> 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.

That is a wild claim. Science is very much in the domain of answering "why". Science is selfcontious enough to know it can't answer everything. Religion claims the answer "why" but there is tons of claims without proof and often impossible to disprove and so a very sneaky tool. I don't know what genetic fallacy you are refering to.

> 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.

As I said, he claims science cannot explain emotions without providing any evidence whatsoever and anyone who is following science even a bit should clearly see that it seems entirely possible that we will be able to understand it all. He wrongfully accuses science and uses this accusation to make us seek the answer in religion instead. Terrible.

> 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.

I gave you an example. Protecting children serves an evolutionary goal. We can find more logic scientific reasons for this behavior. The presenter then brings an example of standing up for an old lady in the bus. Equally here we can make arguments like "if people behave this way then it will increase their own quality of life when they are older". A young person giving up their seat is a minor inconvenience to them but the gain for the old person is much bigger because they might experience a lot more relief when sitting down. This behavior could be explained as an optimization of quality of life of the society.

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.

Again logical fallacy. There is nothing inherintly preventing a religious society from commiting atrocious acts as evidenced by religious sacrifices. What if we agreed tomorrow to form a religion which required that red haired kids be sacrificed by the age of 10? How is it being decided by a religious group any different from a secular group? Your claim that a secular group can't have morals is absurd and baffling.

> 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.

If we behave similar to animals in some regards is it that we do that because of our instincts or do animals have religious believes? If Islam has some rules that make you behave well then that's great. But it does not mean that you need Islam to behave well.

> 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.

I don't think so. I bring arguments and explanations why his claims don't hold water and his examples are not evidence for his claims. If you want then we can go more into some specific examples.

> Experimental science cannot answer things beyond what it is designed to do.

Once more: that science cannot explain something is NOT evidence for any other random unprovable explanation like the existance of a god.

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?