Hawking and Islamic TV

In discussions with evolutionists and other worshippers of science, you will sooner or later have to make some type of philosophical argument. Perhaps about the nature of truth or being, or the meaning of life or whatever. And you will have to respond to philosophical arguments and assertions, such as, ‘you can’t prove anything’, ‘people are apes’, and so on. If, however, you defend your views with philosophical propositions and arguments, you will sometimes meet the astonishing retort: “philosophy is rubbish.” Be prepared for an ignorant lecture about the value of human thought throughout the ages…

Philosophy? Hahaha. Hey how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin? Fee-Lo-so-Fee.
Hahaha. That’s just gobbledygook isn’t it? Epistemology? Is that like
magic? Metaphysics? That’s a kind of astrology or alchemy, right? Isn’t
that like witchcraft or something? Hahaha, you believe in that crap?
Tell me, how many diseases has philosophy ever cured? Did
metaphysics send probes into outer space? Did epistemologists
discover antibiotics? Hahah, philosophy! Plato? Aristotle? It’s just
nonsense and worthless talk. It is better to study Darwin’s book
Origin and Science, boy.

To further the Darwinian cause, it’s important to ridicule and to de-legitimize philosophy as an intellectual force this way, because you don’t want people applying critical thinking to the toughest questions of life — such as questions about meaning, purpose, consciousness and causality. Darwinism in particular demands a rejection of classical western philosophy. It’s better to mindlessly accept the Darwinian explanation of things without thinking too hard about it. And if we do accept the Darwinian explanation of things, our brains, being merely rearranged monkey-brains, have no business mulling over metaphysics. For, as Darwin said, who would bother to “trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” Philosophy is, at best, worthless banter and the idle speculations of the re-arranged minds of monkeys.

Philosophy is useless. That’s what a growing number of scientism cult members say. Steven Weinberg, for example, thinks that philosophy is mostly useless. Stephen Hawking goes a bit farther. He says that “philosophy is dead”. Imagine that, 2500 years of human thought is casually written off as worthless, not to mention “dead”, by these people.

Do you know who else sweepingly writes off philosophy this way? The clerics at Al-Rahma Islamic TV. No surprise there, because as far back as in the 12th century, Islamic thinkers came to the conclusion that western philosophy was useless — just as Weinberg and Hawking and countless other devotees of scientism have presently concluded, nine centuries later. And we see how well this turned out for Islamic civilization. We should emulate them. Follow in their footsteps, no? They are 9 centuries ahead of us on the road prescribed by the adepts of scientism.

Al-Rahma Islamic TV: Philosophy Is a Worthless Science!

About the question asking about the ruling of studying philosophy.
I say that if you are not obliged to study philosophy, then don’t
study it. Philosophy is just a nonsense worthless talk and there is
no value for such “philosophy.” There is no value for such philosophy,
and there is no value for all these sciences. It is better to study Allah’s
book (Quran), and the Sunna of your prophet Mohammed (Peace be
Upon Him.)


In Science, Nothing is True

Did you ever see the David Lynch movie Eraserhead? In it, there’s a weird looking (to understate it) girl singing “In heaven, everything is fine.” You could have a darwinian version of the movie, Evolutionhead, where she sings “In science, everything is false.”

If you ask an evolutionist to prove something that he insists you should believe, he will probably reply “you can’t prove anything in science.” If you ask him to consider proposition p, ‘monkeys changed into people’, and to state clearly whether p is true, he will likely say,

there’s no “truth”, because there’s no “absolute truth”
in science, so nothing is true. Truths in science are provisional,
so don’t ask stupid questions like that again.

Let’s examine some of that. It is true that, at the time of writing this, Obama is president. This is common knowledge obtained by hearsay and the TV. So we see that common knowledge contains truths. But, according Darwinians, science does not. Isn’t science supposed to be an improvement over sommon knowledge, hearsay and watching the TV? Not according to them.

So what does a Darwinist mean when he says “nothing is true in science”? Why would he say something like that? Well, it’s obvious. What he really wants to say is “nothing is true in Darwinism”; but that sounds like a really unconvincing argument for evolution, so he recasts it as “nothing is true in science.” He thereby drags all of science down with him into the despondent mire of Darwinism. But now, ha ha, at least he doesn’t have to feel obliged to back up his rhetoric with proof or demonstrations of truth, since those things are impossible, and irrelevent, anyway.

What does the evolutionist mean by “absolute truth”? Probably nothing, because he’s parrotting some rhetoric he heard from another evolutionist. But we can take it to mean that the truth of p doesn’t depend on contingencies, or that p is necessarily true, or that p is true and it is impossble to be mistaken about it. But you didn’t ask if p is absolutely true, or if p is necessarily true, or anything like that. All you wanted to know was if p is true, plain and simple. Adding modalities that aren’t there to begin with (such as absolute, necessarily, impossible to be wrong etc) are standard tricks of sophists. Watch out for them.

What about “provisional” truths? What are “provisional” truths? There are no such things, except in Marxism. Something is either true or not, and these may be unknown. A “provisional” truth is something which is either unknown to be true, or even false, yet accepted as if it were true. That is done by pretending that p is true. If you close your eyes, suspend your disbelief and enter the land of make-believe, p becomes provisionally true. This, ultimately, is how the evolutionist wants to convert you to his faith. It’s much simpler than laboring to provide proof, sound arguments, relevent evidence, etc. So when an evolutionist asks you to accept evolution of monkeys into chessmasters as “provisionally true,” you can take it to mean this: he doesn’t know if it is true, and it may well be false, but he wants you to pretend that it’s true.

Now this is all very amusing and ironic because at some point in your conversations with evolutionists they will harangue you about religion. Ha ha ha, religion is stupid, how can you believe in that stuff, none of it is true, ha ha, none of it can be proved, try science books instead, ha ha ha. But look here, evolutionist, didn’t you say exactly the same about science?

That is how Darwinians want science to be: submerged in philosophical ether. They insist on it. They insist that nothing can be proved, nothing is true and nothing is known in science. It’s all speculation, though some speculations (like evolution) should be raised to the level of “provisional truths” by popular delusion.