 محمد الشيطان الرجيم بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم والصلاة والسلام على محمد العمين وعلى أهل بيته الطيبين والطاهرين المصومين المظلومين والعنة الله على الدائهم أجمعين من الآن على قيام يوم الدين آمين يا رب العالمين يا رب العالمين، شكراً لك for joining me, your host يحيسي مر once more from the Holy City of Karbala in which we are presenting your show back to the basics which broadcasts live here from the Holy City of Karbala behind us we have the shrine of our master Abul Fadl al Abbas may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and we have been discussing over the past several weeks the concept of a world view namely that is to say the concept of considering our beliefs as a consequential package comprised of bigger questions which when answered in a certain way would naturally lead to significant changes and answers in these smaller questions which dominate our day to day lives I have proposed that as being loyal to not only a scholastic and sincere and also very approachable means of discussing the question of the truth and which particular religion or set of beliefs possesses the truth that the concept of world views is a very acceptable and utilizable concept more importantly I've also presented the fact that in the past few episodes we've seen certainly that utilizing the Imam's construct of the principle known as or compelling one to accept the natural and rational consequences of the very principles they hold on to compelling one to accept the results and consequences of those principles and we will definitely see that this approach of looking at religions, at sects and their beliefs as world views as opposed to isolated beliefs we would certainly be able to apply the principle of compelling them in a much more fruitful and holistic manner in the previous episode I highlighted that contrary to the popular atheist claim and when I say atheist claim I mean specifically the popular new atheist claim that atheism is not a distinct world view neither is it a religion but rather it is merely the rejection of a belief in a God and that rejection of a belief in a God is similar to the way the believer rejects the other gods of the religions that he does not believe in or the same way that he rejects Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or any of the other fictitious characters that our countries wherever we happen to be and have forged for the sake of seasonal sales boosting I guess we could say but we've seen that this is not merely the case it is not the case that someone's absence of a belief in a deity is akin to merely rejection of Santa Claus for if I don't believe in Santa Claus probably the only consequence of that is that there is one less stranger but I have to worry about my children having to save themselves from at night time or there's one less burglar who's going to come into my house in the year or indeed there's one less gift which I'm going to receive throughout the year me not believing in the Easter Bunny just means that I don't have to worry about a sizable amount of rabbits in my vicinity or I don't have to worry about rabbit droppings or Easter eggs all over the place and again the same is true with pretty much every other fictitious seasonal character but when it comes to rejection of a belief in a deity is it really that simplistic and I believe we've demonstrated in the previous episodes that it really isn't that there is far more to rejection of the existence of a deity than one would normally make out we've witnessed already how this embrace of atheism and indeed it's philosophical epistemological methodology that is to say it's way of engaging with the subject of human knowledge and what our sources of information are would naturally lead to several major consequences when God or the concept of God is taken out of the picture now of course that doesn't necessarily mean the concept of any God if you believe in certain worldviews where there is a pantheon of God and you were to remove one of those Gods that might not affect your metaphysical assumptions and your epistemological or sources of knowledge which drive our ability to understand the universe but if you strip entirely the concept of the Creator the concept of the grounded supernatural being who created this universe then it will be extremely difficult to retain certain beliefs which you have previously held I've given the example in several episodes that the concept of human rights is a distinctly well-grounded concept within the belief system of several theistic religions several religions and worldviews which accept the belief in one God but try grounding the concept of the human right within the atheistic, naturalistic, materialistic worldview of atheists now they might try and make an appeal and say that what do you mean reject human rights I'm not saying that, I'm just saying there's no God this is normally the sophisticated level of discourse that they have from them in response to what they claim but of course the problem of this is we're not denying that atheists can be good people we're not denying that atheists can pay more attention to these issues than even religious individuals there's far more better atheist people out there morally who would put some religious people to shame to be quite frank with you but that's not the question tonight the question is not whether one can act in accordance with reality the question tonight is can one provide an explanatory scope and provide a decent account of reality so if a man were to reject the existence of illness and I were to say to him okay so in your hypothesis illness does not exist but then how do you explain the presence of people in a hospital if illness does