Islamic Revival

Appearance

On this page

Science and Scientism | The Evidence Course | Session 1 / Part 3 (2021-06-23) ​

Description ​

Session 1 Part 3

In an age of information overload and widespread pseudo-intellectualism, understanding the core foundations of Islam is as essential as ever.

This course comprehensively deconstructs the skeletal structure of prevalent ideologies and concepts such as atheism, scientism, materialism, secularism, and skepticism, in light of an all-encompassing intellectually robust Islamic worldview.

Thought Adventure Support â—„ PayPal - https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=6KZWK75RB23RN â—„ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/ThoughtAdventurePodcast/join â—„ PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/thoughtadventurepodcast

Thought Adventure Social Media ◄ Twitter: https://twitter.com/T_A_Podcast​​ [@T_A_Podcast] ◄ Clubhouse https://www.clubhouse.com/club/thought-adventure-podcast ◄ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7x4UVfTz9QX8KVdEXquDUC ◄ Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/ThoughtAdventurePodcast ◄ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ThoughtAdventurePodcast​

The Hosts: ----------------------| Jake Brancatella, The Muslim Metaphysician

----------------------|

Yusuf Ponders, The Pondering Soul

----------------------|

Sharif

----------------------|

Abdulrahman

----------------------|

Admin

Riyad Gmail: hello.tapodcast@gmail.com

Summary of Science and Scientism | The Evidence Course | Session 1 / Part 3 ​

This summary is AI generated - there may be inaccuracies. *

00:00:00 - 00:25:00 ​

discusses how science and scientism are two different approaches to studying evidence. The first problem with scientism is that it is self-refuting, as stated by the examples given. The second problem is that certain things we are sure about without the use of science, like the existence of great grandmothers, are inductively derived.

**00:00:00

  • Discusses the Mona Lisa, which is one of the most expensive paintings in the world. The painting is studied using the scientific method, which allows for a high degree of certainty about the artist, the time period, and the location of the painting. However, questions about the painting's aesthetic reception and the experienc
  • **00:05:00 ** science and scientism are discussed. The first problem with this approach is that it's self-refuting, as stated by the examples given. The second problem is that certain things we are sure about without the use of science, like the existence of great grandmothers, are inductively derived.
  • **00:10:00
  • Discusses the difference between induction and deduction. induction is a process where you go from the particular to the generalized, while deduction is the process of going from the general to a particular conclusion. provides an example of induction and deduction in the context of a scientific theory, explaining that induction is possible but deduction is not, as the evidence set may not be exhaustive. Scientific theories cannot be certain, as they are based on incomplete evidence.
  • **00:15:00 ** Karl Popper, an empiricist philosopher, discusses the inductive nature of science and the fact that causality cannot be proven. He states that a statement can only be said to be valid until evidence has falsified it.
  • **00:20:00
  • Discusses how science relies on assumptions, including the assumption that causality exists. It also discusses how, without causality, it would be impossible to know whether future events will resemble past experiences, and how science can only make assumptions about certain things. Finally, the video discusses the idea that, even if something does not fit within the scientific method, it can still be proven.
  • **00:25:00 ** a course instructor discusses how rationality can be used to approach evidence for the belief in the creator.

