 In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, the Most Merciful. Dear respected viewers, thank you for joining us once more on this, your show, broadcast from the holy city of Karbala, back to the basics in which I, your host, Yahya Seymour, am discussing certain key principles in our dialogue with those who happen to not agree with or not follow the particular religious doctrines that we happen to follow. Of course, there is much to be said about engaging others with disagreements and differences that they have with you. And throughout the past, well, dare I say, since the start of this series, we have attempted to offer a slightly more conducive, respectful method of dialogue and engagement. And we've focused upon the framework of comparing our packages of belief and presuppositions and assumptions about man life in the universe, our beliefs about various things, as collectively what we could call world views. Now, of course, I have stated that everyone, of course, believes or adopts a certain world view even if they claim they don't necessarily do so. Over the past few episodes, we have, of course, tied in the concept of veneration of the Imam, alaihi salatu wa salam, that whoever knows his self knows his Lord. And of course, the narration of the Holy Prophet, salallahu alaihi wa aleh, whoever knows most about himself knows most about his Lord. Now, of course, there are those who would have issue with these particular narrations, but I have, of course, interpreted them in light of our widely spread, widely transmitted traditions and authentic sayings of the Holy Imams. May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon them. And so, in light of this, we had tied our conversation about the world view of atheism into the conversation about how there is this degree of self-deception in the affirmation of certain beliefs which are acknowledged according to the intellectual and intelligent proponents, advances, and dare I say, founding fathers or ideologues of the atheist world view. We've noted that amongst our intellectuals, there is a tendency to admit certain of the consequences which we would say naturally arise from blanking out the existence of God, blanking out the existence of Allah as a wajam. And what do I mean by this? Dear respected viewers, what I mean by this is that whilst some would love to tell you that atheism is merely the absence of a belief in the deity, it is merely the rejection of the belief in God and nothing else, in the same way that I, as you see more, reject the existence of Thor or Zeus, they would say, I reject the existence of your God and all other gods. Of course, there's a slight difference here, because in reality there is a massive difference between the concept of God that I and the vast majority of monotheistic religions happen to espouse and of course demigods with massive limitations like Zeus and Thor and all the other pre-monotheistic, well, dare I say animalistic or pantheistic beliefs which once existed within the regionalised cults of the world. That is not to argue that they existed prior to monotheism. This is of course something which the Western world and particularly the School of Anthropology of Religion would like to impose upon us, but it's something which we entirely reject. Back to the topic at hand, we had been discussing of course how this particular concept of how when a person knows himself, when a person studies the human self and the self, he would come to a firmer knowledge of Allah if he was truly sincere and of course we've likened this to the concept of the Aql, the intellect spoken about by Imam al-Sadaq, al-Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and indeed his forefathers and successors from the Ahl al-Bait. This narration which states that the Aql, the intellect is that by which ar-Rahman, the merciful, namely Allah Az-Bajal, is worshipped. Now of course we have spoken about the numerous different ways to know and have an understanding of this particular narration and it is of course important for us to understand how this ties in to our discussion on atheism. As I've stated, many a time you will hear from your atheist colleagues and friends, well I just don't see enough evidence for a god. It's not that I have a worldview, it's just that I reject your conception of god and indeed every other conception of god and I don't understand why you're imposing a worldview onto me. Of course we've seen that this is the argument of some of the more simplistic thinkers out there but as for those who are the ideological proponents and giants of the new atheist worldview and those who really roll and run with the philosophical assumptions and consequences of modern day atheism we would understand that the situation is quite different. You can't expect to black out the sun and continue to live under its warmth and its radiance. Likewise we find that the atheist in doing so affirms for himself what we have called playing Russian roulette with all six bullets loaded or essentially decapacitating yourself and completely rendering your intellect as useless. Now of course there are some who are willing to do this and I'm not stating by any means that we are more intelligent than them rather these people have very high IQs. Sometimes we really wonder what is going on when we see that they adopt such beliefs. Now we've already looked at the fact that being an atheist has led such intelligent men as Dr. Alex Rosenberg to reject the concept of thought and essentially say that the concept of a human thinking is essentially a giant illusion similar to watching a film and assuming that it's real. Now of course this is done because in Alex Rosenberg's physicalist materialist worldview there is no room for the non-material non-physical concept known as a thought and indeed there's no such room as for things such as free will or morality and it is of course morality that we had moved on to in last night's discussion. We quoted a very renowned atheist and indeed a very important