His point is that experimental science is not in the domain of answering "why" in that sense. It's a metaphysical problem outside the realm of science. The question of finding which religion is true is a separate issue. You don't want to fall in the genetic fallacy when making such an argument.
> Well I think we're getting closer and closer to understand how the brain works.
No one is saying we shouldn't work on it. But this sounds like the "science of the gaps" argument that atheists make fun of theists for using when the former claim "God of the gaps" fallacy.
> Why can't we derive morals from logical scientific arguments?
Show me how. He talks about how different cultures agree that certain things are acceptable and others aren't. And he gave the example of harming or sacrificing children. If we agreed tomorrow that such practice is ok, in a secular society there is nothing prohibiting such action.
In Islam, we have something called the Fitrah, a natural disposition to certain things, such as acting "good" (we need a benchmark for that obviously, but in a Judeo-Christian Western world, it's quite obvious), or the innate belief in a Creator. This falls under that, and animals also have instincts.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. He states the argument at the beginning, and then gives examples. You don't have to agree with each and every example, but the point stands.
Experimental science cannot answer things beyond what it is designed to do.
> His point is that experimental science is not in the domain of answering "why" in that sense. It's a metaphysical problem outside the realm of science. The question of finding which religion is true is a separate issue. You don't want to fall in the genetic fallacy when making such an argument.
> No one is saying we shouldn't work on it. But this sounds like the "science of the gaps" argument that atheists make fun of theists for using when the former claim "God of the gaps" fallacy.
> Show me how. He talks about how different cultures agree that certain things are acceptable and others aren't. And he gave the example of harming or sacrificing children.
If different cultures agree on certain acceptable behaviors then that hints at other reasons than religion because different societies have different religions. Which one is the right one?
> If we agreed tomorrow that such practice is ok, in a secular society there is nothing prohibiting such action.
> In Islam, we have something called the Fitrah, a natural disposition to certain things, such as acting "good" (we need a benchmark for that obviously, but in a Judeo-Christian Western world, it's quite obvious), or the innate belief in a Creator. This falls under that, and animals also have instincts.
> I think you're missing the forest for the trees. He states the argument at the beginning, and then gives examples. You don't have to agree with each and every example, but the point stands.
> Experimental science cannot answer things beyond what it is designed to do.
I would btw like to ask you: would you agree that some parts of Islam might be wrong or do you believe it is 100% correct?
> Once more: that science cannot explain something is NOT evidence for any other random unprovable explanation like the existance of a god.
Which is why in Islam we have three sources of truth: observations, logic, and the honest news. We have established that Muhammad, Prayers of God be upon him, existed, and the Quran is preserved, and the authentic Hadiths are preserved. He performed miracles, and foretold events, some of which only came true in the past couple of decades (more at www.provingislam.com). As such, we trust what he brought forth to us.
> I would btw like to ask you: would you agree that some parts of Islam might be wrong or do you believe it is 100% correct?
I believe Islam is 100% correct. If I don't, then by definition I am not a Muslim. We don't get to pick and choose what we like and don't like. Of course, you're going to have to mention exactly what you mean by "some parts of Islam", that's quite a vague term.
> I think we keep talking past each other.
> Which is why in Islam we have three sources of truth: observations, logic, and the honest news. We have established that Muhammad, Prayers of God be upon him, existed, and the Quran is preserved, and the authentic Hadiths are preserved. He performed miracles, and foretold events, some of which only came true in the past couple of decades (more at www.provingislam.com). As such, we trust what he brought forth to us.
> I believe Islam is 100% correct. If I don't, then by definition I am not a Muslim. We don't get to pick and choose what we like and don't like. Of course, you're going to have to mention exactly what you mean by "some parts of Islam", that's quite a vague term.
"Some parts of Islam" is intentionally vague because I asked if you believed if it is 100% true. It does not matter what parts of Islam I was refering to because 100% by definition covers it all.
There have been a great number of religions throughout thousands of years. Or iterations and versions of the certain religions. I find it arrogant and shortsighted to believe that your version is the final one and no other that comes after it will be better.
It does make sense. Those three sources of evidence can have some overlap. We cannot for example retest that an ancient battle took place even though we know it did. Not everything is testable over and over again. Same applies here.