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

0:00:15 have a think about the famous painting0:00:17 called mona lisa0:00:18 and it's known throughout the world it's0:00:20 one of the most if not the0:00:22 most expensive painting in the world0:00:25 now let's approach our understanding of0:00:28 this painting of the mona lisa0:00:30 through using the scientific method what0:00:34 conclusions are we going to come to0:00:35 using the scientific method well as we0:00:38 mentioned the scientific method0:00:40 is really good at understanding the0:00:42 observable detestable and the repeatable0:00:45 so we can work out maybe what type of0:00:48 colors were used0:00:49 what was the composition of the paints0:00:51 what was the composition of the material0:00:53 that was used for the canvas0:00:55 or even the frame these are things0:00:57 within our direct0:00:59 observation within the experimental0:01:01 field0:01:02 but we have to ask ourselves the0:01:04 question what's outside0:01:06 of the scientific method what's outside0:01:08 of the experimental field0:01:10 and therefore the empirical approach the0:01:13 obvious question0:01:15 is the painter science although0:01:18 incredibly useful0:01:20 when it comes to those things which are0:01:21 directly sensible and testable and0:01:23 repeatable0:01:25 cannot be used to determine matters0:01:27 which are outside of its scope0:01:30 and the directly observable and the0:01:32 directly sensible0:01:34 does that mean that because we can't0:01:36 prove it for a scientific approach0:01:39 that the painter does not exist0:01:42 obviously the painter exists in fact we0:01:44 know0:01:45 who that painter is of the mona lisa0:01:47 it's leonardo da vinci0:01:49 at the beginning of the 16th century in0:01:51 fact0:01:52 all of this we know with a high degree0:01:55 of certainty i0:01:56 who the person was and roughly or quite0:01:59 you know confidently0:02:00 when it was which period of time at0:02:03 least which century it took place0:02:05 and all of these answers that we can0:02:07 understand with a high degree of0:02:09 certainty0:02:10 comes outside of experimentation and the0:02:12 scientific method0:02:15 similarly when we look at the painting0:02:18 and maybe some people might say it's0:02:19 beautiful0:02:20 exquisite other people might say oh it's0:02:22 ugly i0:02:23 what is our aesthetic reception for this0:02:26 particular painting0:02:28 does it move us to emotion and what type0:02:31 of emotion0:02:32 these questions again are outside of0:02:36 science yeah it doesn't mean that we0:02:38 don't have0:02:39 emotions that we don't have an0:02:41 appreciation of what we think is0:02:42 beautiful or what we think is0:02:44 ugly and that's you know and some people0:02:47 might say well0:02:48 maybe we can through science maybe we0:02:51 can0:02:52 you know look at a brain scan and look0:02:54 at regions of the brain that are being0:02:55 highlighted0:02:56 but just simply highlighting regions of0:02:59 the brain0:03:00 doesn't say what type of emotions all0:03:03 more importantly the experience of that0:03:06 emotions0:03:07 because the experience of emotions is0:03:09 very personal0:03:10 to each individual and this comes to0:03:12 another question0:03:14 with regards to consciousness how do you0:03:16 know0:03:17 that i am a conscious being do you know0:03:20 it0:03:21 by simply studying the science of my0:03:23 brain activity0:03:25 if you haven't studied my brain activity0:03:27 does that mean0:03:28 that you are unsure whether i'm a0:03:30 conscious being or not0:03:33 in fact some people might say okay not0:03:34 only can we do brain scans0:03:37 but also we can look at action0:03:38 potentials of neurons these are0:03:40 electrical signals that travel across0:03:42 the neurons of the brain0:03:44 or that we can you know understand0:03:48 and test what type of chemicals are0:03:50 being released at the presynaptic neuro0:03:52 known as trans neurotransmitters0:03:56 yet none of this explains what it means0:03:58 to be me0:04:00 what it means to experience something0:04:02 whether that's a painting0:04:04 whether that's poetry or something else0:04:07 i0:04:07 what it feels to be consciously aware0:04:11 many scientists and philosophers are0:04:14 aware of this problem of consciousness0:04:16 even just how to define what the term0:04:19 consciousness