God vs. Science

[swampfox]

I thought this was somewhat clever, but what do you have to say comrades?

God v. Science


'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely. '

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly.

'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment.

'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't..'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er...yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own.. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'

'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'

'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

PS: the student was Albert Einstein

[StalinFanboy]

This is dumb, and I'm not entirely sure of your goal with posting this.

First, I'm not sure this is actually Albert Einstein, as Einstein claimed to be agnostic.

Second, the second student is wrong. Not being able to see someone's brain, and not being able to sense in any way God are two completely separate things. We know that people have brains, because we require them to function. We could crack the teachers skull open and we would see his brain. I know it was an analogy, but it was a poor one.

[MikeSC]

Here are some words that Albert Einstein actually said (well, wrote)-


The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

Einstein often used the word "god" in the same way as a lot of scientists are known to- as just a short hand for the sum of all the physical laws and all that. Science doesn't have a problem with religion in theory, just that a lot of the things written in the holy books of existing religions can be disproved by science.

[swampfox]

This is dumb, and I'm not entirely sure of your goal with posting this.

First, I'm not sure this is actually Albert Einstein, as Einstein claimed to be agnostic.

Second, the second student is wrong. Not being able to see someone's brain, and not being able to sense in any way God are two completely separate things. We know that people have brains, because we require them to function. We could crack the teachers skull open and we would see his brain. I know it was an analogy, but it was a poor one.

My goal is posting this was to give you a laugh. You do know what humor is, right?

[Kronos]

The dialogue was cute, but both sides had several flaws, and objections for the wrong reasons. Most of the inconsistency was based on confusing the meaning of certain terms. (This would be Wittgenstein's critique of the dialogue, which I share) The professor poorly represented science and atheism, just as the student poorly represented theism.

BTW, Einstein claimed to be a Spinozist.

[StalinFanboy]

My goal is posting this was to give you a laugh. You do know what humor is, right?
Yes, but apparently you do not.


OHHH ZING!

[danyboy27]

god vs science

scisor beat paper!

[Il Medico]

Science and Religion asks and tries to answer two very different questions.
Science tries to explain how things work.
While Religion and Philosophy try to explain why things happen.
Science deals with the material, measurable world. Religion and philosophy deals with the intangible. Ideas, thoughts, emotions, supernatural beings, etc. I think the latter is a much more interesting question, because it is really based on interpretation.
Everyone can see a piece of art, Science can tell us what it is made of, how it was made, but not why it was made or the meaning of it. Personal interpretation of the art is never wrong. The fact is, whether you think that religion is dangerous nonsense or an unchangeable truth, you can't be wrong. This is because it is outside what can be proven and unproven. The conflict that is here is simply the attempts by both sides to mix the tangible and the intangible, to judge one by the criteria of the other. As they are two separate things, this will prove impossible.

[Dust Bunnies]

So many flaws but I'm too tired. Very cute though. Though, evil does not exist because of a lack of a god, even those claiming to serve god have caused great evil. "Evil" exists because good men fail to do anything.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Everyone is always attributing false things to brilliant minds. They think if they get someone the atheists like on "their side," they'll suddenly gain credibility.

Leave Einstein alone. He wasn't big on religion and God. Darwin wasn't either. Nietzsche wasn't a Nazi. Stop making up history, people!

If Christians want to show us brilliant people who were Christian, it's not like their aren't plenty of smart Christians throughout history. Leave the atheists alone. Furthermore, atheists don't worship figures like Christians. They don't seem to be able to comprehend this. If Einstein was suddenly shown to be the most devout Christian of all time, all the atheists and scientists won't convert. We aren't sheep like Christians!

[Il Medico]

Everyone is always attributing false things to brilliant minds. They think if they get someone the atheists like on "their side," they'll suddenly gain credibility.

Leave Einstein alone. He wasn't big on religion and God. Darwin wasn't either. Nietzsche wasn't a Nazi. Stop making up history, people!

If Christians want to show us brilliant people who were Christian, it's not like their aren't plenty of smart Christians throughout history. Leave the atheists alone. Furthermore, atheists don't worship figures like Christians. They don't seem to be able to comprehend this. If Einstein was suddenly shown to be the most devout Christian of all time, all the atheists and scientists won't convert. We aren't sheep like Christians!
This isn't necessarily true. Pope John Paul II said that evolution was correct and accepted the scientific theory. Many Catholics however, still deny the theory, so Catholics are no more blindly following their leaders than Atheist, even if in this case they (the leaders) were right. I think hero worship as you describe could be better fitted to bourgeois philosophy and society.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

This isn't necessarily true. Pope John Paul II said that evolution was correct and accepted the scientific theory. Many Catholics however, still deny the theory, so Catholics are no more blindly following their leaders than Atheist, even if in this case they (the leaders) were right. I think hero worship as you describe could be better fitted to bourgeois philosophy and society.

That's true. I'd say the people who insist on attributing their viewpoints wrongly to certain famous individuals, though, are operating somewhat under the belief that "being important means your right." They are attempting to attach a famous name to an illogical idea to gain credibility when credibility, for atheists, typically comes from reason than the name attached to it.

However, hero worship certainly isn't limited to any group of people. Plenty of individuals seem to believe everything a certain person said, whether Jesus, Marx, Che, Obama, or otherwise.

Once in awhile one person is bound to always be right, from a philosophical perspective, but I don't think I've seen any of those people.

[ComradeOm]

This isn't necessarily true. Pope John Paul II said that evolution was correct and accepted the scientific theory. Many Catholics however, still deny the theory, so Catholics are no more blindly following their leaders than Atheist, even if in this case they (the leaders) were rightI assume that JPII was not speaks ex cathedra when he 'endorsed' evolution? If he was then those Catholics who continue to deny the theory are in the wrong and should reconsider their faith

But of course the impossibility of leading a perfectly Catholic, or indeed Christian, life does tend to throw up all sorts of amusing examples of doublethink. This leads to some degree of contradiction between the Church and its flock and is particularly interesting to observe in the case of the Catholic Church given its traditional emphasis on unity of thought/doctrine

[Il Medico]

I assume that JPII was not speaks ex cathedra when he 'endorsed' evolution? If he was then those Catholics who continue to deny the theory are in the wrong and should reconsider their faith

But of course the impossibility of leading a perfectly Catholic, or indeed Christian, life does tend to throw up all sorts of amusing examples of doublethink. This leads to some degree of contradiction between the Church and its flock and is particularly interesting to observe in the case of the Catholic Church given its traditional emphasis on unity of thought/doctrine
There is actually a quite interesting divide developing between the leadership of the Church, who want to continue in the tradition of Vatican II and continue moving toward a more liberal view. And the Lay people (ordinary Catholics) who want to cling to older out dated ideas like their Protestant counter parts. Although I would not expect the Pope to come out tomorrow and say Abortion, birth control, and gay marriage is all good. Religions do not progress as fast as other parts of society. However, at least the Catholic church is showing a trend towards more modern ideas. (as opposed to the reactionary clinging to values of yesteryear that is present in many evangelical and fundamentalist churches)

[ComradeOm]

There is actually a quite interesting divide developing between the leadership of the Church, who want to continue in the tradition of Vatican II and continue moving toward a more liberal view. And the Lay people (ordinary Catholics) who want to cling to older out dated ideas like their Protestant counter parts. Although I would not expect the Pope to come out tomorrow and say Abortion, birth control, and gay marriage is all good. Religions do not progress as fast as other parts of society. However, at least the Catholic church is showing a trend towards more modern ideas. (as opposed to the reactionary clinging to values of yesteryear that is present in many evangelical and fundamentalist churches)Conversely of course Benedict has made several efforts (one or two of which have blown up spectacularly) to heal the rift with traditional (read:reactionary) splinter elements that broke away from the Church following VII. His papacy has been fairly conservative so far - I personally enjoyed seeing the re-emergence Pius X's bete noire 'Modernism' under the guise of the 'Dictatorship of Relativism'. A liberal he is not

But then progress is always deeply frustrating to the Church. The dogma goes practically unchanged for several centuries and now people want two major revisions (including VII) in the past of half a century. They are struggling to keep up. What makes this particularly interesting to watch is the insistence on unity of thought that prevents one wing of the Church from moving forwards at a different pace to the rest. Gramsci actually had some interesting comments on that process of intellectual evolution within the Church. The more things change...

[Sean]

Ugh, this is an old email that used to do the rounds. No it wasn't Albert Einstein, its a fable. I have to wonder about the mental gymnastics involved in sending out an obvious lie like this to convince people of the truth that God is awesome. Its probably the same mental block that stops people realising that politicians are invariably corrupt after reading scandal after scandal but still voting them in.

[9]

As soon as I read two or three lines into this, I knew, "this is the stuff of internet chainletters"!
Clearly the argument has been forged in order to make a rather biased statement. That said, I think the dialogue of "religious student #2" had some good points, though his entire line of reasoning self-destructed when he attempted to weave evolution into his argument, and the comments about the brain are just laughable. Furthermore, the dialogue is constructed upon the common misconception that science and religion are mutually exclusive and absolute - that a person of religion must reject science and a person of science must reject religion.
As an agnostic atheist, I do not believe in God(s) - a conclusion I reached when I was nine or ten and have never strayed from since (in spite of countless attempts). However, I respect religious people so long as they understand that science isn't wrong merely because it may contradict their religious beliefs. And aside from fundamentalists, I rarely encounter religious people who fail to understand this. I am irritated, though, by the large number of atheists who seem to think that religion should be abolished because (they think) science disproves religion and therefore religion can only result in harm.
The purpose of religion in contemporary times, it seems to me, is no longer to answer scientific questions - rather, it is to answer existential questions - questions about the meaning of life, hope, death, and the human condition - questions which science cannot even pose, let alone answer. It serves as some sort of an analogy with which one can perceive life, much like some forms of secular philosophy. As someone else noted, science and religion are, by and large, seeking to answer quite separate questions and seeking to serve quite separate needs. I've gone out the window!