figurehead in the school known as existentialism his name is Jean-Paul Sartre. Jean-Paul Sartre he acknowledges that of course when it comes to the abandonment or the throwing out the rejection of the belief in God there are several consequences and it's as if he's affirming what the believing proponents of this particular argument have always stated. He states and I quote, when we speak of abandonment a favorite word of Heidegger, Heidegger of course being another German influential proponent of the existentialist school of philosophy, we only mean to say that God does not exist and it is necessary to draw the consequences of His absence right to the end. I like this. This is a man that's willing to apply Qa'idat al-Ilzam upon himself. The Qa'idah given to us the rule and principle given to us by our holy imams. He says what? The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain type of secular moralism which seeks to suppress God at the least possible expense. What does he mean by that? He says that his school, the existentialist school, is opposed to that type of secular moralist, the one that removes God from the picture but wishes to dampen the wounds by doing the least damage possible by removing the concept of God. Towards 1880 when the French professors endeavored to formulate a secular morality they said nothing will be changed if God does not exist. We shall rediscover the same norms of honesty, progress and humanity and we shall have disposed of God as an out-of-date hypothesis which will die away quietly of itself. The existentialist on the contrary finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist for there disappears with him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that the good exists that one must be honest or one must not lie since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky the Russian novelist once wrote if God did not exist everything would be permitted and that for existentialism is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist and man is in consequence forlorn for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself. Now this is of course Jean-Paul Sartre embracing the consequences of the rejection of God namely that once you remove that concept which provides the explanatory scope the explanatory power for many of the transcendent beliefs we hold today such as morality the ability to trust our minds good and evil we would find that once you do so there is no longer a grounding for such concepts such concepts must go entirely out and down the drain. Is Jean-Paul Sartre unique in affirming this particular view? Absolutely not. Allow me to continue citing numerous respectable atheist authorities in philosophy and other fields who have stated exactly the same thing. Now I cross reference between people in other fields too because it is important to note that these are not just people within the realm of philosophy. I know that there is a new atheist tendency to say that philosophy is dead so inshallah ta'ala we will also throw in several citations from scientists as well. Paul Kurz he states the following the central question about moral and ethical principles concerns very ontological that is to say existential foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground transcendent means that which goes above and beyond ourselves above and beyond the physical world they are purely ephemeral ephemeral of course means they're purely conceptual they're purely things that we have of course conceptualized subjectively. Julian Bagini a great popular writer of philosophy in the United Kingdom he states the following in fact dear viewers we're going to go for a very short break and I'll cite what he states after the break please join me then. Asalaamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh Asalaamu alaikum dear viewers thank you for joining us after that very short break and I pray that you're all still awake inshallah ta'ala despite the dryness and coarseness of the topic involved. I understand this very dry course but for those of you who do understand it it's a great starting point in dialogue with those who affirm the worldview of atheism even if they would deny that it's a worldview it's still a very interesting conversation to have and one which you find very very few solutions or attempted plausible decent responses too. Julian Bagini as I was saying in my citations of renowned non-believing scholars of both philosophy and science have stated Julian Bagini of course being a philosopher from from the UK who is not a believer in God he states the following if there is no single moral authority that is to say brackets i.e. no God we have to in some sense create values for ourselves the quotation goes on to state and that means that moral claims are not true or false you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error that is to say what in summary of what Julian Bagini has just said he's stating that if there is no single moral authority a transcendent one God we have to in some sense create values for ourselves so we as a society would have to get together sit down negotiate talk about which things are better for us and of course as we'll see in the next few episodes and shall I tell you there are massive problems with that concept and that means that moral claims are not true or false you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error that's essentially the understanding and reasoning that would be utilized in such a world where there is no transcendent authority why because at the end of the day if there is no transcendent objective non-subjective standard for morality and human beings get together and decide in a council to form a council which decides for us which actions are correct and non-correct at the end of the day their opinion it might become legally binding upon me in society but they certainly can't tell me what to do other than telling me that we'll put you in prison they couldn't in any way should perform claim that their