 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم والصلاة والسلام على أشف المبيائي والمرسلين سيدنا ونبينا عب القاسم محمد العامين وعلى أهل بيته الطيبين والطاهرين المأسومين المفلومين ولاعنة الله على الداحم أجمعين من الآن إلى قيامي ومدين عامين يا رب العالمين ومجمعين الذين يتبعون أصدقائهم ومجمعين الذين يتبعون with us on core beliefs وفي the past few days we have taken a slight detour in order to cover some of the arguments raised against the original Islam and its connection to the أهل البيت they have a peace and blessings of Allah upon them by an individual who claimed that his beliefs in a different theological school happened to correlate with the أهل البيت more and upon further investigation we found that those beliefs were lacking that his argument was lacking and that he follows a distorted form of Islam that happens to be nowhere near the أهل البيت neither at the theoretical level nor at the practical level firstly dear viewers allow me to clarify what shall we shall be discussing today and more importantly a very important key issue other than this dear viewers because of course we are operating upon the western calendar when it comes to scheduling what we will be discussing this has been appropriately titled the New Year's special episode because of course this is New Year's Eve very few hours are left of 2017 and we shall be making our way into 2018 that does not mean to say that we are commemorating, celebrating or even venerating this day as a great day of importance or as a day in which we are even celebrating now rather our days here in Karbala have been fairly normal they've been fairly normative not much has changed at all in fact most parts of the world with the exception of those who are gathering with their families not many people will really be celebrating New Year's Eve because at the end of the day this day has no significance although society has made it a certain day in which we hope to look at resolutions and changes of course on the Islamic calendar we are actually falling upon a day of sadness it is the Isthisad or the death anniversary of Sayyada Fatima and Masouma they have a piece of blessings of the lobby upon her and so in light of that we'll be continuing our regular topic but we'll be taking a slight detour as well but in a manner which is befitting of the topic we were originally speaking about prior to our short so-called Christmas holiday in which we analyzed a completely different topic we were of course looking at atheism as a worldview as a worldview in the sense that we said that if you strip God or you strip the concept of God from the picture you would end up having a very very different set of ideas, notions and concepts about reality and these notions and concepts they were not merely me trying to attack atheism and saying that this would be a consequence no, I cited several prominent atheist thinkers particularly a philosopher of science and one who had written a book as a proponent of atheism entitled The Atheist Guide to Reality and of course I utilized that book as the benchmark for understanding what the atheist worldview would look like of course there are many different atheists and they might choose to even follow different worldviews but we would say that they're doing that in spite of their atheism and they're not being loyal to the necessary consequences that their atheism has to offer but in regards to that point there are many different things we saw when looking at that particular viewpoint when looking at the consequences of atheism we saw that there are several things which are really really problematic particularly with a thesis of Dr. Alex Rosenberg of a particular scholar and professor of philosophy at Duke University who we had cited stating that the atheist worldview has the following consequences just to give you a reminder the consequences of his atheism were that number one that scientism or the thesis that the methods of science or the only ways to acquire knowledge were basically put forward as the research model we ought to use if we believe in atheism he states and I quote this is the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything that science's description of the world is correct in its fundamentals and that when complete science will not be surprisingly different from what it tells us today science provides all significant truths about reality being scientific just means treating science as our exclusive that is to say soul and only guide to reality to nature both our own nature and everything else I want you to pay very close attention both our own nature and the nature of everything else around us now of course what would that mean if you reject a God from the picture and you take literally scientism as your soul view of what reality would be it's going to have several implications and one of them is physicalism Rosenberg states on page 28 if we're going to be scientistic then we have to attain our view of reality from what physics tells us about it actually we'll have to do more than that we'll have to embrace physics as the whole truth about reality this is a necessary consequence of thinking scientifically according to Rosenberg he also believes it's a necessary consequence of atheism he then goes on to say on page 28 all the processes in the universe from physical to mental are purely physical processes involving fermions and bosons interacting with one another again I want to break down these quotes because I know that sometimes they utilize a language which is beyond our expertise and we might start thinking to ourselves as well am I really understanding that correctly is Yahya understanding that correctly focus he states all the processes in the universe from what physical to mental so he separates that physicality from mental states to another are purely physical processes involving fermions and bosons interacting with one another what does that refer to it refers to the fact that our thoughts our intentionality our being able to even think things is all a physical process for Rosenberg for Rosenberg there is no such thing as a thought because