responds to Ricky Gervais on Atheism

Mohammed Hijab

Channel: Mohammed Hijab

Episode Notes

share this pageShare Page

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.

00:00:05--> 00:00:49

So Ricky, is a British comedian, which I can't say I've watched any of his works or seen any of these shows. But he's an individual who is actually in line with kind of new atheism, I would classify him like this. And recently he does. I'm not sure how long this video has been up there. But I came across this video, which was the second if not the most viewed atheist video online or the video with an atheist title. And this is a video where he's having conversation, one of the American interviewers, and there's a bit of a discussion about God and the existence of God. So we wanted to just quickly do a reaction video to that and see if some of the interrogations that are

00:00:49--> 00:00:57

performed by Jabez are in any way shape or form legitimate. Let's take a look. So, Ricky Gervais is is it Why is there something instead of nothing?

00:00:59--> 00:01:00

That makes no sense?

00:01:01--> 00:01:40

That's not the two choices. So the first thing he says was, Why is there something rather than nothing? These are not the only two choices? will actually these little choices at all? These are not choices at all is the question is not giving you is it this or that? Because the choice usually is separated with the word or, and why something rather than nothing is not an illegitimate question. You say it's not about why But how? Well if you say it's not about why and how that would necessitate that you're citing with a presupposition which is nihilistic. In other words, you can save the world as meaningless or purposeless. And by that you say that why questions are

00:01:40--> 00:02:21

meaningless, very similar to like 1930s, positivists, or even verification lists, who posited the same kind of claim. This is a very weak understanding, because if this was the case, then lots of things which would be meaningless if this is the stance, you take it this the positivistic stance, many things would be meaningless metaphysical things, illogical things, mathematical things. So the idea of why question is meaning meaningless, is something which has been thoroughly refuted in the philosophical literature. But the question of it's not why but how, okay, the question of how so how is there something rather than nothing? is still a legitimate question, but you haven't, you haven't

00:02:21--> 00:02:35

done any good job in trying to answer it. You've tried to you any question about why is there something wrong with the one of the most foundational questions should be at the forefront of your mind? Why is there something at all? Why is this not a good question? I wouldn't know why.

00:02:36--> 00:02:57

Albert Einstein would would ask us questions about the replicability of the universe. But was he an ignorant person? Was he someone who didn't know? So once again, I think that you're trying to brush aside some very important and heavy, meaningful and purposeful questions, ultimate questions, as Karl Popper put it, in order to try

00:02:58--> 00:03:04

and weasel scramble away from those, those kinds of thoughts in your mind?

00:03:06--> 00:03:42

Is there a demiurge that started everything? Well, outside science and nature? I don't believe so. So this is outside of science. I don't think there is a prime mover. What is the what outside of science mean? I mean, outside of science is mathematics. So what do you do you think that science is omnipotent, sorry, omniscient. that science can explain everything. That through it, everything is known. So then, metaphysics is out the window. Logical precepts are out the window. And mathematics is out the window outside of science, as many things that are outside of science. The scientific method is outside of science itself, the scientific method through the scientific method, which

00:03:42--> 00:04:24

science depends on is outside of science. So what you're talking about what this what is this phraseology, outside of science, it's just new atheists regurgitate vomited regurgitation, which frankly, have no fruitless and few times in the face of actual argumentations debate. And discussion. atheism is only rejecting the claim that there is a God, atheism isn't a belief system. So he says atheism is a belief system that only rejects that there is a God even if we grant that. So what does that do to the discussion? I mean, what what do you want to classify atheism as a religion as a belief system as an ideology, or as a lacking as the final belief? Who cares? At the

00:04:24--> 00:04:52

end of the day, these are all semantic points. I don't care what you think atheism is or what you think being an atheist entails. The question still is legit. Why is this something rather than nothing? And if you don't answer why, how is this something rather than nothing? Don't run away from that. Okay. What would you respect? Don't run away from the question how means definition of how is by what means? by what means? Can there be may they be? Is it conceivable for it to be

00:04:53--> 00:05:00

or for there to be something rather than nothing? You haven't answered that question. The interviewer, I don't know why. Just Just

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

from one thing to another, clearly, he was deterred by the confidence of this comedian.

00:05:06--> 00:05:39

But he should have stuck to his guns, he should have said, You know what? No, no, no, sorry. Sorry. How is this something rather than nothing? That's a question. So legitimate question. You say, I don't know, would have been sufficient, but don't pretend you you have some information that you don't, or try to be strident or positive about it? You don't have an answer. That's it? If that's what it is, then that's it. Don't pretend that you're someone who's got anything to offer in this discussion. Literally, if you say I don't know, that means you have nothing to offer in this conversation. You deny one less God than I do. You don't believe in 2999 gods. And I don't believe

00:05:39--> 00:05:52

in just one more. He says if there are 3000 religions, I only deny 2999. Gods. I only deny one more. Okay. Well, how many men are there in the world? That could be your father?

00:05:54--> 00:06:31

Yeah, this is no joke. This is no joke. I mean, maybe you can explain because you're sorry to say, how many men could be your father? How do you know that your father is your father? You could say, well, I can go and do a DNA test. What have you done that? I mean, that would be scientific. Yes. And for it to be truly scientific, you'd have to do the test yourself and see the results yourself and not dependent on the testimonial, by the way, not the testimony of the people who do the DNA test for to be truly perfectly scientific. But how do you know your father is your father? You know, through inference to the best explanation, wait a minute, inference to the best explanation. So the

00:06:31--> 00:06:47

circumstances of you being alive in the time you were alive? And you know, and the father being in the house? Or if he wasn't in the house? or whatever it was, you know? Or how do you know your mother is your mother? Same thing? I mean, Were you there when you were covered? Can you remember? Can you recollect? Can you

00:06:49--> 00:06:52

think about the time when you coming out your mom's womb?