> But there is more than one version of Islam, isn't there?
What do you mean by version? Sunni vs Shia I presume? Yes, but we apply the same standards to arrive at truth. Furthermore, all "versions" have the same core: God is one, we all have the same Quran, we all have to pray, fast, etc. We all submit to God. Any other differences we can discuss to arrive at the truth.
> It also means you believe there cannot have been any mistakes in any of the writings.
We have an Isnad system in Islam, something that does not exist anywhere else in either faith systems or even secular systems. It gives us absolute confidence in being able to know if texts are valid or not. If we apply those standards to the Bible for example, it would immediately be rendered as weak (we don't know who the bible authors are).
The Quran is 100% preserved. The authentic Hadiths are 100% preserved. It depends on what you mean by "stories". This is a deep topic that I would not be able to do justice over a post, you'll have to watch an introductory lecture that talks about these things. Furthermore, there is a very specific process in how we go about deducing rules from Quran and Hadith. These are the major schools of thoughts (Hanafi, Shaf'ii, Maliki, and Hanbali).
> If there is no room for errors then there is no room for improvement.
Not true. There are many nascent topics that we have been able to derive rules for based on the approaches I mentioned.
> You don't accept the possibility of errors.
Not true. We know and classified Hadiths according to their authenticity, we have Hadiths that are Mutawater for example, all the way to falsely attributed Hadiths which are fabricated. We've done the work a long long time ago.
> There have been a great number of religions throughout thousands of years. Or iterations and versions of the certain religions. I find it arrogant and shortsighted to believe that your version is the final one and no other that comes after it will be better.
The Islamic view is as follows: God sent prophets and messengers to people throughout history. We accept Moses, Jesus, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Saleh, etc. Prayers of God be upon them all as prophets and messengers. There were many whom we don't have the names of, we're talking hundreds of thousands if I recall correctly. They all came with the same core message of the Oneness of the Creator, and to worship him and submit to him. As such, the followers of those prophets and messengers were called Submitters (Muslims in Arabic). Over time, those messages got corrupted. For example, Jesus Prayers of God be upon him, never claimed to be God or son of God, however, over time some people attributed this false idea to him, and we have the present day incarnation of Christianity.
Islam is the final revelation from God, and is preserved. It supersedes everything before it. Muhammad Prayers of God be upon him was sent to all of mankind until the end of time. He brought with him many miracles, and foretold many events in the future, some of which are happening today before our very eyes.
We have to accept all of those prophets that God sent, otherwise we're not Muslim.
On the other side, there are definitely man made religions (e.g. satanism) and many self proclaimed prophets that were not sent from God. Obviously, we don't give those people any credence, and we were warned about them in our texts.
Also, I've heard the fallacious argument before. Just because there are many religions does not mean that one of them isn't true. This is the genetic fallacy. Something that Dawkins and his ilk do all the time without realizing it.
> It does make sense. Those three sources of evidence can have some overlap. We cannot for example retest that an ancient battle took place even though we know it did. Not everything is testable over and over again. Same applies here.
> What do you mean by version? Sunni vs Shia I presume? Yes, but we apply the same standards to arrive at truth. Furthermore, all "versions" have the same core: God is one, we all have the same Quran, we all have to pray, fast, etc. We all submit to God. Any other differences we can discuss to arrive at the truth.
> We have an Isnad system in Islam, something that does not exist anywhere else in either faith systems or even secular systems. It gives us absolute confidence in being able to know if texts are valid or not. If we apply those standards to the Bible for example, it would immediately be rendered as weak (we don't know who the bible authors are).
> Not true. There are many nascent topics that we have been able to derive rules for based on the approaches I mentioned.
It is one of the core concepts of science. Always be open to challenge our understanding of reality and refine our models when new evidence emerges. Since we honestly admit that we don't know everything yet, we need to be open to change and improve.
> Not true. We know and classified Hadiths according to their authenticity, we have Hadiths that are Mutawater for example, all the way to falsely attributed Hadiths which are fabricated. We've done the work a long long time ago.
> The Islamic view is as follows: God sent prophets and messengers to people throughout history. We accept Moses, Jesus, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Saleh, etc. Prayers of God be upon them all as prophets and messengers. There were many whom we don't have the names of, we're talking hundreds of thousands if I recall correctly. They all came with the same core message of the Oneness of the Creator, and to worship him and submit to him. As such, the followers of those prophets and messengers were called Submitters (Muslims in Arabic). Over time, those messages got corrupted. For example, Jesus Prayers of God be upon him, never claimed to be God or son of God, however, over time some people attributed this false idea to him, and we have the present day incarnation of Christianity.
> Islam is the final revelation from God, and is preserved. It supersedes everything before it. Muhammad Prayers of God be upon him was sent to all of mankind until the end of time. He brought with him many miracles, and foretold many events in the future, some of which are happening today before our very eyes.
You do realize that there have been tons and tons of religions before Islam and many of their followers shared the exact same view as you do? "Our version is the real truth! This time for sure!".
> We have to accept all of those prophets that God sent, otherwise we're not Muslim.
> On the other side, there are definitely man made religions (e.g. satanism) and many self proclaimed prophets that were not sent from God. Obviously, we don't give those people any credence, and we were warned about them in our texts.
> Also, I've heard the fallacious argument before. Just because there are many religions does not mean that one of them isn't true. This is the genetic fallacy. Something that Dawkins and his ilk do all the time without realizing it.
The Islamic Isanad system addresses this issue.
> And why is there still no final resolution which one is the true one?
The differences are mostly political. There is a resolution, it's just that people stick to their desires in the face of evidence.
> It does not leave room for future knowledge to improve our understanding of the past and adjust accordingly.
Islam does leave things open to adjust as we further our knowledge. The foundations do not change. This does not have anything to do with whether it is true.
> And why does god need you to worship him?
Because He said so: https://quran.com/21/23
> Is it bad for god if you don't worship him? If I don't pray, am I somehow hurting him?
Of course not. He doesn't need us.
> Do you know the future?
God told us the future (it's in the Quran).
I'm quite curious, we Muslims believe that Jesus Prayer of God be upon him will return. If you are alive at that time, is that sufficient evidence for you to accept?
> All religions are man made.
Yet you present no evidence. I presented proof (e.g. provingislam.com) about very detailed prophecies made thousands of years ago and came true. Just because you want something doesn't make it so.
Anyone who claims God does not exist does not have proof of such.
Religion claims there is a god. Science says just we don't know.
It is pointless to be on the side of religion because as we agreed one cannot prove or disprove it and therefor it becomes indestinguishable from any other claim that can't be falsified. Christianity says there is a god. I say there's a funny pink machine spitting out universes. You can't prove me wrong so you can't say who is right.
You agreed, not everyone. Just because you want something doesn't make it real. The evidence is overwhelming. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTsEZXx8kRg
What does belief in the unseen with evidence mean?
So he is contradicting himself then. I'm now at minute 30 but there are so many logical fallacies it's really hard to watch.The example with the kid asking why the mother is boiling water and apparently science not being able to explain the "why" ("because I love you") or the reason of why the universe exists: he then turns around and just claims religion can give you the correct answer which clearly it can't because there are different religions that would give you possibly different answers and they can't all be right at the same time.
He claims science cannot "prove" emotions or other workings of our brain. Well I think we're getting closer and closer to understand how the brain works. We already know that emotions are in part controlled by substances like hormones. We don't know 100% of it but we're working on it.
He further goes on to claim that science cannot provide morality. He again gives no evidence of this. Why can't we derive morals from logical scientific arguments?
Another claim is that science could not explain why someone would go and help a drowning kid. Once more no evidence. How about us being evolutionary programmed to keep our offspring alive to increase chance of the survival of our species? Just earlier to that he claimed animals have no morals. But that is the exact same behaviour that animals are showing...
I can't also follow the argument about science needing to find all possible combinations of DNA mutations that show the transition from apes to humans. Why does it need to show every minute step? How does that show religion is correct instead?
The constant flood of strawmans is impressive at least. I'm at minute 30 and not sure if I will comment more on it, it is very tedious because there is just such an enormous amount of illogical argumentation.