describe a thought what is a thought it's a mental process it's something else according to Alex Rosenberg he doesn't have his conception that we can dream up things that we have the capability of dreaming up thoughts which don't exist and bringing thoughts into existence Rosenberg does not believe that's possible because Rosenberg doesn't believe there is such a thing as thought rather physics explains chemistry which turns into biology which explains all life including mental processes which according to Rosenberg are physical and chemical and that's all there is this belief is called materialism, physicalism and scientism naturalism at times as well and according to Rosenberg the only thing which thoughts could really be described as thoughts as we as human beings understand it is an illusion he states the following on page 142 of his book the brain can't have thoughts about Paris or about France or about capitals or about anything else for that matter when consciousness convinces you that you or your mind or your brain has thoughts about things it is wrong essentially telling us what but according to Rosenberg again the very thought process we have is merely an illusion why? because according to Rosenberg's presuppositions about the universe the physical universe is over is the brain is physical therefore it can't be doing anything that a physical thing like a table wouldn't be doing he states the first clump of matter that we bit of wet stuff the Paris neurons is about the second chunk of matter the much greater quantity of diverse kinds of stuff that make up Paris and the first i.e. the Paris neurons be about denote refer to name, represent or otherwise point to the second clump how can one clump of stuff anywhere in the universe be about some other clump of stuff anywhere else in the universe so we asked the thought when your brain has that process we call intentionality where I think about for example the shrine of Abul Fadal al-Bas which is in the background how is it possible that my brain which according to Rosenberg is merely a physical clump of matter could be thinking about the shrine of Abul Fadal al-Bas because physical things according to Rosenberg don't think about or be about other physical things then my whole thought process is just an illusion and Rosenberg clearly states he says since there are no thoughts about things notions of purpose plan or design in the mind are illusory since the brain can't have thoughts about stuff it cannot make have or act on plans, projects or purposes that give itself he states again scientism allows for moral improvement it's a matter of combining the core morality that evolution has inflicted upon us with true beliefs vouched safe for us by science but the real disaster in the atheist world view when it comes to thoughts is that Rosenberg believes that some things are true and some things are false but just as physical things cannot be about other things neither can they be true or false can a clump of wet matter be true, how could it be if it follows that if it follows that it is he also believes that thoughts can be true or false but in order for thoughts to be true or false they must be true or false about something and yet if thoughts cannot be about anything how can they be true or false either way so the real disaster here is the following if atheism were to be true the atheism as a worldview that Rosenberg subscribes to then we can't have a true thought about it because thoughts don't exist according to Rosenberg Rosenberg argues quite viciously that the scientism he believes to be true and it must be true but his scientism it renders and means that no beliefs even ones about scientism even ones about his own worldview could be true he also insists that his scientism is necessarily linked with atheism and that atheism is best understood and defined as scientism but if that's the case then no one can believe that atheism is true or false because that would require them to have some beliefs about atheism which would require thinking about atheism so let's get this right let's break down the argument to the most simple way according to Alex Rosenberg if atheism is true then scientism is true according to Alex Rosenberg if scientism is true then we have no such thing as thoughts we have no such thing as thoughts because we are in purely physical universe so if atheism is true no one can believe or think that atheism is true because there's no such thing as beliefs or thoughts and that would require that we know and understand that if atheism is true so it makes Rosenberg's atheism quite impossible what we mean by that is it could physically be true that atheism is true and that Rosenberg's right that we can't actually have thoughts but if it's the case then you and I could never know it because anything we try and think about it would merely be an illusion caused by a physical event which precedes it and therefore this may come as a particular shock to Rosenberg and other atheists but everything is really strange if atheism is true and we have a very good reason if what Rosenberg is claiming is true to doubt atheism because we can never truly know anything so you see according to Rosenberg he lives in such a world where in order to deny God he'll even be willing to behead himself philosophically and cut off all forms of rationality dear viewers thank you for tuning in we're going to go for a quick break please join me afterwards patiently with us during that short break prior to the break we were discussing the natural consequences of the atheist world view as put forward by our respected scholar and proponent of atheism for Alex Rosenberg in his book The Atheist Guide to Reality just to summarize his argument once more for those who did not catch it according to Alex Rosenberg if atheism is true then it's not merely the absence of belief in God but rather it comes with a beautiful world view called scientism scientism for Atheist Alex Rosenberg is essentially the view that everything in reality can be described and understood using one particular discipline physics and according to him if that's the case then everything in the realm of existence is physical this is the belief known as physicalism according to him the brain is the only thing which could be loosely referred to as a human mind but according to Alex Rosenberg the brain is a physical object now because our brains have this function known as intentionality which allows us to think about something Alex Rosenberg will go all the way further and say that no we don't really think about anything rather any thoughts we have as human beings or just illusions caused by the brain his argument is as follows no physical thing can be true or false a thought is a physical thing so he argues that how is it possible for this clump of matter known as the brain to be about something else to have a thought about something else in the same way that if my brain is like this table you don't have a table being about something else so for Alex Rosenberg the whole process of thoughts is an illusion but this is problematic because let's apply Qa'ad as an exam to Alex Rosenberg's thinking here no physical thing can be true or false a thought is a physical thing but atheism, scientism and Alex Rosenberg's entire world view is a thought therefore Alex Rosenberg's world view namely atheism or physicalism or scientism cannot be true or false therefore it's not true and therefore we can reject it so the real problem here is it's literally shooting yourself in the foot the atheism that's followed by Alex Rosenberg it's a bit like the Salafi School of Islam that we looked at earlier on but really when you apply its arguments for the existence of gods to its conception of gods it needs to self destruction and it doesn't make itself progress any further at the table of discussing refined world views it's essentially intellectual absurdity but am I misrepresenting people someone might say to me Alex Rosenberg is one atheist it's not very fair no matter how qualified he is to take what he says to be true because I know other atheists that don't argue like that well to be honest with you I'm not straw manning Alex Rosenberg to be quite fair there's a good chance to Alex Rosenberg who is an atheist even more qualified than our average atheist friends to know the implications of his atheism because at the end of the day he's a specialist in this area whereas our atheist friends and colleagues are just people that happen to claim to be atheists they don't necessarily represent anyone nor spend a lot of time thinking about their atheism and its consequences but even if I were to say that Alex Rosenberg is unique in that it wouldn't detract from what he's saying but there are others who also say they're similar Charles Darwin the famous founder and proponent of what we would call today Darwinian evolution the theory of evolution which is a scientific theory has gained much prominence namely the theory that we share mutual ancestors with apes and that eventually when we go back in history life form has a common ancestor but these ancestors had split off and evolved into different species until we got where we are today this theory brought to the west by Charles Darwin what does Charles Darwin state about his particular view in regards to being able to trust reason he states with me the horrid doubt which always arises which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals or of any value or at all trustworthy would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind if there are any convictions in such a mind another contemporary the atheist philosopher Patricia Churchland another one in the philosophy of science she states the following boiled down to essentials the nervous system enables the organism to succeed in v4f feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproduction the principal chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive improvements in sensory motor control confer an evolutionary advantage a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival so we as an organism our brain is largely geared towards whatever it takes to survive she states truth whatever that is definitely takes the hind most what does that mean she's essentially saying that this brain if we came through this process of blind natural selection without a divine creator with us in mind then because our brains are geared towards getting us to survive they're not geared at all towards discovering truth and as a result she states not only are they not reliable for discovering truth she states truth whatever that is definitely takes the hind most namely our brains would really not consider truth finding and the ability to reason to be a reliable process now what's interesting about all of this is that these people were not may Allah strengthen you all they're not people who lack intellect they're not people who lack reason they're very intelligent people I'm sure by far they would score much higher in IQ tests than the rest of us but this brings us on to the next point that we should be making in the next few episodes they looked at physical reality and they said what they said that physical reality without a God means that there's no such thing as trusting reason there's no such thing as morality and everything else even though I take this for granted the rest of us would say that because we know that God must exist for surely we do think rationally we do have morality but these guys in their abstinence and their stubbornness of wanting to reject God have said that no God does not exist and therefore there are no thoughts there are no morality they embrace the negative consequences of God without us even needing to point it out to them and this really rings true to the saying of the Holy Prophet where he says أعرفكم بنفسه أعرفكم بربه whoever knows himself the most would certainly have a better knowledge of his Lord and of course this is stated in other ways من أرف نفسه فقد أرف ربه but insha'Allah dear viewers we will elaborate more on this particular principle insha'Allah tomorrow thank you so much more for joining us tonight والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته