depends what they talk about if they
2:21:18 talk about abductive abductive methods
2:21:20 for example to tell us what happened in
2:21:22 the past they should not be taken
2:21:24 serious if they're talking about
2:21:25 interpretations of of something that we
2:21:27 have current access to such as you know
2:21:30 uh i don't know special relativity you
2:21:33 know for example it can be tested in
2:21:35 real time but objective
2:21:37 abductive reasoning isn't only about the
2:21:39 past you know abductive reading you're
2:21:40 not going to do science without
2:21:42 objective reasoning sure yes the
2:21:43 scientific theory becomes much stronger
2:21:45 when you gather uh you know when you do
2:21:47 predictions and you gather evidence and
2:21:48 stuff like that it's always going to be
2:21:50 an inference to a best explanation
2:21:52 that's based on the data you're always
2:21:53 going to interpret the data industry
2:21:55 it's not just the data that's giving you
2:21:56 everything about science you're going to
2:21:58 interpret
2:21:59 it
2:22:01 there are too many options
2:22:03 but then you're you're saying let's go
2:22:04 away with inference to the best
2:22:05 explanation all together based on what
2:22:07 you're saying humans can't do inferences
2:22:09 to the best explanation they can't
2:22:10 abductively
2:22:12 infer anything i mean that's just
2:22:14 i think the the bigger part of our
2:22:17 reasoning and our experience all
2:22:18 together as humans is
2:22:20 abductive you see i i think it's mostly
2:22:23 yeah
2:22:24 yes so i don't know so what you're
2:22:26 saying is you're arguing for radical
2:22:27 skepticism brother like you shouldn't
2:22:29 know anything
2:22:32 only about only only about man-made
2:22:48 to his conclusion one one of the key
2:22:50 things that you want to look at is is he
2:22:53 being epistemically consistent yeah
2:22:56 is he following a particular epistemic
2:22:58 pattern
2:22:59 uh which is consistent or is he being
2:23:02 arbitrary is he stopping at certain
2:23:04 limits because stopping at certain
2:23:05 positions because he doesn't like the
2:23:07 conclusion so for example you know you
2:23:09 said well how do we know that something
2:23:11 has uh is a necessary being or is a
2:23:13 contingent being and i said well you
2:23:15 would do that because
2:23:23 you hear me
2:23:24 okay you're right
2:23:26 you can't say that you could do that
2:23:27 because yeah so i was going to say if
2:23:29 you can conceive of it as being another
2:23:32 way then you as as human beings what we
2:23:34 do is we've been given this rational
2:23:37 faculty that when we can conceive of
2:23:38 something being in another way we look
2:23:40 at the reasons as to why it's that way
2:23:43 yeah that's the rational process that's
2:23:45 the mind that's the uncles that we've
2:23:47 been given yeah now if i can conceive
2:23:51 for example if i go outside my house and
2:23:53 i see a snowman yeah somebody making
2:23:55 snow a man out of the snow yeah we call
2:23:58 it snowman in the uk i don't know if you
2:24:00 call that in uh bosnia where you're from
2:24:02 or uh are you seeing your bosnian
2:24:04 brother son ed
2:24:05 i'm bosnian yes yes yes yeah i could
2:24:08 tell from the name hamdulillah so you
2:24:10 know if i come out of my house and i see
2:24:11 this then i know the snow could have
2:24:13 been another way so rationally i'm going
2:24:15 to ask the question not well
2:24:18 is it it's necessary it has no way of me
2:24:20 not knowing whether it's no i'm going to
2:24:22 say no there's an explanation behind why
2:24:26 the snow has turned into this figure of
2:24:28 a man as opposed to just lying there on
2:24:31 my grass yeah so i'm gonna look for an
2:24:33 explanation that's our rational faculty
2:24:36 yeah that's how we rationalize and
2:24:39 understand the world around us now using
2:24:41 that same consistent basis i'm going to
2:24:44 look for other explanations when i
2:24:47 identify that something could have been
2:24:49 another way yeah and that's what i'm
2:24:52 going to call contingent and then i'm
2:24:54 going to get to a point where i have to
2:24:56 say okay stops there has to be a
2:24:58 necessary foundation and if it's
2:25:00 necessary then i'm going to say it's
2:25:02 other than contingent yeah it's going to
2:25:05 be other than what you know we see is
2:25:08 requiring an explanation is dependent
2:25:10 upon something else and therefore we go
2:25:12 back to an infinite sorry an independent
2:25:15 unlimited creator you know
2:25:17 allah yeah
2:25:19 self-sufficient so i think what it is is
2:25:22 that it's it's epistemically consistent
2:25:26 exactly it's the opposite of arbitrary
2:25:28 if it was arbitrary like you'd find so
2:25:30 many inconsistencies
2:25:32 if you want to identify whether somebody
2:25:34 he's got an emotional bias or whatever
2:25:36 it is against a particular argument is
2:25:38 to look at whether he's being
2:25:47 whether he's being consistent
2:25:48 epistemically
2:25:50 yeah
2:25:52 okay okay yeah so it's not just me that
2:25:54 mrs sharif right
2:25:56 it's everybody yes thanks for having me
2:25:58 on i mean maybe we can talk about this
2:26:00 again soon but then um i mean just just
2:26:03 as a general point nobody i mean i don't
2:26:05 think these arguments are needed for you
2:26:06 to believe in allah i mean
2:26:08 that's right
2:26:09 that rational path that rational path i
2:26:11 think we all have it like you don't have
2:26:13 to formulate it in in in in in terms of
2:26:16 like a philosophically sophisticated
2:26:18 contingency argument i mean that's we
2:26:20 always have that implicit rational
2:26:21 access to allah that utilizes most of
2:26:23 these concepts
2:26:25 and yes
2:26:27 i'm just saying that the the fact that
2:26:29 there are objections and there are
2:26:30 people who have different views on this
2:26:33 that's not enough because we're not
2:26:35 trying to reach like a philosophical
2:26:37 consensus here that's not what we're
2:26:38 doing we're seeing this as the
2:26:40 reasonable position not based on one or
2:26:42 two argument based on a cumulative case
2:26:45 and on that basis we think that some of
2:26:48 these arguments
2:26:49 give very good reasons for people to
2:26:52 believe or consider beliefs they still
2:26:54 have a lot of work to do there's still a
2:26:56 lot of work to do from there so the
2:26:57 arguments have their usefulness they're
2:26:59 not for everybody but just just the mere
2:27:02 fact of philosophical disagreement is
2:27:04 just
2:27:05 it's not it's irrelevant i mean there's
2:27:07 disagreements about everything so um
2:27:09 obviously disagreement in philosophy is
2:27:11 much more significant but
2:27:12 i i don't i don't really care about that
2:27:14 i care about the okay
2:27:16 just just just one point okay just one
2:27:18 more point and i'll be leaving i promise
2:27:21 um
2:27:22 the reason why i'm so anti these
2:27:24 arguments i i've reached the position
2:27:26 where i'm finding them
2:27:28 completely unnecessary like and i don't
2:27:30 see any utility anymore the reason for
2:27:32 that is because i have expended so much
2:27:34 energy on this
2:27:36 and uh you you have to understand i'm
2:27:38 thinking about this stuff for possibly
2:27:39 18 years now 18 to 19 years in my head
2:27:42 constantly struggling you know trying to
2:27:46 trying to you know give give some kind
2:27:47 of uh
2:27:49 like where i can actually uh reject not
2:27:52 reject but where i can
2:27:53 eliminate any kind of objection and i
2:27:56 haven't been able to do that and because
2:27:58 of that your standard your your bar is
2:28:00 way too you don't need to do that it
2:28:02 just needs to be a reasonable argument
2:28:04 there can be objections to it that you
2:28:05 don't know about that you don't have
2:28:06 answers to there's always going to be
2:28:08 more objections but that's yeah but i
2:28:09 mean anyway the point the point is that
2:28:11 it's not really uh it's not really meant
2:28:13 to be
2:28:14 uh the way you're portraying it here and
2:28:16 there is utility i mean if you know
2:28:17 brother allah with his channel i saw i
2:28:19 saw yeah he accepted yes he accepted
2:28:23 mainly this argument so
2:28:28 that's why i'm a little bit worried
2:28:29 about him when he has these discussions
2:28:31 if this is his basis for islam so when
2:28:34 he has these discussions in the future
2:28:36 and if somebody shakes him on this you
2:28:37 know somebody really shakes you more
2:28:39 that's what i'm telling you you need
2:28:40 more that's not enough what's he going
2:28:41 what's he going to do what's he going to
2:28:43 do if he's really shaking the way that
2:28:45 we did it today he needs more and he's
2:28:47 reading he's learning he's been
2:28:48 improving it's not just it's not just
2:28:50 contingency argument like premise
2:28:52 premise conclusion that's all i know
2:28:54 that's all i have to build my my my
2:28:56 world view on and you know then you're
2:28:58 going to ask me a question about you
2:29:00 know some random aspect of islam and i'm
2:29:02 going to have to refer back to the
2:29:03 contingency argument no there's much
2:29:05 more it's just one argument
2:29:07 you also said look you have to keep in
2:29:09 mind that like you can't take every
2:29:10 objection seriously so so just a
2:29:12 practical example let's say that's
2:29:15 like you're trying to build a case
2:29:16 against a criminal
2:29:19 um
2:29:20 and there's all this evidence that the
2:29:22 criminal is guilty there's like dna
2:29:24 evidence there's
2:29:25 i don't know like fingerprints on a
2:29:27 murder weapon all this stuff and
2:29:28 somebody says well it's it's not
2:29:30 possible like it's possible that
2:29:33 the dna evidence was planted that the
2:29:35 video evidence was forged by
2:29:38 by aliens in a distant galaxy
2:29:40 that
2:29:41 that i mean that like
2:29:43 the person himself that's not the real
2:29:45 person that was a clone that was planted
2:29:47 there by these alien like oh it's like
2:29:49 okay fine that's possible but like am i
2:29:52 really going to take it seriously you
2:29:53 know like at