00:06:54--> 00:07:19

Yeah, I don't think you can think about that. I don't think you can remember that. So how do you know your mom's your mom? See, there are maybe a million people or menial human beings, women, that can be your mom, and you reject 999,999 of them, and you believe in only one. So that's the same argument is exactly the same argument. You're saying I reject 2999.

00:07:20--> 00:07:57

Gods and I reject one more. Okay, that's true. So how does that prove that God doesn't exist? How's that argument against God's existence? If we take something like any fiction, any holy book in any other fixture and destroyed it, okay, in 1000 years time, that wouldn't come back, just as it was, was if we took every science book, yes, right, and every fact and destroyed them all, in 1000 years, they'd all be back, because all the same test would be the same result. That's good. That's really good. He says, if we destroyed science books on holy books, in 1000 years of science would be the same replicate, but the holy books won't be the same. Actually, if you destroy all the neurons in

00:07:57--> 00:08:32

the world, the people would have stopped because the Quran is a memorized book is an orally transmitted book. So actually, I don't think it would be gone, if you destroyed them, you destroy them all. Now, people memorize them from 1400 years. So this, this is a very weak understanding of the preservation of the Quran, or the oral transmission of it. Maybe you could argue that with other religions, but you need to be specific because Islam is, you know, a major world religion, as you know. And so your argument doesn't actually cut it when it comes to Islam. Moreover, and probably more problematic for you, is that you said if you destroy all the scientific experiments, they'll

00:08:32--> 00:09:05

come back in 1000 years. That's a weak understanding of the philosophy of science with all due respect, because as Karl Popper mentioned, you know, there's the principle of falsification, which has been criticized in the literature. But putting that to the side, there is no science is not incorrigible. It's not something which is meant to produce eternal truths. So you seem to bring bringing this was what was referred to as scientism, scientism, with the idea that science can explain everything. This is nonsense, and that is some kind of incorrigible eternal truth. That's nonsense. And everyone knows us nonsense. We know that's nonsense. Our experience with the

00:09:05--> 00:09:39

Coronavirus. The science was changing on a weekly or monthly basis. People were telling us the science says this, the science says that the politicians were telling us these things and the sciences didn't investigations were different because the sample size was growing and the the information was changing and the theories were were moving around. So science is not incorrigible science is by nature because it because of the problem of induction is something which can be falsified. And it's time for you to think that 1000 years all the investigations that we do today are going to be the same in 1000 years time shows me that you have a superficial understanding of

00:09:39--> 00:09:46

the philosophy of science with all due respect. Yeah, and the same thing applies with your understanding of the religious scriptures. So

00:09:47--> 00:09:59

put all of this aside. We're calling you to worship one God. That's what we're calling you to, which is there's an innate predisposition to believe in one God, Justin Barrett, Dr. Justin Barrett, who is part of the

00:10:00--> 00:10:41

Oxford, logical society has run a study in 2011 refers to this as a, in a receptivity to believing in God, we're naturally inclined to believe in a higher power. You know, the majority of people in the US believe in a higher but 90% of people, even the religious ones believe in a higher power is a natural act, you know, only 5.5%, according to Linda Woodhead, 5.5% of the British public, Australian atheists like yourself, you're in the minority. I'm not saying that that means anything. But what I am saying is sociologically, people find it natural, even with the absence of religion, to believe in a higher power, it's a natural thing, it can be argued from first principles. And so

00:10:41--> 00:11:12

to try and dismiss it as if it's some kind of ridiculous concept, though it's so pervasive cross culturally, historically, psychologically, and, and in every single way possible. I think you're doing a disservice to yourself. And I think you're just regurgitating and vomiting out the same new atheist dogma that you've probably taken from the master Richard Dawkins. And I'm afraid you're gonna have to start thinking critically for yourself, because it's clear that your arguments are cut and paste job. And they're not even that well refined.

00:11:13--> 00:11:42

cut and paste job from the new ACS rhetoric. So I would say, be more open minded, start thinking, start thinking deeply about three questions. I'm going to ask you those three. You might think that they're meaningless questions, but I'm going to put those three questions to you, Ricky Gervais. So I'm going to put those three questions to you. And this way, before you go to sleep today, I want you to think about those three questions. And don't say no is meaningless in science. This is nonsense with disproven as a slave and philosophically robust. The three questions are

00:11:44--> 00:11:45

where did I come from?

00:11:47--> 00:11:59

I think about not just yourself, but the universe itself. Where did the universe come from? What are the what are the options? I that came from nothing or something. The universe either came from nothing or something. We're saying it came from something.

00:12:01--> 00:12:20

And there's no infinite regress. So where did I come from? Then? What am I doing him? Yeah. So who are you what is your existence? And then where am I going, you're going to die. I'm going to die. And you got to think about what's going to happen after that. If you're wrong, you're in trouble and you are wrong.

00:12:21--> 00:12:28

And you are and you will be in trouble. But it's not too late. This, you listening to me right now because your voice

00:12:31--> 00:12:32

is actually

00:12:33--> 00:12:35

the best thing that's ever happened to you in your life.