Minute with a Muslim #243 – Our Society Has a PROBLEM

Tom Facchine


Channel: Tom Facchine


File Size: 5.49MB

Episode Notes

Share Page

Transcript ©

AI generated text may display inaccurate or offensive information that doesn’t represent Muslim Central's views. No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.

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

Our society has a problem. That was the same problem that Benny strat eel had with caught on the end of sorts of puzzles, you have the story of Tyrone, and people, some of the people on Benny Hill, they were dazzled by his wealth, right. And they had an incorrect interpretation of what that wealth meant. They thought that Ottomans wealth was a sign of divine approval. And so they envied autumn. And they wished to be like Padam and then come to find out that in the end, it was all actually an indictment against him, the wealth was actually a punishment, and it was just building the case against him. And Allah kind of caused the earth to swallow him up in his home. And, and that was

00:00:40--> 00:01:16

that, right? So that's the moment that we live in. We live in a very auto enrollment in North America, and in many places in the world, we look too much to wealth. And we respect it too much. We ask people that are wealthy, that are business leaders that are entrepreneurs, things that we don't really belong, asking. They don't know. They ask them about religion, we ask them about God, we ask them about politics, they don't know, why would they know anything about that? You know, if they know anything about business, if they if they actually did make their own fortunes, and it wasn't just handed to them, you know, then that's their area of expertise. The fact that we asked such

00:01:16--> 00:01:51

people theological questions in the first place shows that we have a problem, a same problem that many Israel has that we look to these people who are, you know, big business leaders, and moguls and entrepreneurs, and we put them on a pedestal that they don't deserve? First of all, second of all, what are the kinds of answers that you get from such people? When you ask them questions about theology or about God or about religion, you get the same stock answers that just float around in the, you know, the kind of the post Christian universe where people really they're react, they think that they're reacting to religion, and they think that religion is just manmade. And they think

00:01:51--> 00:02:25

that, you know, God is this or God is that or, you know, spiritual, but not religious, and things like that. And they're really just reacting in Christianity, because these are Christian spaces or post Christian spaces, right? They want to talk about proof, they don't even know what proof is, right? Or if you're going to say, well, there's no proof for God, or there's no proof for religion. Well, you have to have a conversation first about what would be admissible proof, right? Just like if you come in a court of law, and you say, well, the this person who was accused of a crime, you know, he ate cereal that morning, and everybody else we've convicted ate cereal that morning. So

00:02:25--> 00:02:59

that there you go, that proves it, anybody would stop and say, Wait a second, that's not proof. You know, eating cereal has nothing to do with the crime that's committed, it's such something that's incidental. Okay? Well, you have to talk about proof first, okay, what's acceptable proof and what's not. And then you have to make sure that you're being consistent and coherent. Because a lot of people what they do is, when it comes to information about science, or information about the real world, quote, unquote, the real world, they have entirely an entirely different set of criteria for what they consider proof, then once we start talking about God, once we start talking about

00:02:59--> 00:03:32

religion, once we start talking about the spirit, once we start talking about the faith, then all of a sudden, we're extreme skeptics, we won't believe in anything. Okay? So really, it's an issue of bias. And really, it's an issue of paradigm. Okay, people who have a paradigm that is already biased against theology, or theological truths, or religion or revealed religions, right, they are going to all of a sudden become extreme skeptics, and they're not going to have nearly as much skepticism, if you're to approach them and say, well, the latest scientific research says that, this that and that they're, they'll say, Oh, that's really interesting. They're not going to look into the study,

00:03:32--> 00:04:02

they're not going to look into it, they're not going to say, Where's the proof, they're not going to say, well, that study wasn't peer reviewed, and it wasn't in this journal, it wasn't in that journal, they're going to usually accept it, you know, with, they're going to accept it, or they will tend to accept it with a lot less proof than if you approach them with a theological truth. And that's because they have a paradigm bias. They're biased towards one particular paradigm and not the other. So if we want theological answers, or if people are really serious about theological answers, you have to look for it in the right places. First of all, you have to ask people who have been

00:04:02--> 00:04:35

thinking about these things already for 1000s of years, right? And people who claim Okay, yeah, maybe you're not a believer, maybe you're skeptical, okay. But you don't go looking, you know, for, you know, for let's say, you don't go looking for a fork in the in the garage, right? You look for a fork in the kitchen, okay? You don't go look to the business leaders to tell you about theology, or to tell you about God or to tell you about religion, if you really want to know what people say about religion and theology, and God and all these sorts of things. And you look you, you read about theology, and you read about religion, and you read about these sorts of things. If you get to the

00:04:35--> 00:05:00

point where you're going to the right source to think about those sorts of things, then you have to make sure that you're being fair, and you have to make sure that you're not being biased. Ask yourself, What are my criteria for accepting this as true? What is proof in the first place? What would I accept? Are we really just saying it's empirical senses? Nobody lives like that. Everybody believes in things that can't be seen you believe in love, love can't be seen, right? Only the hardest

00:05:00--> 00:05:21

materialists will say that all these things have to do with like the firing of neurons and like they're just material causes, but most people don't believe that right? So if you're going to look in the right places to try to think about these things, then at least be fair. Ask yourself, What are my criteria for accepting something is true. What is proof in the first place? How would I recognize something as proof or not? If I come across it and then you know, I log on to you guys