2:29:54 that this is why that like when you
2:29:56 convict somebody it's it's when there's
2:29:58 evidence beyond reasonable doubt
2:30:02 it's not evidence beyond all possible
2:30:04 doubt because you can possibly think of
2:30:06 anything
2:30:07 you know
2:30:08 so you just keep that in mind
2:30:09 insha'allah and uh
2:30:11 thanks uh good talking to you and
2:30:12 inshaallah we'll talk again soon take
2:30:14 care thank you thank you so much uh
2:30:16 salaam alaikum and say
2:30:34 very interesting discussion i just want
2:30:36 to go back uh on the topic regarding the
2:30:39 utility of pascal's major one of the
2:30:42 issues which i have since it's it's a
2:30:44 game theory argument so obviously you
2:30:47 are putting some assumptions into that
2:30:49 argument
2:30:50 where
2:30:51 you're putting an infinite reward system
2:30:54 uh if you have that sort of belief and
2:30:55 gone and so the argument is basically
2:30:58 going on optimizing the existence of god
2:31:01 based on a reward function
2:31:03 uh what if uh
2:31:05 on the other hand if
2:31:06 you
2:31:07 do not believe in god and you and god
2:31:10 does not exist but if there is a reward
2:31:12 function there
2:31:13 now we place the infinite amount with
2:31:16 the assumption because of the afterlife
2:31:18 right
2:31:19 that that
2:31:20 that's one of the
2:31:22 assumptions that gives sort of this
2:31:24 infinite
2:31:25 value due to god's existence
2:31:29 but if we if we remove that assumption
2:31:31 uh that
2:31:33 the just the our current world
2:31:34 assumption what data we have from
2:31:37 from
2:31:38 our world then that infinite value also
2:31:41 becomes a finite value
2:31:43 and if the belief in god and god exists
2:31:47 is only if you know uh is is sort of
2:31:50 like only a finite i lost you for a
2:31:52 second there how did the infinite value
2:31:54 become of a finite value
2:31:56 so if if we remove let's say if we
2:31:58 remove uh
2:32:00 we expect the expectation that god
2:32:03 exists that means
2:32:04 uh you
2:32:06 you can only gain that infinite value
2:32:08 once you die or once right that's that's
2:32:12 maybe
2:32:13 what the assumption is putting that's
2:32:15 why there's an infinite value so you're
2:32:17 saying if we remove the assumption that
2:32:19 god exists
2:32:21 it's okay okay so wait wait let me let
2:32:23 me sorry because i know i'm confusing
2:32:25 you so
2:32:26 the infinite value exists only on the
2:32:29 assumption that god exists is that what
2:32:30 you're saying so yeah it is it is and
2:32:33 i'm saying
2:32:34 it is it is assuming a complete so it is
2:32:37 assuming that
2:32:38 the infinite reward
2:32:40 is because god exists but it is it is
2:32:43 the rev the reward is not is for us
2:32:45 right it's uh for the it's it's based on
2:32:48 belief and then god exists the result is
2:32:51 the god god exists and it gives you
2:32:53 infinite reward right but uh if if that
2:32:57 reward is let's say
2:32:59 the assumption is just because god is
2:33:01 infinite so we should also get infinite
2:33:03 reward is is that right
2:33:06 i mean uh i don't know if there's
2:33:09 assumption the question is
2:33:11 um is there
2:33:13 any view in which
2:33:15 uh you know there is at least a
2:33:18 possibility
2:33:19 for it to result in this uh infinite uh
2:33:23 utility right that's that's that's the
2:33:25 question
2:33:26 is there any possibility of a view
2:33:30 of a position
2:33:32 uh you know giving you this infinite
2:33:35 expected value right so
2:33:37 right if i put it this way if
2:33:39 let's say i believe you you believe in
2:33:41 god and god exists but
2:33:43 uh
2:33:44 that infinite uh value will only come
2:33:47 once you have passed on right okay yeah
2:33:50 okay now now coming back to let's say
2:33:52 present date all right or our present
2:33:54 world so
2:33:56 because you put in that sort of uh you
2:33:58 know a small barrier which is like you
2:34:00 know you're passing on
2:34:02 then that value that infinite value
2:34:04 becomes
2:34:05 uh a value it becomes a lesser value
2:34:08 in that sense because you're only cal
2:34:10 you're only estimating it now from
2:34:12 our world right so it's a finite value
2:34:15 you you will get a finite reward if you
2:34:17 believe in god
2:34:18 with the expectation that god exists but
2:34:21 once you pass on then only you get that
2:34:22 infinite reward
2:34:25 yeah but yeah but so that's it's it's
2:34:26 when i pass on that's the one i'm
2:34:28 concerned with it's not this life so the
2:34:30 finite value yeah it's in this life yeah
2:34:32 finite value from belief is in this life
2:34:34 and the infinite values in the next
2:34:35 level right right so let's let's stick
2:34:37 to let's now now coming back to the
2:34:39 argument let's stick to the finite
2:34:41 values because you were you were find a
2:34:43 value in this life okay final value in
2:34:44 this life because you were mentioning
2:34:45 living as a as a theist or believe in
2:34:48 god is will help right now if the
2:34:51 the same way uh i know in the pascal's
2:34:54 wager the the disbelief and god does you
