Channel: Mohammed Hijab
© 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.
Salam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa cattle. Today I'm going to be doing a quick refutation a quick fire refutation on this individual called Neil deGrasse Tyson. Let's look at what he says is the reason why he doesn't believe in God. When he was asked that question and come back and refute him. Do you believe in me? So later? Yeah, so I'm, the more I look at the universe,
just the less convinced I am that there is something benevolent going on, you look at this list of ways that life is made miserable on earth by natural causes.
And I just ask, how do you deal with that?
place and as you can see here, guys, he's he's saying that the reason why he doesn't believe in God is because of all these disasters that exists in the world.
Now, this is the problem of evil, which is well known from the Hellenistic time. And the way he actually framed it is exactly almost exactly the same way, although he couldn't elaborate it or articulate it in this way, because he is philosophically incompetent, that Epicurus, Epicurus, basically a ancient philosopher of the Hellenistic time period, ancient Greek philosopher, who said that, well, if God is all if God is all powerful, yes, and all good, the fact that evil exists means that if he's all powerful, and he's allowing evil to exist, that that is a contradiction to his omnipotence, or his power. But if he is all powerful, and allows it to exist, This contradicts His
goodness, or the fact that he's all good.
The fallacy here is that we don't believe as Muslims and I'm pretty sure most of us don't believe in a God with two attributes, goodness and power. We believe in a God with many different attributes, with love with mercy, with justice, with wisdom. So that's the first thing, this reductionist understanding of a God with two attributes is problematic number one, number two is even on those grounds. philosophers have atheistic philosophers like JK Mackey and others have said, this is this problem of evil inquiry, or postulation. Or argument is, in fact, let me read exactly where we can concede he says that the problem of evil does not show that the central doctrines of theism are
inconsistent. The reason why he says that is because it's very clear to conceive of a God who is all powerful, but which who allows or which allows a kind of evil to exist, there is no logical inconsistency and conceiving of a world where both God exists, and suffering exists. The question is why? So we believe in a wise God, and wisdom for from our perspective as Muslims is appropriately if you want to put it in one word appropriately, God knows what is appropriate for the human being, what is appropriate for the human project. Now, you might not be convinced, but as an astrophysicist, let me ask you a question. Tyson because I know you're watching these videos on the
slide. I know you're sitting there, your heart is racing, you're watching these videos. Yeah. And you're thinking, Oh, yes, I screwed up again. I shouldn't have spoken about this. I know that. So let me ask you a question. As an astrophysicist, as a scientist, how can you even prove that evil exists in the first place?
How can you even prove that evil exists in the first instance? And on a scientific level? Can you put evil under a microscope? Is there a way to empirically test this thing called evil? Do you believe in a realist understanding of morality in the first place? In opposed to an anti realist or a skeptical morality? And if you believe in a realist objective framework, then how can you measure evil? How do you do it scientifically? Tell me how? Because the truth of the matter is, most atheists come to the conclusion, including your friend, Sam Harris, and maybe it's your friend, Richard Dawkins, that actually evil doesn't exist. That is all pointless indifference. In the words
of Richard Dawkins, it's all pointless indifference. There is no good there is no evil, he says, so pointless indifference. Nietzsche said the same thing. Bertrand Russell said the same thing, the actual clever people. And I actually exclude from that the new atheists. But those philosophers, yes, who at least knew something about how arguments work, they can see that.
For the most part, these post modernist philosophers, that evil doesn't exist in the first place. So you have a tall order, my friend, to even prove that evil exists in the first place is a tall order. What is evil? Is it privation? What is it? Is it suffering? How do you prove that suffering is evil on an empirical material, materialistic or naturalistic, or physicalist ik worldview? How? I don't think you can. So you want your cake and eat it both? You want to be a physicalist materialist atheist,
who operates not only on methodological naturalism, but on a metaphysical naturalism
or philosophical naturalism. And yet, you want to make metaphysical claims about evil and suffering. And you want to use those against theists. Do you not see the inconsistency in your own understanding, but what I actually do think
case you're just a parrot. You're just a parrot, you don't have anything to say, you don't have any way to advance the discourse. You needed to answer the question in any which way, you needed an excuse to deny God's existence. So you just parroted what you heard from the new atheists.
Or what you might have read, like in the small, insignificant book by Graham oppie. Would you respect arguments against God, about 100 pages? And the only positive argument against God that he does provide? Is this pathetic argument or problem of evil? That's actually the only positive argument that atheists have for why God doesn't exist? See how fumble is over weakly weak and feeble is how you're fumbling all over the place. Is this really the argument that you have listened, my friend, we believe as Muslims, that this life is a test. We believe in purpose and value. We believe that there's a choice to make and the fact that there is if you believe in it in the first place, if
you're a compatibilist, or a libertarian from the fulfillment of philosophical perspective, in free will, that we have a choice to make and the fact that we have free will is indicative that there's a choice to be made. And that is the world that we live in. This world is a test the Quran says we'll let the hell out Hola, como tal higher. Leola comm au come as an AMA in chapter 67. He is the one who created life and death to test which will view our best in deeds.
So this is a testing ground, this life is a testing ground. For you have all due respect, this life is not it's just
atoms floating about. There's no difference between you and a slab of meat that you see in the butcher shop. All of you are just composed of the same kind of atoms and material.
a snowman that you can hack down with an axe
that on the naturalistic world order is just a rearrangement of atoms. And this is your worldview. The naturalistic worldview devoid of the tails, the purpose, or devoid of any purpose at all. You can decide to continue living like that and deceiving yourself. And masquerading as some kind of intellectual, you're not an intellectual. Leave the history and philosophy to those who do it. Stick to whatever you do for day job and get out of our business. Or if you if you don't want to learn. You're going to have to know if you don't want to go and humble yourself and learn on these issues and actually think and contemplate them. Now you can go home and think about what we've just said
well salaam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.