is0:04:20 from a purely materialistic explanation0:04:23 this is why they call it0:04:24 the hard problem of science0:04:26 consciousness being the hard problem of0:04:28 science0:04:29 and some might say well you know in the0:04:31 future0:04:32 we will work it out we will be able to0:04:34 define0:04:36 through the use of empiricism and0:04:38 science that consciousness exists0:04:42 that will be able to determine that a0:04:44 person is conscious0:04:45 or not you know in terms of and what it0:04:48 means to be conscious for that0:04:49 individual0:04:51 but even if they say in the future we'll0:04:53 be able to determine this0:04:55 it doesn't deny the fact that we can be0:04:58 sure to now and understand and0:05:00 comprehend now0:05:01 that a person is conscious or not0:05:03 hopefully you're still conscious0:05:05 uh watching these videos so0:05:09 whether we look at the painting example0:05:11 whether we look at the consciousness0:05:13 example0:05:14 these are two relatively simple examples0:05:17 that demonstrated the limited0:05:18 applicability of science0:05:21 that is not to say that science isn't a0:05:23 useful tool0:05:24 and like i said you know it's been very0:05:26 useful it's helped us develop medicine0:05:29 surgery space travel telecommunications0:05:32 but rather and also it was utilized by0:05:35 the muslims of the past as well0:05:36 famous muslim scientists including0:05:39 people who say0:05:40 that ibn haitham the famous muslim0:05:42 scientists of the past0:05:44 helped create in part or help formulate0:05:47 in part the scientific method but the0:05:50 problem0:05:51 now is not the fact that people are0:05:53 using science0:05:54 it's the fact that they approach all0:05:57 questions with the use of science0:05:59 and claim that anything that's not0:06:01 scientific0:06:03 and empirically verifiable is therefore0:06:06 unprovable untestable or0:06:10 doesn't exist and this is what we call0:06:13 scientism0:06:15 in one definition it's described as0:06:18 totalizing the view of science0:06:20 as if it were capable of describing all0:06:22 reality0:06:23 and knowledge or as if it were the only0:06:26 true way0:06:27 to acquire knowledge about reality and0:06:29 the nature of things0:06:31 so statements like science is the only0:06:33 way to know truth0:06:35 or science will answer all questions0:06:38 these statements0:06:39 are actually non-scientific statements0:06:43 i want you to follow this point when a0:06:45 person turns around and says0:06:47 all answers or all ideas are derived0:06:50 from science all science will answer all0:06:52 questions0:06:53 is that a testifiable scientific0:06:57 you know statement so are they using0:06:59 science to justify science0:07:01 if they are then it's a circular0:07:03 argument what we term tautology0:07:06 so these are non-scientific statements0:07:09 they are better known as0:07:10 metaphysical statements statements that0:07:13 are accepted or assumed0:07:15 to be true so in essence0:07:18 when a person says that only science can0:07:21 answer all questions0:07:23 that's actually a self-refuting argument0:07:26 yeah and that's the first problem with0:07:28 this approach with0:07:28 scientism the second problem as we've0:07:31 described in the examples above0:07:34 is that we know certain things and and0:07:37 are very sure about these things0:07:39 but without the scientific method like0:07:42 for example0:07:43 you know if i was to ask the question do0:07:45 you believe that your great0:07:47 great great great great great great0:07:50 grandmother0:07:51 existed everybody will say yes0:07:54 irrespective of whether we knew who that0:07:56 great great great great0:07:58 great grandmother was irrespective if we0:08:01 had a number of people claiming to be or0:08:03 potentially could be our great great0:08:05 great great grandmother0:08:07 irrespective whether we even you know0:08:09 have a grave to test0:08:10 the dna in order to determine this so0:08:13 irrespective of any scientific arguments0:08:15 to justify this0:08:16 great great great great great0:08:18 grandmother existence0:08:20 we know we had one so again it proves0:08:23 this point which is that0:08:24 there are certain things we are 100 sure0:08:27 about without the use of science0:08:31 furthermore the scientific method in the0:08:33 vast majority of cases0:08:35 