» Earn on-going rewards and help us do more! «

Atheist Professor Mocks Asking Why

share this pageShare Page
Mohammed Hijab

Channel: Mohammed Hijab

Episode Notes

Episode Transcript

© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.


00:00:00--> 00:00:06

There is no reliable question that begins with the word why

00:00:12--> 00:01:02

Santa Monica warahmatullah here, but I cancel. I recently reviewed something that Peter Atkins said about why questions him saying that they are really meaningless questions. Let's take a look at what he said. And let's come back and comment on this. There is no reliable question that begins with the word why why questions do not lead to reliable knowledge? Any reliable way question must be deconstructed into how questions? So, science has new truck with why questions. So as you guys saw, what Atkins was kind of putting forward was the positivistic notion, which

00:01:03--> 00:01:55

has been really said before, that anything that doesn't conform or can be investigated by the scientific method will be rendered meaningless by definition. And this is flawed for many reasons. One of those reasons is that this is a self defeating, self refuting postulation the scientific method itself is not subject to the scientific method. In other words, the scientific method is a series of steps of how to investigate natural phenomena, those steps, which are for all intents and purposes, not empirically justified, cannot be put under a microscope. Likewise,

00:01:56--> 00:02:05

like many have said, including Massimo pigliucci, that the de ontology or the ontology of

00:02:06--> 00:02:07

ethics

00:02:09--> 00:02:21

or the mathematics, of the philosophy of mathematics, all of those things and more are things which the scientific method has no particular access to.

00:02:22--> 00:02:32

That is not to say that morality does not exist or that mathematics is more absurdly does not exist or that

00:02:33--> 00:02:40

predicate logic or propositional logic or any kind of logic, analytic modal

00:02:41--> 00:03:45

are all meaningless things. You see, the reason why positivism or verification ism as it was known in the 1920s and 30s, became really a redundant form of interrogation philosophical interrogation is because of these questions and more, which principles of verification and the positivistic school of thought, or logical positivism could not deal with Thus, the idea that why questions are meaningless is itself a meaningless statement? Human beings are sentience, volitional creatures with freewill and who can ask the question, why? Part of the reason that makes us human? And that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom. And indeed, all of living matter.

00:03:47--> 00:03:53

And organisms is the fact that we can question that we can ask the question, why.

00:03:54--> 00:03:56

I regularly asked people

00:03:57--> 00:03:59

that in this life that we live,

00:04:00--> 00:04:13

and in this world in which we inhabit, how and why is it the case that we were chucked thrown into life in the way that we have been thrown into life?

00:04:14--> 00:04:21

And that there is no purpose to life such that we would be thrown right back out?

00:04:22--> 00:04:50

I think the existence of sentience of volition and of freewill, is it self an evidence for the fact that there is some decision to be made? Because Free Will would otherwise be redundant, redundant feature of the human condition? The inquisitive and almost inbuilt curiosity that human beings have would be something which is

00:04:51--> 00:04:59

purposeless on this school of thought. But the truth of the matter is, that is not the case. The truth of the matter is

00:05:00--> 00:05:06

There is a reason why we are here. And the reason is that we may do

00:05:08--> 00:05:20

that we may do what everything else in existence is doing. And that is simply stated, submitting to the laws of nature.

00:05:22--> 00:05:25

And we must submit to the laws of nature.

00:05:26--> 00:05:27

However,

00:05:28--> 00:05:29

the question

00:05:30--> 00:05:32

which needs to be asked,

00:05:34--> 00:05:37

Is, are these laws of nature

00:05:38--> 00:05:51

explicable in and of themselves? Or do they themselves require an explanation? The answer is, these laws, these laws of nature,

00:05:52--> 00:05:56

are put in place, by the law maker,

00:05:57--> 00:06:18

the one who knows nature, and the one who has manufactured and contrived nature, to be the way that it is, as Muslims, we believe that this creator, this intelligent designer, not only put laws of nature for creation,

00:06:19--> 00:06:22

but sent prophets and messengers for time,

00:06:23--> 00:06:26

to communicate the human guidance

00:06:27--> 00:06:28

in the form of

00:06:29--> 00:06:30

Revelation.

00:06:32--> 00:06:39

And those prophets that you've heard, maybe growing up in Sunday school, if you come from the Judeo Christian tradition,

00:06:40--> 00:06:44

or madressa, if you are from the Muslim tradition,

00:06:45--> 00:06:48

like Moses, and Abraham and Jesus,

00:06:49--> 00:07:08

are individuals who merely communicated that guidance to human beings. We believe as Muslims, that the final of those messages was the Prophet Muhammad himself, who came with the Quran. And this, I believe, is not only intellectually satisfying.

00:07:09--> 00:07:20

It's not only an intellectually satisfying proposition, but it's one which can be evidenced and rationalized but that will be for another day.

00:07:21--> 00:07:45

I'm going to be doing a series on the Sapiens Institute channel where in which we review all the arguments for and against Islam as a religion and we're in which we will be arguing for Islam by showing the proofs that Islam is the truth was salaam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.