2:34:58 know
2:34:59 does not exist it gives a sort of
2:35:02 a zero sort of value right it does not
2:35:04 matter but if there is a beneficial
2:35:06 value you know you you disbelieve
2:35:09 and you live as such that god does not
2:35:12 exist and if there is us
2:35:15 even if there is a little bit of a
2:35:17 finite value to it that's where then the
2:35:19 expected utility comes only based on a
2:35:22 probability now and now we we are
2:35:24 comparing two sets of data whether you
2:35:26 live as a theist
2:35:28 and you're gaining something good in the
2:35:30 finite you know good finite rewards
2:35:32 while you're living as a theist and
2:35:33 believing that god exists or whether you
2:35:35 are you know not leaving as a
2:35:37 theist and
2:35:39 you have an expectation that god does
2:35:41 not exist but you are still getting a
2:35:42 finite reward then you have to compare
2:35:44 those two finite rewards right and
2:35:47 that's where there's no it's a game
2:35:49 theory there's no there's no fixed
2:35:50 probability there the data
2:35:53 i mean so okay so the finite value okay
2:35:56 even you can even give that one to the
2:35:58 atheist i mean even though again i said
2:36:00 we have empirical evidence that that
2:36:03 religiosity improves well-being in this
2:36:05 life but then even if you give that one
2:36:08 to the atheist it's just it's not really
2:36:10 tackling the crux of the argument the
2:36:12 crux of the argument is concerned with
2:36:14 the afterlife so i don't know if we're
2:36:16 gonna rule out the afterlife and focus
2:36:18 just on this one then yeah maybe maybe
2:36:20 maybe someone can make a case that the
2:36:21 empirical evidence should point us to
2:36:23 the fact that religiosity does lead to a
2:36:26 better finite utility or more finite
2:36:28 utility
2:36:30 higher finite utility and we should take
2:36:32 that or maybe the atheist will disagree
2:36:34 but then it just becomes inconsequential
2:36:37 to the actual argument because the
2:36:38 actual argument is going to take into
2:36:40 consideration the ultimate outcome right
2:36:43 it's going to take into consideration
2:36:44 the ultimate outcome but the atheist
2:36:47 will then argue that you know
2:36:49 that's that's i do not believe in the
2:36:51 ultimate outcome because that is an
2:36:52 assumption that you're putting yeah bro
2:36:54 i mean that's the whole point i don't
2:36:55 know if you've been listening because
2:36:57 yeah i know they don't believe that's
2:36:58 not the point the point the point here
2:37:00 is that
2:37:01 what probability do they assign to it
2:37:04 and
2:37:06 you know juxtaposing that with the
2:37:08 expected utility hypothetically on this
2:37:12 theory
2:37:13 what decisions should they make it's not
2:37:15 that if they already believe in it we
2:37:17 don't need to be talking about this the
2:37:18 point is they don't believe in it that's
2:37:20 the point yeah right but
2:37:22 when you say expected utility right so
2:37:24 you are
2:37:25 i i do understand the expected utilities
2:37:28 with the assumption of
2:37:30 life which is beyond our current life
2:37:33 right
2:37:33 that's yeah so listen i can even say
2:37:35 that like on hinduism i don't need to
2:37:37 believe in the worldview i'm saying
2:37:38 what's the expected utility if hinduism
2:37:41 were true or if it
2:37:43 is false and you know given on both
2:37:46 situations i believe i disbelieve so you
2:37:48 don't have to believe in it
2:37:49 there's no assumption really it's just
2:37:51 in the beginning in that first stage
2:37:53 it's all just you know
2:37:55 theoretically laying out as just that
2:37:58 these world views
2:37:59 they
2:38:00 have this claimed you know
2:38:04 util expected utility and what is the
2:38:07 credence i assign to these world views
2:38:09 versus let's say a worldview that
2:38:11 doesn't have such an infinite object you
2:38:14 know
2:38:15 expected utility and right now is there
2:38:18 a decision to make are the credences
2:38:20 that i assign
2:38:22 uh you know significant enough to help
2:38:24 me lean one way or another so it's about
2:38:26 making a decision in a case where well
2:38:29 it's not so clear to you that's that's
2:38:30 really what it is right so if i'm
2:38:32 getting you're saying that it is a good
2:38:34 argument to make you uh at least
2:38:36 evaluate uh whether
2:38:39 whether some whether this sort of like a
2:38:42 evaluate a reward system whether god
2:38:45 exists or does not exist
2:38:48 to make you step into the realm of
2:38:51 world views that do have this this claim
2:38:54 of expected infinite
2:38:57 infinite expected utility and say that
2:38:59 well i am going to take this very
2:39:01 seriously i'm going to be sincere and
2:39:03 you know i'm going to uh uh
2:39:06 for the rest of my life as long as i
2:39:07 live
2:39:08 work on finding the most reasonable
2:39:10 position among these and i will adopt it
2:39:12 that's that's that's that's the way the
2:39:14 wager works because well the other
2:39:16 position is not i mean you're you're
2:39:18 you're you're you're not going to lose
2:39:20 anything when you do this compared to
2:39:21 the other position there's not you might
2:39:23 lose some finite
2:39:26 utility here in this life but again in
2:39:28 comparison it doesn't
2:39:30 sometimes that even doesn't even matter
2:39:31 because the religious what you're the
2:39:33 good you're going to get out of the
2:39:34 religious you know
2:39:36 life is uh
2:39:38 as as mentioned earlier that can be very
2:39:40 very significant as well so
2:39:43 right so
2:39:45 then it becomes more of an argument of
2:39:47 something like if god exists then this
2:39:49 reward whereas if x
2:39:53 then god exists it's not that it's not
2:39:55 the
2:39:56 later argument right it's the the first
2:39:58 one which is if god exists
2:40:00 then
2:40:01 this sort of reward right uh yeah i mean
2:40:03 yeah so but depending on some people
2:40:05 might tell you these weird conceptions
2:40:07 of god or something but then yeah
2:40:08 generally speaking yes it just takes a
2:40:10 certain theory seriously about you know
2:40:12 theory that claims to
2:40:14 uh claims that there is objective
2:40:16 meaning and that there is
2:40:18 infinite utility or you know infinite
2:40:21 negative utility and right maybe we
2:40:22 should take these claims seriously maybe
2:40:24 maybe the credence you assigned to these
2:40:26 views are zero and then you just don't
2:40:27 you don't have to take anything
2:40:28 seriously
2:40:29 but uh yeah
2:40:31 generally speaking that's that's that's
2:40:32 what the argument's supposed to do
2:40:34 all right all right good discussing with
2:40:36 you guys and good hearing continuing on
2:40:39 thank you no problem
2:40:44 and look who we have here is
2:40:54 how you guys are a little short-staffed
2:40:55 today
2:40:56 yeah man it's been messed up yeah
2:40:59 yeah
2:41:00 i started the stream hello and i was
2:41:02 like oh please somebody join
2:41:03Laughter 2:41:06 yeah what's up how have you been i've
2:41:08 been good brother been good up to a lot
2:41:10 of work uh
2:41:12 i've uh i've teamed up with an
2:41:14 organization called uplift dawa
2:41:17 and they are sending me out a table a
2:41:19 canopy
2:41:20 um a banner asking me about islam a
2:41:22 whole bunch of korans and english
2:41:25 whole bunch of brochures and everything
2:41:27 and i'm gonna uh i also got a gopro on
2:41:29 the way out here
2:41:31 and uh i'm going to set up a dial so
2:41:32 this is this is really progressing so it
2:41:34 should happen sometime soon right you
2:41:35 shouldn't be setting it up wow awesome
2:41:38 man and that that'll be awesome and
2:41:40 you're going to record all these stuff
2:41:41 and like upload it to your youtube
2:41:43 channel awesome
2:41:46 we mentioned you a while ago actually
2:41:47 sorry i'm just reading uh one of the
2:41:49 comments but then
2:41:53 yeah uh the thing is um we mentioned you
2:41:56 to a brother who's i mean this is not
2:41:58 about the contingency argument this
2:41:59 stream but a brother who was saying that
2:42:01 you know it's completely useless and
2:42:02 stuff and it doesn't
2:42:04 doesn't convince anybody and then we
2:42:05 just mentioned you were like why did you
2:42:06 know how you lied just convinced him
2:42:09 at least it was i mean
2:42:10 i guess where he was coming from was
2:42:12 that it doesn't take you all the way it
2:42:13 doesn't make you certain like that's not
2:42:14 the purpose of the argument really it's
2:42:16 just a stepping stone in in the right
2:42:17 direction that's what it was
2:42:19 for many people that i know and
2:42:21 and you're one of them
2:42:22 so yeah
2:42:23 what do you think about pascal's wager
2:42:26 considering you're the lot you're the
2:42:27 last guy here so
2:42:28 yes
2:42:29 pascal's wager um
2:42:32 yeah i didn't need to join sooner i just
2:42:34 jumped on an extreme but uh pascal's
2:42:36 wager to me i can look i can come at it
2:42:38 a different couple different ways let's
2:42:39 go back
2:42:40 uh in the recent past six months ago
2:42:42 when i was uh was not when i was an
2:42:44 atheist
2:42:45 and uh um before you brothers took care
2:42:47 of materialism for me
2:42:49 but when i was an atheist uh i looked at
2:42:52 pascal's wager as okay well it looks as
2:42:54 if the argument is like a 50 50 like
2:42:57 either you believe in this specific
2:42:58 religion or or it's just damnation
2:43:01 hellfire and i was like well there's
2:43:03 tons of different religions out there so
2:43:05 it's not really like a 50 50 you know
2:43:07 one one ratio it's more of a uh
2:43:11 it's it's more of a like you one in like
2:43:14 let's just say a thousand let's just say
2:43:16 there was a thousand gods one in a
2:43:17 thousand and i didn't really see it as a
2:43:20 strong argument and i think you brothers
2:43:23 have uh talked to me about it before uh
2:43:26 and kind of yeah it does it doesn't have
2:43:27 very good reputation even among even
2:43:30 among theists right so
2:43:32 yeah had him doing his thing he's have a
2:43:35 good reputation even among these but
2:43:36 what we try to do is maybe give it like
2:43:39 a bit more
2:43:40 nuance a bit more you know philosophical
2:43:43 depth than normally the way it's
2:43:44 presented doesn't mean it's perfect but
2:43:46 uh yeah it's something that for for some
2:43:49 people who who who fall in a certain
2:43:52 category and have specific kinds of
2:43:54 commitments that uh obviously we we
2:43:57 think would be reasonable
2:43:58 uh for some people that it would be
2:44:01 a an argument to consider it's a
2:44:03 pragmatic argument it's not an argument
2:44:05 for
2:44:06 the existence of god it's a pragmatic
2:44:08 argument that's based on decisions
2:44:10 theory that tells us based on
2:44:12 many different considerations what
2:44:14 should we decide right given unexpected
2:44:16 give a given expected
2:44:18 value of different positions and with
2:44:21 the fact that we could be wrong well
2:44:23 what should we do
2:44:24 and yeah it can be a very sophisticated
2:44:26 and a very beneficial uh
2:44:28 beneficial argument uh clearly some
2:44:30 people think that you know this isn't
2:44:32 good because
2:44:33 that's not how you want to believe you
2:44:35 don't want to be a hypocrite but that's
2:44:36 not what the argument is really doing is
2:44:38 you know the way i would put it is that
2:44:40 it just tells you you know take these
2:44:42 positions seriously because it means a
2:44:44 lot i guess yeah i guess i mean that's
2:44:46 oversimplifying it but that's i think
2:44:48 that's that's generally the gist of it
2:44:50 for me
2:44:51 when i when i was an atheist i it kind
2:44:53 of boiled down to like fear-mongering
2:44:55 for me in my opinion that that it was
2:44:57 like you need to you need to accept this
2:44:59 or or else you're screwed buddy
2:45:03 like that's kind of how i how i saw it
2:45:05 now i will say that i do believe that
2:45:07 all these types of arguments need more
2:45:09 nuance to them because there's this
2:45:11 general notion out there that there's
2:45:13 this one single knock down drag out
2:45:16 argument for the existence of god
2:45:18 and it's just it's not like that when
2:45:19 you go into a room and you have atheists
2:45:21 around you they're like what's your
2:45:22 argument for god i was like what is an
2:45:24 argument for god i i have i i have
2:45:27 arguments that we can daisy chain in a
2:45:29 specific in a specific manner that gets
2:45:31 you to
2:45:32 the god that i'm speaking of and we can
2:45:34 go into the nuances but typically at
2:45:36 that point you know they don't want to
2:45:38 go into the nuances like when you just
2:45:40 start more complicated than just premise
2:45:42 premise conclusion right yeah you just
2:45:43 you you know you you start off like the
2:45:45 christian comes in the room and you and
2:45:47 he starts spouting john 3 16 and and you
2:45:50 know all these bible verses and they're
2:45:51 like no you need you're just jumping to
2:45:53 a god you know a conclusion of god so
2:45:56 you need to get more nuanced with it and
2:45:57 we want to hear how exactly you got
2:45:59 there instead of just presupposing this
2:46:01 god exists and then reading the bible
2:46:02 and taking what it says seriously well
2:46:04 then when you go in with the nuance and
2:46:07 you say let's start right here did the
2:46:08 universe begin to exist like you start
2:46:10 with a contingency or you know you
2:46:12 started those beginning levels then
2:46:14 they're like well let's let's get to
2:46:15 your god let's let's go i'm like but
2:46:17 yeah
2:46:19 it's always like that yeah
2:46:21 yeah it's always like that it's very
2:46:22 frustrating because then then um
2:46:24 i think i think i think a lot of times
2:46:26 people want to jump to the more
2:46:27 controversial stuff right that they they
2:46:30 stuff they can hold against you right
2:46:32 but and and the thing is i don't have a
2:46:34 problem with that either i just think
2:46:35 it's useless i think it's pointless i
2:46:37 can talk about whatever you want you can
2:46:38 you can raise like moral concerns and
2:46:40 stuff about islam and we can sit and
2:46:41 talk about it right the the the issue is
2:46:43 i just don't think it's it's it's very
2:46:46 beneficial in in the sense that well we
2:46:48 have different views let's try to build
2:46:51 an understanding
2:46:52 you know
2:46:53 based on a particular common ground we
2:46:56 have like logic reasons normally
2:46:58 yeah exactly and let's try to see where
2:47:01 we can build and maybe get to these
2:47:02 other stuff and you know we can discuss
2:47:05 those other stuff in a vacuum too don't
2:47:06 get me wrong but most of the time
2:47:08 the the requests the questions about
2:47:10 these things happen in in in the form of
2:47:12 like a
2:47:14 a debate or like you know a polemical
2:47:16 approach to to to to to take you down in
2:47:19 an argument and stuff like that it's
2:47:21 it's it's normally not not very useful
2:47:24 and also also a lot of times because i
2:47:26 mean this has happened a lot in our
2:47:28 circles and you guys know this that a
2:47:29 lot of the guys really don't know
2:47:32 they don't really know what it is to
