Channel: Mohammed Hijab
incorrectly defined morality. So how do
we start in the line of discussion? We've both failed to define it?
Yes. So how would you define morality? Yeah, well, like I said, I'd use a Sam Harris model where as the worst suffering for humans is one and anything that helps us move away from suffering. How could that be object? How can you create an objective morality? Isn't that because he does, as I said before, the reason why he believes in this model of consequentialism is because he operates on a utility presumption. Okay, so what is most useful for human beings? Is that which is most best when you have this moral presupposition cannot be substantiated or proven objectively, therefore, it will be arguing in a circle does Okay, well, we're going to employ a YouTube Italia, almost utilitarian
principle model. You know, although it's a little bit different. Yeah, I think, I think two things. So I accidentally said yes to something I shouldn't
you say they can't be objectively found that morality, any form of morality could be objective? Yeah.
It could be that we have better technology, which is odd. If we were trying to measure something, we could measure something. Then if we were rules and said, Follow this principle, these ways of food, and you will have less suffering, that would be on the run. Okay. The presumption here or the presupposition is that suffering is bad. Yeah. And that's By the way, the, the the problem of evil, the problem of evil, which is the one of the main objects, objections of atheists, is based on this presupposition.
The question would be, why? How can you prove that suffering is bad? From an atheistic perspective, objectively, and to how can you prove that such a thing going back to the problem of evil, as evil exists as one objective reality? Yeah.
I got it. Richard Dawkins is just like a ticket, which is, sometimes you can ask the wrong questions, like ask, what does a rainbow smolen I was trying to do this, you can ask the wrong question. But just don't
objectify him. How can you prove that suffering is objective?
That is that is
you want to get back into position.
You crave certainty. And you don't want to be frightened about what floor? The floor once again, is something which relies on some time.
But, like you wouldn't ask that question. If you were a different person.
You wouldn't ask that question. If you're a different person.
You think that question has validity? It doesn't mean?
I mean, one can say that about almost anything or any statement that anyone makes?
Yes, that's, that's the thing. We have to raise above our ground and float and then like, encapsulate our ways of feeling. Okay.
Let's go back to your point. Richard Dawkins, you mentioned him is another person who doesn't believe in objective morality yet? Yes. Yeah. This is what I find interesting about Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins. This is
I mean, if you if you watch it on YouTube, sometimes I see some things that are recommended videos of Richard Dawkins right. I click it, and he's like having an argument of a Muslim. Yeah.
And then to really catch the Muslim out and to attack them was to finish off the Muslim reset something like Oh, so what's the Islamic punishment of Apostasy? And, you know, the Muslim has shaken up a little bit. He doesn't know how to answer him or whatever. Yeah. Okay, hold on. I mean,
Richard Dawkins, if you read his God Delusion, he admits to the fact that there was no objective morality.
If and by the way, he's caricaturing the Islamic model of Apostasy and the whole thing I did that and how it all works, but let's assume that his model is exactly what exactly what he believes is if someone becomes Muslim then this believer he's trying to pull out or pluck out the non Muslim that you know, you have to kill him right.
In any case in any situation that's what the kind of caricature that he wants to present for for Muslims which isn't by the way of obviously is completely caricature. That's not true.
But then that is, that's one of his main arguments against Muslims. When you click when you click on the videos, right, you see online. The issue is he can't even prove that had that been the case.
Because that would be a bad thing, objectively. So it's kind of a ridiculous argument. That's why actually Richard Dawkins is interesting. You mentioned his name as a biologist. Okay. His credit is a credit where credit's due. Yeah, he might be a really good biologist. But as a philosopher, I find that he's probably one of the weakest. I mean, he's got a really weak philosophy incredibly weak. I mean, look how easily you could just identify as weakness. I think sorry. Yeah. Do you think there's a point to it? Basically, what he's trying to say the objective morality, which has been mentioned in Quran is can't be right, because it's actually saying that we're forced to see you're killing
somebody. But how can you prove
that objective morality doesn't really
come from? So I think I think that maybe his point? Yeah. You're absolutely right, that you're completely right. But the question is, first place in the first place, how can you prove that anything is right and anything? Is his belief? Get the belief of the Muslims or just, let's just assume that what he believes is right.