leads to what we term inductive0:08:37 conclusions0:08:38 and i think we need to explain what0:08:40 induction means here0:08:42 but just before i do i believe it's also0:08:44 important to explain0:08:46 and gain a bit more crystal0:08:47 understanding of what exactly we mean by0:08:50 the scientific method0:08:52 now if we cast our minds back to when0:08:54 we're at school0:08:55 or maybe those people do science at0:08:57 university0:08:59 and we were asked to write up a0:09:01 scientific experiment0:09:03 then there was a very specific way in0:09:06 how this scientific experiment had to be0:09:08 written up0:09:09 and this is called the scientific method0:09:12 and that is0:09:13 you would have an aim you would have a0:09:15 method0:09:16 you would have results and you'd also0:09:19 have a conclusion0:09:21 so what was the aim the aim identified0:09:23 the purpose of the experiment0:09:26 what you wanted to find out the aim also0:09:29 may have included a hypothesis0:09:31 you know what you may see and also the0:09:34 aim defined for0:09:36 us what variables we were looking to0:09:38 test0:09:39 the method the method was explaining0:09:42 how we isolated the various variables0:09:46 and what conditions and causes we0:09:48 subjected them to0:09:50 or we observed them in what types of0:09:52 conditions0:09:53 the results was the data we obtained0:09:56 from this experiment0:09:57 yeah or these observations and the0:10:00 conclusion0:10:01 was an understanding of what that0:10:03 relationship was between our observation0:10:06 and the results and whether this0:10:08 confirmed our hypothesis0:10:11 or denied our hypothesis now it sounds a0:10:14 bit complicated but let me break it down0:10:15 even further0:10:16 imagine if we were to do an experiment0:10:18 and talk about maybe the boiling point0:10:20 of water0:10:20 very simple experiment we all know what0:10:22 the boiling point of water is but let's0:10:23 say0:10:24 we wanted to prove this point so we0:10:27 would0:10:27 define you know in our aim that we want0:10:30 to look at the boiling point of water0:10:32 we would define in our method the method0:10:34 of0:10:35 achieving this so we'd say we'll take0:10:38 pure water0:10:39 at room conditions at one atmosphere0:10:42 we will subject it to heat using maybe a0:10:45 bunsen burner0:10:46 and we'll record the temperature with a0:10:48 thermometer0:10:49 and then we would record and we would do0:10:52 this experiment where we0:10:54 heated the water up and record that it0:10:57 boiled at 100 degrees celsius0:10:59 we would then test it and repeat it so0:11:01 we would repeat this process0:11:03 in order to get maybe further0:11:05 confirmations that could have been0:11:06 a uh you know an0:11:10 incorrect or an abnormal reading so we0:11:12 want to test it so we test it again0:11:14 and maybe after the fifth time we find0:11:17 that water balls at 100 degrees celsius0:11:19 we can say okay in our conclusions0:11:22 we can say that when we subjected water0:11:26 to heat we found that it boiled at 1000:11:29 degrees celsius this is our conclusion0:11:32 now that conclusion0:11:35 on the issue of water is what we call0:11:38 an induced conclusion or inductive0:11:41 process or inductive conclusion0:11:43 so let us explain what do we mean by0:11:45 induction and the opposite of that or0:11:47 the0:11:48 the other aspect of that is called0:11:50 deduction0:11:51 so induction is understood where you go0:11:54 from the particular0:11:56 to the generalized give you a very0:11:59 famous example example that's always0:12:00 found in all different books0:12:02 where it talks about induction is the0:12:04 example of0:12:05 swans what color of swans0:12:08 so maybe you go out and you'll see once0:12:10 one0:12:11 two swans three swans 999 swans and all0:12:16 of them0:12:17 999 were all white so you took0:12:20 particular0:12:21 observations and then you said as your0:12:24 conclusion0:12:25 all swans are white so going from the0:12:28 particular to the generalized0:12:31 but what about the one thousandths one0:12:35 yeah maybe you come across later on your0:12:36 on a you know another swan a thousand0:12:39 swan0:12:39 and you find it's black so what you find0:12:43 with the problem with induction0:12:45 is that induction when you go from0:12:46 particular0:12:48 to to the general there may be some0:12:51 evidence that you are unaware of there0:12:53 may be some observation that you've not0:12:55 come across0:12:56 which therefore defeats or undermines0:13:00 the whole of your conclusion0:13:01 so scientific theories or even when0:13:05 people turn around and say talk about0:13:06 scientific facts0:13:07 are not really facts per se they're not0:13:10 hundred percent0:13:11 but rather they are induced they are0:13:13 things which are0:13:15 uh you know based upon uh0:13:19 may be true or valid based upon the0:13:21 current data set0:13:22 that you have deduction works the other0:13:25 way around0:13:26 deduction is when you go to from the0:13:27 general and you come to a particular0:13:29 conclusion0:13:30 so again the famous example is all men0:13:33 are mortal0:13:34 general statement socrates is a man0:13:38 therefore socrates is mortal so you've0:13:42 gone from the general0:13:43 or men immortal to a specific conclusion0:13:46 socrates is therefore0:13:47 mortal so this would what we call a0:13:50 deduction0:13:52 so with regards to the issue of the0:13:53 water boiling0:13:55 how do we know that the water boils at0:13:57 100 degrees celsius0:13:59 as a generalized statement based upon0:14:02 four observations0:14:03 even if we you know say a thousand0:14:06 observations0:14:07 or a million observations how do we know0:14:10 the one millionth0:14:11 and one time when we observe water0:14:14 actually boils different that's because0:14:17 whenever we say a statement like all0:14:19 water balls at 100 degrees celsius0:14:22 what we're saying is that all water that0:14:24 existed0:14:25 that does exist and that will exist0:14:28 boils 100 degrees celsius0:14:30 but we can't make that statement and the0:14:32 reason why we can't make that statement0:14:33 is because we've not sensed all water0:14:35 that has existed0:14:37 that does exist and that will exist in0:14:40 the future0:14:42 therefore we've generalized this and0:14:44 that's where one of the key problems0:14:46 regardless of0:14:47 science is that science cannot be or0:14:49 cannot lead to certainty0:14:51 by scientific theories unless you've0:14:53 totally observed0:14:54 the reality of the particular subject0:14:57 matter at hand0:14:58 so even things like the theory of0:15:00 gravity0:15:01 the laws of nature known as like for0:15:04 example the laws of thermodynamics now0:15:06 they're termed laws0:15:07 the idea would be that they're set in0:15:09 stone they cannot change0:15:11 all of these things are induced0:15:15 they're true or they're valid but based0:15:18 upon a limited set of data even if it's0:15:21 a million evidences or a billion0:15:23 evidences0:15:24 so science can never lead to 100 and as0:15:27 a side point regards to evolution0:15:29 it's the same thing you find people like0:15:31 you know atheists richard dawkins others0:15:34 who say yes evolution is an absolute0:15:37 fact0:15:38 it's a scientific fact but really if you0:15:40 identify0:15:42 what science is than the philosophy0:15:43 behind science you realize that science0:15:46 doesn't deal in facts and0:15:49 this isn't something that you know isn't0:15:52 aware from certain people either0:15:54 philosophers of science0:15:55 people like bertrand russell carl popper0:15:58 yeah0:15:58 and also the famous 18th century0:16:00 empiricist philosopher known as david0:16:02 hume0:16:03 they all understood the the inductive or0:16:06 the indefinite nature0:16:07 of science karl popper in fact0:16:10 he came he was an empiricist and he came0:16:13 and he looked at this idea0:16:15 of science not being able to establish0:16:17 truths and he started to talk about0:16:19 how actually science should be in the0:16:21 busi not the not the0:16:23 business of dealing with truths but0:16:25 rather the business of0:16:26 falsifying statements and that's where0:16:29 he came up with the idea of0:16:30 falsificationism0:16:31 or the falsifiability he said that0:16:34 science due to its inductive nature can0:16:36 never be gen0:16:37 can never make true generalized0:16:40 statements0:16:41 what we therefore can't say is that0:16:44 water boils at 100 degrees celsius0:16:46 but what we according to karl popper can0:16:48 say is that0:16:50 water boiling a hundred degrees celsius0:16:52 is a0:16:53 valid proposition a valid statement that0:16:56 has not0:16:57 yet been falsified so this is his0:16:59 position0:17:00 that a statement can't be said to be0:17:02 true it can only be said to be0:17:04 valid until evidence has falsified it0:17:07 and if there's no evidence that's0:17:08 falsified it0:17:09 it remains a valid statement so we can0:17:12 see that actually0:17:14 when we look at and understand science0:17:17 and in terms of the evidences and the0:17:19 conclusions that they're not 1000:17:21 but there's more to it than this the0:17:23 scientific method is built on0:17:25 specific axioms axioms here means0:17:29 you know assumptions that we have to0:17:31 accept0:17:32 one of those axioms that science is0:17:34 built upon is the idea that causality0:17:36 exists so for example when i want to0:17:39 work out the boiling point of water0:17:42 what do i do i assume that0:17:45 heat will cause the boiling point so0:17:48 even prior to engaging in the scientific0:17:50 experiment i'm going to place a flame or0:17:53 fire or heat0:17:55 underneath the water either cause would0:17:58 be the heat0:17:58 and the effect would be the boiling0:18:00 point0:18:02 but what was really interesting to note0:18:05 and this is what david hume himself0:18:06 noted0:18:07 is that causality cannot be proven0:18:11 it has to be assumed see0:18:14 when you put water or heat beneath a0:18:17 water0:18:18 you notice an effect yeah you notice0:18:20 something resulting0:18:21 so you have two events heat and boiling0:18:24 of water0:18:26 but our mind makes the connection0:18:29 of the causality or the the relationship0:18:31 between the heat and the water0:18:33 otherwise it's just an observation they0:18:36 assume he0:18:37 he gave an example of this uh of a0:18:40 of a billiard table maybe modern day0:18:42 example would be a pool table0:18:45 and he said imagine if you had a person0:18:47 who had never seen0:18:48 a pool table in his life and0:18:52 he sees the white ball traveling towards0:18:54 the black ball what would he expect0:18:56 what's his expectation0:18:59 now because he's never seen this event0:19:01 occur he doesn't know what to expect0:19:03 could be that the white ball bounces off0:19:05 the black ball0:19:06 it could be that the white ball you know0:19:10 smashes through the black ball it could0:19:12 be that the white ball0:19:13 passes directly through the black ball0:19:16 or it could be0:19:17 that the black ball bounces off and0:19:19 moves in another direction0:19:21 there's a number of potential0:19:23 possibilities0:19:24 so david hume in the billiard ball0:19:26 example he said well he0:19:28 sees this event and he sees the0:19:30 blackball move0:19:31 after being hit by the white bull so he0:19:33 does it a second time0:19:35 now the question becomes what would he0:19:38 expect when he repeats this0:19:40 the second time even with all the0:19:42 variables the same0:19:43 our intuitive understanding would be0:19:46 that the black ball will move0:19:47 meaning that the second event will0:19:49 resemble and follow0:19:51 the past event david hume said that's an0:19:53 assumption0:19:55 the assumption being that future events0:19:59 follow the same pattern as past0:20:01 experiences0:20:03 because the same number of potential0:20:05 possibilities still exist0:20:07 the white ball could bounce off the0:20:09 black ball the black ball could be0:20:10 disintegrated0:20:12 the white ball could go straight through0:20:13 the black ball or the black ball could0:20:15 move0:20:15 the same number of potential0:20:18 possibilities could still occur0:20:20 so he said david hume using this example0:20:22 he's explaining this point which is that0:20:24 you can't know for certain that0:20:26 causality exists0:20:28 and you can't know that definitely0:20:30 future events0:20:31 will resemble past experiences but this0:20:34 is exactly how science works0:20:36 science has to work by saying future0:20:39 events0:20:40 will resemble past experiences otherwise0:20:42 there would be no science0:20:44 and causality has to be assumed0:20:46 otherwise we would not do any0:20:47 experiments0:20:49 and maybe just to give you another quick0:20:51 example of this0:20:54 they discovered stars that were orbiting0:20:58 in galaxies and they orbited around a0:21:01 central mass known0:21:02 as a super black hole or supermassive0:21:03 black hole0:21:05 and they noticed that the stars on the0:21:06 very edges of these galaxies that were0:21:08 orbiting0:21:09 were going too fast they were going the0:21:12 same speed as0:21:13 stars that were orbiting closer to the0:21:16 core0:21:17 and so they said well hold on according0:21:20 to our theories and the law of gravity0:21:22 that shouldn't be the case if you swing0:21:24 a ball on a string too fast what's going0:21:27 to happen0:21:28 the string is going to break and the0:21:29 ball is going to fly out0:21:31 into the air they're saying this is what0:21:33 should happen regards to0:21:35 stars that are orbiting on the edges0:21:37 they should be slower0:21:39 in order to maintain its orbit but0:21:42 they're not the0:21:43 the fast and so they had two options0:21:47 either change the theory of gravity0:21:51 so change you know how we understand how0:21:53 gravity works0:21:54 or the second option was to say0:21:58 there must be something causing gravity0:22:01 to exist in order to allow this to exist0:22:04 and what they said is well hold on0:22:06 gravity we generally accept it generally0:22:09 works even though it's inductive0:22:11 so they changed oh they're not changing0:22:14 they0:22:14 developed a new idea that there is a new0:22:17 form of matter0:22:19 that exists within the universe and they0:22:20 call this dark matter and it's this dark0:22:22 matter that we cannot see we cannot0:22:24 taste we cannot touch0:22:26 but is exerting effects upon the0:22:29 orbits of stars within galaxies so0:22:33 this is just an example that shows how0:22:36 causality is0:22:37 necessary for science to work without0:22:39 causality0:22:41 science doesn't work so to quickly sum0:22:43 up0:22:44 science those who claim that science0:22:47 answers all questions0:22:48 that's not even a statement that can be0:22:52 verifiable by science 2 science leads to0:22:55 indeterminate0:22:57 indefinite conclusions due to its0:22:59 inductive nature0:23:00 so you can never be 100 sure even with0:23:03 most well-established scientific0:23:04 theories0:23:06 thirdly science has to assume certain0:23:08 axioms0:23:10 like causality like that the future0:23:12 events0:23:13 will follow past experiences and that0:23:16 there are fixed patterns within nature0:23:18 that causality cannot be proven but0:23:22 assumed within the scientific method0:23:24 itself0:23:24 and finally that even if something0:23:27 doesn't fit within the scientific method0:23:30 that doesn't mean that the subject0:23:32 matter cannot be proven0:23:34 and this is summed up by imam ghazali in0:23:37 his al mustafa0:23:38 where he refutes the empiricists of his0:23:40 day and i'll just summarize what0:23:43 imam ghazali said in his book al mustafa0:23:46 he explained that you can't just simply0:23:49 say that the only truth we know is0:23:51 developed by what we experience he said0:23:53 there are other truths0:23:54 for example that we know 1000 is greater0:23:57 than one0:23:59 yeah these are known as synthetic0:24:01 propositions0:24:02 in mathematics which are determined or0:24:05 through a deductive process0:24:07 he said we know that baghdad exists even0:24:09 if we've never entered baghdad the city0:24:11 of baghdad0:24:12 yeah that all that china exists even0:24:14 though we've never been there0:24:16 that historical events occurred like for0:24:18 example maybe0:24:19 you know we could say world war ii we0:24:21 know existed even though i didn't live0:24:22 there0:24:23 because there is also another form of0:24:25 knowledge known as historical narratives0:24:28 yet historical narratives can establish0:24:30 that certain things exist0:24:32 or narrations that china exists or that0:24:35 baghdad exists0:24:36 and so imam khazali explained that there0:24:38 are three ways to know0:24:40 one is for experience so we don't deny0:24:43 that we do0:24:43 we can come to certain knowledge for0:24:45 experience second0:24:47 is that we can come to certain types of0:24:48 knowledge through historical narrations0:24:51 and thirdly we can come to certain types0:24:54 of knowledge through deductive arguments0:24:56 or synthetic propositions like in0:24:57 mathematics0:24:59 this now allows us to move on to the0:25:01 subject of what is rational thinking0:25:03 and its components and how we can use0:25:06 this method0:25:07 to approach the evidence for the belief0:25:09 in the creator0:25:20 you

As-salamu alaykum! Content by SirVival