not exist and he were to merely respond well what do you mean how do I explain people in a hospital they're in the hospital I know they're in the hospital I'm asking which hypothesis which explanation of reality makes more sense the theistic explanation which can account for all of these different phenomenon we see around us or the explanation in which there is no illness and people just happen to be in a hospital and we don't need to provide an explanation for that no we all need to provide a decent explanatory explanation and account for the phenomenon that we see in the world today we need to be able to provide a good account for why our rationality tells us certain things for why we have these rational principles so for example in the episodes prior to engaging with the first major question of whether or not God exists we had addressed the Salafi or Athari so-called school of Islamic theology and we had stated that one of our tenets is to believe in a deity who has certain forms he has a certain construct a deity who is like the more developed version of Kasper of a friendly ghost according to the quotes that we cited and we saw that such a belief is one that undercuts and undermines the human intellect how could they provide a decent rational grounded explanation for the fact that the human fitra rejects such a belief now of course they would probably say it's due to the fact that we sin but does such an explanation really provide an account for that does it provide an account for why we have rationality but must switch it off no likewise we want to see the atheist engagement with providing an explanatory account for us being able to trust that the intelligence we have is something that could be trusted for us to be able to trust that the way we live our lives is indeed something which is not arbitrary for us to indeed trust that human beings have rights but we human beings actually deserve certain privileges for us to believe that certain actions are wrong and certain actions are good if atheism provides absolutely zero explanatory scope for such details then indeed we would be forced to say that it does not make the cut that it is merely equivalent to some of the other models of superstition out there in the world that provide absolutely zero coherent framework and system for us to explain away our experiences and if this is the case then what's the point what's the point of it all we must continue to ask ourselves is there a point behind all of this is there anything which dictates and governs the way we think because if not what are the consequences of those beliefs I've stated already that Alex Rosenberg and I'm not going to go into his credentials again for anyone that wants to see his credentials they may very easily refer back to the previous episode he states what about his worldview there's much more to atheism than its knockdown arguments that there is no God there is the whole rest of the worldview that comes along with atheism it's a demanding, rigorous and breathtaking grip on reality one that has been vindicated beyond reasonable doubt it is called science so this is science this is the enlightened way of thinking the enlightened way of viewing the world around us the scientific model dear viewers we're going to take a look at what Dr Rosenberg means by that when we return back from the break and discuss several of the consequences of that belief والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته dear viewers thank you so much for joining us once more on this show your show back to the basics we were discussing the concept of the first big question in the giants discussion we're having about packages of beliefs or worldviews and we were discussing how atheism is not merely the rejection of a God it's not merely the rejection of a belief that comes with no worldview rather it is a large and elaborate worldview and it is indeed a means of analyzing knowledge and looking at the very questions which affect us in the world today some people might not realize that but that's merely because they have not considered the consequences of adopting certain beliefs every major belief we would adopt would have a major consequence this is something that we all will realize as we go further throughout this series Insha'Allah so what was this breathtaking grip on reality that has been vindicated beyond reasonable doubts called science or scientism to use a more correct word namely the worldview of doctor or professor Alex Rosenberg the offer of the book the atheist's guide to reality the first question is there a God we've already established that is a no what is the nature of reality whatever physics says it is what is the purpose of the universe there is none what is the meaning of life ditto why am I here just dumb luck does prayer work of course not is there a soul is it a mortal are you kidding we will not a chance what happens when we die eventually everything pretty much goes on as before except us what is the difference between right and wrong good and bad there is no moral difference between them why should I be moral because it makes you feel better than being immoral is abortion euthanasia a suicide paying taxes foreign aid or anything else you don't like forbidden permissible or sometimes obligatory anything goes what is love and how can I find it love what is the solution to a strategic interaction problem don't look for it it will find you when you need it does history have any meaning or purpose it's full of sound and fury but signifies nothing does the human past have any lessons for our future fewer and fewer if it ever had any to begin with very promising very very promising look at reality and of course this is not to this is not really something we're too surprised by because at the end of the day if you're viewing everything is merely its physical properties that of course that is literally what pretty much dr. Rosenberg has described now dr. Rosenberg has a fairly honest approach to the consequences of atheism he fully acknowledges that yes these are the consequences of not believing in a god he says that one of the consequences of not believing in a god is to cease to believe in free will the average human being would probably say ok not believing in a god means I should stop believing in free will but I clearly have free will therefore there is a god Rosenberg's argument seems to be the opposites if there is no god then there is no free will I don't believe there is a god therefore there is no free will so Rosenberg seems to just embrace the darker side of some of the bigger questions and their dependency upon god another analogy would be both common atheists muslim debates on whether or not morality and ethical values can exist objectively and what I mean by objectively is not merely that I myself don't like the color of this book and therefore this book is now objectively bad because that's subjective likewise if the human species tomorrow were to do a vote and realize that gray is not a popular color it wouldn't mean that tomorrow objectively this book would be ugly because it's the color gray because that's merely a subjective taste choice human beings have voted upon it but it doesn't mean necessarily gray is ugly so tomorrow if the human race were to agree upon a mass slaughter of a particular species of animal for no other reason other than the fact that this animal produces a certain well one of the bones of this animal could be utilized in producing very nice looking furniture we as a species would have to say that that is cruelty to this animal and there's no justifiable reason for doing that so at least many of us would say that but if tomorrow everyone took a vote on it with the exception and in fact there was not even one exception to that vote and they all voted yes we kill that animal we take the bone we make the furniture would that action now become objectively good because every human being agree to it or would we say that no there is still a place where that is objectively wrong and even if human beings agreed upon it it would still be objectively wrong let's look at the consequences of this if we roll with the belief that no human beings do form a slight democracy and consensus and they decide and give the value to moral and ethical properties then what happens when we just regionalize that and we regionalize it to the point of saying that in 1930's or 1940's in Nazi Germany the German people as a majority voted that the Jews were to be treated in a certain way and of course we are extremely against the way that the Jews were persecuted in Nazi Germany just for anyone that's watching this not familiar with the Muslim stance we are against persecution of any minority we're against persecution of any innocent people in fact but let's take that example say the majority of Germans collaborated and felt that this was a great property would that mean now that this has become flyable that this has now become an acceptable because a majority voted for it or would we say that no it's still objectively wrong and if we would say it's objectively wrong what defines it as being objectively wrong is it merely my personal pontification the fact that I'm giving a personal fatwa saying I don't like it because again that would be very subjective that's just me as Yahya Seymour saying I don't like something or would it be that no we believe there is a higher greater source which gives us what is objectively accurate morality which one is it according to most atheists one can still be moral and yet reject the existence of God and one can still be moral and have objective morality and yet reject the existence of God now this is something completely rejected by the average ethical theorist but the new atheist seems to put forward this argument now Alex Rosenberg is thankfully one of those consistent atheists who would say okay if there is no God then there is no objective morality but I don't believe there is a God therefore there is no objective morality the rest of us would view things in the opposite light normally but dear viewers we will explore these issues slightly more when you join me after when they break tomorrow please come and join us on Saturday in which we continue to discuss these issues and we continue to discuss whether or not these particular worldviews are rationally sustainable things which can be grounded according to human reason things which offer decent solutions to the big questions or things that have any form of explanatory scope do they account for the experiences we have are they livable these are all important questions which need to be answered and this is the main reason we are discussing these things whilst being in minute detail but in a very systematic manner which allows us to engage with everything as practically as we can we are not trying to offend anyone in this series and I pray that if anyone has been offended by myself that they accept my apology and realise that this was not intentional rather we are trying our best to have as academic and civil as discussion as possible Dear viewers, thank you once more for joining me here from the holy city of Kerabala and tonight is the night of Thursday so it's a great night in terms of the recommended act of visiting the holy city of Kerabala we are making du'a for all of you and Insha'Allah please do not forget us in your du'a السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته