Respond To Athiests With This Regarding Miracles

Do you believe that Mohammed split the moon into Do you believe that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse? For example, I pay you the compliment of assuming that dude that you don't know I do. I believe in Murray believe that, yes, you believe that Muhammad went to heaven on a winged horse. I believe in God, I believe in miracles, I believe in Revelation. Unfortunately, there are a lot of really problematic beliefs that people have about philosophy, theology, and science that are very common in everyday conversations and YouTube videos and all types of discourse. And I want you to see an example of this. And to be fair, I will play the video itself so you can hear it directly

from the source. This is from an interview between Maddie Hasson, the journalist who has done tremendous work, and Richard Dawkins, a self identified new atheist who is commonly known for his attacks on religion amongst other things. But I want you to listen to this and see, can you point out where the mistakes are in terms of reasoning, and this is to demonstrate for the sake of progressing our conversations. Listen to this yourself and see what you think. I mean, do you actually believe in your Muslim faith? Do you believe that Mohammed split the moon in two? Do you believe that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse? For example, I pay you the compliment of

assuming that dude that you don't know I do. I believe in Murray believe that, yes. You believe that Muhammad went to heaven on a winged horse.

I want you to pay attention to the way the Dawkins framed his question when he started off by saying, I pay you the compliment. So is implying that, you know, if you're a wise intelligent person, as I assume you are, then you likely don't believe that such an such thing happened. You don't believe in miracles you don't believe in anything that happened that science today cannot explain. I pay you the compliment. Meaning what if you if you actually believe in those things, and it's a problem, right, here's where there's a tangent, and Dawkins demonstrate some bias against religion. He's attacking religion constantly. But it was a really good interview actually about a

different topic, which is, is religion, good or evil? And this topic came up and notice how he framed the question. Mockery is very common in this in this kind of discourse in these kinds of circles, unfortunately, a mockery with condescending attitude. And do you see an equivalence between the idea of God and the idea of a fairy and a leprechaun, the evidence for both is equally poor.

Do you actually believe the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him ascended on a winged horse to heaven? This is the way that he's framing the question. Now notice, generally speaking, when someone says, That doesn't make any sense, this is nonsensical belief in God that's nonsensical belief in miracles nonsensical. Usually, this is a really, really recent discourse. And it's a very modern type of attack from a lot of anti theist. There's a lot of contradiction with philosophy, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, you can't claim that this is irrational, you cannot claim this is nonsensical. So Dawkins believes in a world that came from nothing. And nothing here is defined a

very specific way beyond the scope of this particular video. But notice when he asks him about belief in a winged horse, and obviously, for those who are Muslim, you know that it's not a winged horse to wing the animal. And then he asks later, well, why couldn't it be something else, and I want you to pay attention to how Madison responds. I mean, Mandy has done a tremendous job. And he is well known for his articulation, his debates, his focus on logic, as well. But there were actually some, perhaps improvements that could be made in the response. And this is for the sake of learning. And obviously, this is a very subjective Notice if we fast forward to continue the

conversation where he says, why not acknowledge, for example, the good things that Williams do accept that religion has done good things, despite all of our mad beliefs and our miracle, accept that individual religious people have done an enormous number of good thing not driven by religion?

Well, I mean, who knows? I mean, you don't give any credit to somebody like

Martin Luther King, for example, Reverend Martin Luther King, yes.

Obviously, he was a he was a cleric. So So I imagine that that fed into the good things that he did plenty of other things did he was a great admirer of Gandhi. And he was a great admirer of nonviolence. He was a brilliant and wonderful, great man. Would you disconnect, MLK days, non violence and Gandhi's non violence from their very strongly held religious beliefs? They didn't? Well,

I think that's it's not a thing that I really care about, actually. I mean, I think they will care about it. Richard was saying that people carry out violence in the name of God. And I cite through an example of very famous people who have done good and non violence in the name of God and you say, I'm not interested. If God doesn't exist, then doing something good in his name is great. It's great that something good gets done, but there's no

evidence at all, that believing in God makes you more likely to do good things. I can't see any noble, logical connection between being religious and doing good things. So a couple of mistakes already, kind of actually from both ends here first.

Madison is trying to bring the conversation previously back to the main point about religion and people of religion that do good. And Richard Dawkins doesn't want to admit, people are driven by their religious beliefs to do good in this world. He says, Yes, they've done it on an individual level. But now because of the religious teachings, he'll focus on the things that people take out of the context of religion and do the wrong things, to attack religion. But the good thing is not these things don't don't come from religious teachings. So he wants to remove religion from society and keep it as private within the home as possible and don't let it affect society. But that's actually

not the limit, in some cases, a pernicious distraction from true education, which I'm which I love and value of the way you value love your God, can you not do both? Well, so long as they don't divide rich, predict each other. But but if you if you if you actually believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse, that's an anti scientific belief. And that could be wrong, but valuable Israel, but that doesn't. How do you know it's wrong? Oh, come on. You're a man of the 21st century. I'm just asking this comes back to my original question that the Russian opposition to the agnostic here, Russia, their mission is the agnostic position out there. Anyways, the problem here is he

says, that's an anti scientific belief. And if you know anything at all, if you have taken a single course, on the philosophy of science, you know that that statement is very problematic. Science has limitations. Look at his mockery. He says, Why up there, he asks this question, the Russian opposition, I didn't say that I didn't pick up. Why would a winged horse be that be the way to get to heaven? Because not up there? I asked. I asked, I asked a question about you asked about proof. I'm all for saying I can't prove it. But can you prove he didn't do? I mean, this is

flight of heaven. I'm just asking on your criteria. I'm just asking, you know, I can't prove it. And I can't prove it. It wasn't a golden unit, fascinated that you'd rather I'm fascinated, you'd rather talk about what animals the Prophet may or may not have used 1400 years ago, rather than talk about what Muslims or Islam is doing in the world today, good or bad? Well, that seems to be the target. So this is this is the gist of it, that here's the response here. Here's what we want to point out and break down. First of all, the mockery, this, unfortunately, betrays an intention betrays a perspective, this is not an intellectual way to analyze and assess an argument. The second is when

he claimed that to believe in a miracle, regardless of what the miracle is that it is anti scientific, this is very problematic. First of all, science has limitations. It's not anti scientific, it's beyond the realm of what science can explore and discover and observe, because it is metaphysical because it is based on other branches of knowledge. And so if you take a basic philosophy of science course, you understand what what is science and what is beyond the realm of science. Now many people and it's very, very common, unfortunately, in the publications of many atheists to attack religion. They take science beyond the realm of science and add to it

philosophical baggage philosophical interpretation, that oftentimes the science is not seeing, or they will use science is one tool of discovery. That's one tool that we Muslims believe is extremely important, and that God gave us the faculties to be able to explore through, they want to use the tool of science for everything, that there is no other tool of knowledge. So this is a problem of philosophy, not a problem of science itself. Science is a tool, and it's extremely useful. And Muslims have advanced many of the sciences and we continue to, but you take a step back and ask what else is possibly true? What other knowledge can you have about the world that science cannot

possibly know or science cannot comment on or cannot observe that it is not empirical. And so the marker here is very problematic, the sense of confidence, this is anti, this is not anti scientific. In fact, this is beyond the realm of science. This is a very basic philosophical principle is beyond the realm of science. Now, we are talking about philosophy, we're talking about the proofs that extend beyond the empirical. Now, you may not be following along and wondering, well, what is the proper response? The first point again, this is beyond the realm of science. The second is the mockery is not needed when you analyze and assess an argument. The third is the mistake that Madea

hasn't made, which is to say I can't prove it or that the default position is is agnostic, or can you prove it didn't happen? That's very problematic, because if you're saying prove it didn't happen, I can come up with any claim like Richard Dawkins gave this example or why not? What if you claim

It was a unicorn, what if you claimed it was, you know, something else? So how do you know how do I disprove something like this, you're the one who believes in it. So they are claiming this case, the burden of proof is on you that a miracle took place. But that it is, according to Richard Dawkins, that it is anti scientific. Now, you are supposed to actually respond and say, first, this is beyond the realm of science. Second, I can prove that something like this took place. But the proof itself needs to be analyzed, meaning what, it's not proof on just one term, it's not proof only according to the empirical, what other types of proofs exist in the world for you to know something is true.

There is a rationalism. And there is testimony, you believe in many things that happen in many peer reviewed studies. And these peer reviewed studies, if you believe they are coming from a credible, authentic, trustworthy outlet or publication or a university, you tend to have a strong belief, maybe there's a high likelihood that something did take place, a study that is coming from an honest person, a person of integrity, a university that has very rigorous standards, and it has to be reviewed by so many people, and so on and so forth. Well, that's called testimony, you believe in certain things, you have knowledge of certain things based on testimony. So rationalism and

testimony are two branches of knowledge. And these extend beyond the empirical empiricism or science here, sense experiences and other. So Richard Dawkins, like many other New Atheists, unfortunately, they've removed any kind of intellectual humility, when it comes to using philosophy appropriately. And he mocks the notion, the concept of a miracle that someone believes in with a rational proof and justification. So you believe in the Quran, with a proof for why the Quran is true, that's beyond the realm of what I have to discuss now. But you have a rational justification. The Quran is miraculous. So I believe in God, and I can prove that this message is from God, it's not manmade.

And I believe in Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. And I can prove he is truly a prophet of God for many reasons. And there are very powerful rational arguments. And so the conclusion is the information within is true. Now, that information will include things that we can experience and things we cannot experience. And it unfortunately, it's a type of pride, a type of arrogance, to claim that you have access to all of the things that are happening in the universe, or all of the things happening behind the scenes or that you can comment on things like miracles, why? The reason he marked miracles is because it contradicts what normally happens in nature. So the idea of an

animal that Prophet Muhammad rode on in this miracle where he ascended in the night journey at a Surat when Miraj, he ascended to the heavens, there is a rational justification for this. But yes, of course, this violates the laws of nature. And it is not an odd thing from a philosophical perspective. Why, because although it is not the norm for there to be a winged animal that travels very quickly with Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him like other prophets, and the miracles given to them, the God who created the universe, and the laws of nature, can change those laws of nature, He is all powerful. So he created laws that allowed the universe and nature to operate in a specific

way. And he's able to change these laws for a specific reason, like a an event and incident of wisdom and something that had to happen with a previous prophet or messenger. And so you use the laws of nature, to discover to survive to explore the natural world that God created. And that same creator has the power to change the laws of nature, it is a violation of laws of nature, from our perspective, a change, that we cannot, in fact, replicate. That's a proof that's in fact, one component of what a miracle is, in Islamic theology. There's a purpose behind it. So it is not anti scientific, first of all, is beyond the realm of science, this is a mistake. Second of all, there is

a rational proof, a rational justification for it, and it is that the source of information is true, it is that the empirical facets of the Quran is miraculous nature can be studied. So this is all following from another source of information is all following a logical sequence here. And so it is it is a type of mockery, to be very condescending, and to insult not just the journalist Matthew Hudson, but you talk about it in a very condescending way as though this is what science actually says as though this is the rational position. Unfortunately, this demonstrates that there's a lot of pride. There's a type of superiority complex for anyone who does not rely on only one tool and that

is a tool of science, and also misunderstands the realm and the scope of that tool and what is beyond it, what is philosophy of science, and this is a very common mistake we see. And many scientists have pointed out in the books and the literature of many New Atheists, unfortunately, and it has misguided and hurt and harmed a lot of people in the pursuit of what is true in the pursuit of what is good in society. And so many people become upset many people become emotional. Many people might become sensitive or angry with

These topics. At the end of the day, let's focus on the argument itself. The claims of Richard Dawkins here are proven false. Now, I do believe that Madison could have had a stronger response, but he was perhaps trying to bring the conversation back to the main topic. And also, this is a matter of philosophy and philosophy of science, it extended a little bit beyond maybe what was prepared for in the topic of religion being good or evil. So this is all a distraction in a way that Richard Dawkins keeps focusing on although he claims that that is not what he's concerned with. He's concerned with truth. So truth will require some understanding of philosophy of science and not just

exaggerating what science is. Let's take the tools of knowledge and apply them appropriately and correctly, so that we are not deceiving ourselves and other people.