And let's assume that exactly what he believes about Islamic apostasy is correct, which I don't believe you understand. I think he's got a weakness in understanding apostasy and Islam, religion, and philosophy. He's good apology. That's why he should stay. But no, seriously, it's good apology. Too much. I'm not really. I mean, I haven't looked into it.
For just two, so yes, okay. Well, I'll just finish this question. Sorry.
This is the point.
The day and age the sociological timeframe cannot be a measure for true or valid, objective morality. You can't say that just because today, we think this was correct. In 1933, when Hitler was elected, as you know, Hitler was elected. But when he was when the Nazi Party was, was elected, if you will, there was a mighty majority not support your lecture the night
in the march elections in Germany. That's what the German people a lot of the electorate wanted. Now, if we go back to that kind of reasoning, it's okay. If they go in and set the same thing today. That's what we like. And therefore you have a very fluctuating rally. So you can't prove morality in a scientific way.
In a mathematical way, so he can't say that, okay. Muslims, believe in whatever it is that they may believe in. That, therefore Islam is wrong. It's not even an argument. It's an emotional argument. That's what it is. It's an emotional argument, which appeals to, by the way, Western supremacist thought, and I'll tell you why. Because
he is already assumed.
He's already assumed a Western self, congratulations. So he's congratulating himself as a Westerner, the Enlightenment period is correct. Yeah, he's self aggrandizing. And he thinks that we ought to
the rest of the world
ought to assume the western man's image. We all have been built or created in the western man's image. So everyone has to comply by enlightenment morality, although, according to his own philosophy, you can't even substantiate enlightenment morality. I think.
You said something about you can't objectify the Quran, Eva. So
this objectification, all that's happening in this conversation is I'm advocating for a scientific objectification, you're advocating for
what you believe in scientism, as a as a paradigm as a way to know the world in a complete sense
of scientific objective activism. So how would that work? Do you believe that science is a is a means by which and through which we can find certainty in every aspect of life?
That's what you were alluding to?
This question has got like a couple of hooks, bait, a couple of beats
are say, we will go first first person perspective. And that's quite solid. We can't get away from that. But yeah, then science and rationality. Is it Yeah, my opinion by far the greatest thing. So do you think that we can find out the truth of morality, you know, of the world around us using these methods science, if we define what morality is, which Sam Harris did,
which is to move away from suffering? So yes, we can use science to not objectify what you're trying to do, which I believe is wrong, because you're trying to route
our thoughts into so as if, but that's, that's just wrong. So what we can do is make a bubble by which we will confirm it to be true. is science a way we can find out the truth about the world? Yes, in a certain way. Yes. Okay. If that's what you believe in, then I'm going to tell you some things. I want you to explain them to me, right. Okay. Well, okay.
Number one, science using the scientific method. You cannot prove anything.
because science and maths are two different paradigms number two, using the scientific method, you cannot prove that science itself
is because you cannot because the science itself is underpinned with philosophical underpinnings, yes, you cannot. You cannot examine those philosophical underpinnings using the scientific method. Number three.
Number three, science cannot objectify or reason morality. You cannot use the scientific method to churn out what is a true morality? What is a false morality? Okay, that's three, I can give you one more, which is really a trump card. Number four, there is a presupposition of science, that rationality and empiricism are true. Science cannot prove those presuppositions to be true. Yeah. Okay. So. So how can you solve those issues before we can continue? Yeah, because you can't say that give us certainty, without proving it in the first I like them for I like them for a very good, very good questions. And
I just call it compute. Yes, yeah. No, no, it's just give me a minute to pick us up.
Number two is the most interesting, which is all the rationality of philosophical underpinnings, which almost like
Okay, so you've asked like very big questions here, and we got a crowd. I'm on the spot. I gotta try and give me back these answers.
nice gentleman. I'm not trying to put you on the spot genuine. No, no, I think you're, I think you're a sincere person. I think you the way you've spoken to me is open minded. So I'm saying that you, scientism, with the idea that you can objectify things with science has serious limitations. Let me go forward and just say one more thing. Yeah. Well, I've already got for that. I'll
give you some time.
to progress the conversation. They're gonna give fine.
Now you get me to think about things