2:47:34 argue for a position they're like um so
2:47:36 so you'll see provide a certain argument
2:47:38 for the existence of god and then you
2:47:41 describe certain characteristics god you
2:47:43 know the oneness of god and different
2:47:45 properties let's say you're arguing
2:47:47 rationally for
2:47:49 this particular conception of god and
2:47:50 they're like well this is not arguing
2:47:53 this is not evidence for islam
2:47:55 that's just silly because
2:47:57 clearly if
2:47:59 the islamic conception of god is very
2:48:00 specific and this a series of arguments
2:48:04 or this you know
2:48:05 cumulative case is in line with what the
2:48:08 islamic cons
2:48:10 the the islam is teaching and we arrived
2:48:12 at that rationally and then scripture is
2:48:14 in line with it then that's some kind of
2:48:16 evidence you know it's not it's not
2:48:17 knock down evidence it's not that's not
2:48:18 that's not all you need to do but the
2:48:20 point is that it is evidence
2:48:22 and honestly speaking most of the time
2:48:24 when people um
2:48:26 say they want to
2:48:28 the guys i think you know the guys i'm
2:48:29 talking about the guys in our circles
2:48:30 who say that no no they want to talk
2:48:32 about more specific aspects like why you
2:48:34 believe the quran is the word of god i'm
2:48:37 happy to talk about that and we
2:48:38 discussed it before
2:48:39 uh with those guys several times i just
2:48:42 they just need to understand certain
2:48:44 things that listen so if you're coming
2:48:46 from a naturalistic perspective if you
2:48:48 have this naturalistic paradigm and i
2:48:50 tell you that well uh um the quran is
2:48:54 the word of god because xyz and you
2:48:56 don't want me to start with the basics
2:48:58 and deconstruct your epistemology and
2:49:00 give you my reasons for belief and how i
2:49:02 make these different you don't want that
2:49:03 you just want simply just the case an
2:49:05 isolated case of why
2:49:07 the quran is from god for example and i
2:49:10 gave you a very simple argument
2:49:12 at least you need to expect and realize
2:49:15 that this is not going to be an argument
2:49:16 that's trying to convince you it's just
2:49:17 oh this is the way i reason and it's
2:49:19 based on a lot of background knowledge
2:49:21 and a lot of commitments that i already
2:49:24 have that we can speak about but you
2:49:25 don't want to speak about that this is
2:49:26 just going to be an
2:49:28 argument in a vacuum and i'm happy to
2:49:30 give it to you but then
2:49:32 that's that's not what they want because
2:49:34 their immediate response is going to be
2:49:35 like well that's not evidence that the
2:49:37 quran is the word well clearly in a
2:49:39 vacuum it isn't because you have certain
2:49:41 and you know
2:49:42 it's
2:49:43 it's very it's very frustrating because
2:49:45 um
2:49:47 you have to keep going back and forth
2:49:48 with sometimes a lot of people who don't
2:49:50 really know how
2:49:51 how these things work and how
2:49:53 they just want to assess arguments
2:49:55 in a vacuum right
2:49:57 yeah
2:49:58 i remember they asked me that question
2:49:59 once you know and they were expecting
2:50:01 just like a single argument and i
2:50:03 instead i
2:50:04 i mentioned the approach that i that
2:50:06 like we would take instead
2:50:08 so it's like little look like when
2:50:10 you're trying to build a case what you
2:50:12 have to do is
2:50:13 like you'd have to appeal to your
2:50:15 experiences in some way so you you'd
2:50:17 have to draw from there
2:50:19 and you see you see like uh for example
2:50:22 hamza from harms is done
2:50:24 um
2:50:25 he
2:50:26 he makes a really good case from
2:50:28 the process of elimination
2:50:30 where he says look well i mean prophet
2:50:32 muhammed peace be upon him is either a
2:50:34 liar
2:50:35 um he's
2:50:37 he was
2:50:39 he was uh let's say he was like
2:50:40 delusional or something or he's like a
2:50:42 genuine prophet you know like those are
2:50:44 really the only
2:50:45 only three options so so the trichotomy
2:50:48 and then
2:50:49 you would well
2:50:51 like what do we know about liars you
2:50:53 know like what do we know about like
2:50:54 delusional people we look to our
2:50:55 experiences in the past
2:50:57 and then like we'd assess what we know
2:50:59 from the history to see if those
2:51:01 of those fit
2:51:03 and and they don't fit so the process of
2:51:05 elimination you strike them down
2:51:08 you know and then like what you're left
2:51:09 with
2:51:10 um it both co it's um
2:51:13 it's the only option that's
2:51:14 left that's reasonable
2:51:16 you know so like he he go he goes more
2:51:19 yeah but oh man yeah yeah
2:51:22 yeah that's that's that's very good but
2:51:24 then keep in mind so for again for the
2:51:26 philosophical naturalist
2:51:29 right or yeah exactly
2:51:32 like he doesn't have to be philosophical
2:51:33 naturalist but the hardcore like uh um
2:51:36 you know
2:51:37 atheist
2:51:38 is going to be like well okay i mean
2:51:41 okay fine cool but then it's like
2:51:44 it's just so lame dude i mean this is
2:51:45 just that's your evidence i mean he's
2:51:47 expecting something like like the what
2:51:49 this uh certain youtuber always says
2:51:51 that well evidence for god would be easy
2:51:53 something like every time you ask for a
2:51:55 gold brick you get a gold brick right
2:51:56 that's they're looking for that they're
2:51:58 for that
2:52:06 imagine i'm talking to someone like that
2:52:07 who thinks that you know evidence for
2:52:08 god should be in the form of just you
2:52:10 know getting a gold brick every time you
2:52:12 ask for a gold brick and i tell him hey
2:52:14 look you know process of elimination was
2:52:15 he a liar imagine telling that guy that
2:52:18 i mean yeah they won't he's thinking of
2:52:20 putting god under a microscope and you
2:52:21 know the process of elimination exactly
2:52:24 what's because he
2:52:25 like as you said you know like they
2:52:27 don't have experience with like islam
2:52:31 you know like they would have
2:52:31 christianity let's say so it's like i
2:52:34 mean they don't know about the seerah
2:52:35 you know like
2:52:36 where i'm sure as as children just
2:52:38 growing up we learn all about this you
2:52:40 know the prophet muhammad sallallahu
2:52:42 and we know of the
2:52:46 we know like of the events that took
2:52:47 place and all that
2:52:49 um so yeah anyway sorry like yeah
2:52:51 exactly yeah there's a lot of background
2:52:52 knowledge that goes into it no yeah
2:52:53 that's it that's good so yeah so guys uh
2:52:56 i don't know so we're three of us are
2:52:58 ending here this is like the most
2:53:00 uh uh unexpected
2:53:02 ending to the tap show with the three of
2:53:04 us this is cool this is a moment of
2:53:05 history so
2:53:06 yeah so i want you guys to give your
2:53:08 last words guys
2:53:10 don't forget check out
2:53:12 justin's channel support him and support
2:53:14 he has this new project with what's it
2:53:16 called again just to just put all that
2:53:18 yeah sorry
2:53:20 i revamped the show
2:53:21 uh it's no longer the ea show it's now
2:53:24 i'm sticking with the ea just not to
2:53:25 confuse people it's called ea dawah so
2:53:28 now ea no longer stands for exploring
2:53:30 arguments but i think it was catchy
2:53:31 essential akida
2:53:33 essential akita
2:53:35 and uh and we'll we'll be we'll be
2:53:37 setting up a dawah table here and and
2:53:40 i'm
2:53:41 partnering up with uplift dawa that's an
2:53:43 organization you can visit their website
2:53:45 they have a youtube channel it's where
2:53:46 there's uh brother yusuf and some other
2:53:49 brothers are are showing like how they
2:53:50 give dawah uh and eventually i'll be
2:53:53 i'll be on there with with my uh with my
2:53:55 recordings of myself at the dawa table
2:53:58 rather whether it's like a a shahadah or
2:54:00 a good conversation with a christian or
2:54:02 an atheist or you know whoever whoever
2:54:04 comes up and decides that they want to
2:54:06 have a good conversation but yeah it's
2:54:07 uh it's ea dawa on youtube um and in the
2:54:12 videos there's all the links to
2:54:13 everything below so if you want to help
2:54:15 with the cause and and be uh be a patron
2:54:17 or a youtube member or there i think i
2:54:19 think i'll also be adding a paypal there
2:54:20 if you want to make a one-time donation
2:54:22 um that's that's absolutely helpful um i
2:54:26 believe that uh i believe that uh those
2:54:29 those who uh help out with the with the
2:54:32 um
2:54:33 with with the production of something
2:54:35 that gives the world more and more of
2:54:37 the word uh of allah more of islam you
2:54:40 know more dawah uh that the thing it
2:54:42 says in the quran that your your rewards
2:54:45 will be multiplied so that's just what
2:54:46 i'm trying to do is you know allah is
2:54:48 using me and the other brothers here as
2:54:50 a tool to try and to try and present
2:54:52 good arguments for islam and and good
2:54:54 good reasons to believe but uh but
2:54:57 yeah
2:54:58 and so guys definitely check out his
2:55:00 channel and and try to support him with
2:55:01 whatever you can and share his stuff
2:55:04 like his stuff subscribe because
2:55:05 mashallah is he
2:55:09 he's out there he's doing it and hatham
2:55:10 great having you on man looking forward
2:55:12 for this to be like you know a regular
2:55:14 thing we we need to see you here more
2:55:16 often
2:55:18 and uh yeah and we will see you guys
2:55:20 soon we have
2:55:22 a few exciting things coming up most
2:55:24 importantly
2:55:25 alex malpass in november we're gonna put
2:55:28 that out soon this exact date and topic
2:55:30 and stuff like that
2:55:32 but yeah and uh yeah jake
2:55:34 and
2:55:35 the guys should be back soon inshallah
2:55:37 sharif was here today but yeah jake
2:55:39 should be back soon
2:55:40 uh everybody's favorite i think i mean
2:55:42 jake come on i mean what's the stream
2:55:43 without jake really
2:55:45 uh and uh
2:55:46 thank you everybody for your support
2:55:48 thank you for tuning in
2:55:49 and uh we'll see you next time
2:55:51 inshaallah salaam alaikum