opinion was any more valid than anyone else's opinion because at the end of the day it would remain very subjective view Richard Dawkins course no stranger to the modern day world he states the following the universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design no purpose i.e. no god no evil no good nothing but pitiless indifference he has stated elsewhere it is pretty hard to defend absolutist that is to say absolute black and white morals on grounds other than religious ones so Richard Dawkins himself concedes that it's difficult if you're not religious to defend the view of absolutist morals why is this why is it that with a religion it would be slightly easier because a religion holds the concept of a god and that god you found you find within that god the ability to ground ontologically certain moral values which transcend our human minds so this is interesting in the sense that you will understand quite clearly that those who reject the concept of god have no decent way of firmly grounding moral values allow me to break down the argument slightly further in my own words in charlatan what is morality what are ethics ethics are essentially laws and what are laws laws are essentially commands there are a set of commands and prohibitions do and do not do commands emulate from a commander if there's no commander where does the command come from now if someone wants to tell me that the commander would therefore be the collective intelligence of humanity that's not objective it remains subjective because humanity could agree upon something so grotesque that all of us would completely completely renounce that view now it is interesting in the sense that there are those who today would claim that morality is something which we all need to move towards and that we need to hunt down those who hold backwards religious mindsets if they want to argue that society judges that which is good and bad then they have to argue that their view that for example transgender or homosexuality is allowed is just as subjective as the view that homosexuality and transgender behavior is bad essentially we're at an equal footing because one is subjectively decided in one part of the world and the other is subjectively decided in another part of the world and in doing so they revoke and lose the right to judge others as the moral police of today because they're essentially claiming that the world got it all wrong until the modern day era essentially suggesting once more that the world is prone to subjective morality and if they wish to argue that while we in the west have now come to the conclusion that these things are allowed and we're far more enlightened well i'm sure that Nazi Germany once also considered itself fairly enlightened it considered itself the peak of the noble Aryan race bringing a light to the rest of the world in terms of a work ethic and in terms of a sustainable education system which would provide a torch light of guidance for Aryans all over the world to see an example of scientific progression and advancements but of course in Nazi Germany what we saw was what a vast majority of people coming to the conclusion that it was fine to persecute another race on the basis of a false understanding of eugenics a false understanding of humanity and that there were superiority and levels of advancement between the races themselves so we see that this level of accepting subjective morality is of course something extremely dangerous now of course there are those who wish to go one step further and try to bring in principles such as well let's look at those things which cause the least harm to humanity so if you try and ask the average atheist or the average human being in fact who doesn't hold a particular system of morality why is it wrong to kill babies or eat other human beings they would tell you that it's wrong to for example eat your children because if everyone did that then there would be no children around yet at the same time if they were to take that very principle they would also have to apply it to the concept of homosexual marriage and this would lead to them saying that that's not allowed either so of course what we see is the opening of a giant can of worms in which people in order to try and be rational to vindicate their own subjective form of morality they essentially create rules and then break them because they're never applicable to the same case in other cases now it's extremely interesting that those who don't believe in a god would not understand the concept of the fact that commands require a commander and that therefore these very issued orders and prohibitions do not require someone who transcends the human race and who in every case we could say that even if all of humanity were to agree upon one thing it would be wrong if that commander states so these individuals have basically reduced morality to nothing more than our subjective choice of which soda tastes better or which football team happens to play the best these subjectivists have essentially rendered every facet of human experience to be meaningless if our classical conception of morality if that anger that you and I feel at the murder of innocent children is merely subjective then essentially we shouldn't be able to really get angry at anything in the world you see there's of course numerous examples which history will condemn as some of the worst examples in history that which adult Hitler did in 1930s and 1940s Germany the world looks back at it as one of the worst things to have happened and plagued human history likewise the transatlantic slave trade another phenomenon which is a black stain on the pages of human history religious people can of course find grounding to condemn that on the other hand those who reject the concept of god have no objective grounding to say that it is either wrong nor right and it is that which i wish to appeal to the viewer to appeal to their friends to discuss wassalaamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh