FAITH \ Science

The little problem science has with religion
An interesting exchange between prevailing orthodoxy and traditional faithSome of you may have seen this before, but for others, something to ponder upon....

"Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his newstudents 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 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 (5) senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"
"No sir. I've never seen Him."
"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?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's 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 noheat, 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. Everybody 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 Fahrenheit) is thetotal 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 inthermal 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 its 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.
If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail it to your friends and family.
PS: The student was Albert Einstein.



First, let me make the frighteningly obvious point that most of the debate regarding the supernatural (religious dogma), is not a question of evidence, and it should be, but rather one of chosen interpretation. We are drawn to one analytical framework or another. I will attempt to explain why it is that I prefer the abio/evolutionary framework over the supernatural.The first reason is tired and old, but one that became so precisely because it bears repeating; naturalistic explanations that have passed through the filter of the scientific method or that are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence have proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the extensive assistance of both philosopher and theologian in this task) and carried much of this lofty battle to a less friendly scientific arena where rude physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories. It does us well to remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bible. Assuming a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of God, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations noble. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, surging up even to the gates of the Original Origin itself.The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of this creator is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile. Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.Is this approach hubris? Is it misplaced pride? I don’t believe so, if we proceed such that human knowledge is still paltry and unsure, especially when compared to the vast spans of energy, matter, and time that encompass us. We have made some astounding discoveries and gained some amazing insights into the fundamentals of nature, but there is so much left to be discovered and it may never be possible to answer the most significant questions with any certainty. Even the purest realms of deductive reasoning are bounded by the rules of their own systems. Knowledge, evidence, inductive or deductive reasoning aren’t absolute.But for now, why not proceed as if no boundary is absolute, no barrier unassailable and see where it leads us. It is far too early in the game to be throwing up our hands. That, I think, is something that many of us, religious or otherwise, can agree on.Ruggedtouch 08.17.09 - 12:51 am #


Ruggedtouch I think your last line sums it up perfectly. We simply don't know. Lets be astute enough and mature enough to leave room for differing opinions.My position as regards the atheist, (or more correctly the Marxist driven kind), is that he elevates science to a dogma, not because be believes in it, more often than not, he has little understanding of it, but because it serves his ends.There is no doubt in my mind that the tribe mentality, which at one and the same time has protected people and created conflict between peoples, is exactly what is in play in these secular vs religious disagreements.Given that much of our morality comes straight out of our religious convictions of a bygone age, I think we should be very wary to cast it all out upon the premise that science cannot verify any of it. Always remember, science is our own creation, bounded by our own limitations. Who's to say its foundational premise is solid and not flawed ... us, we cannot travel beyond the realms of the dimensions under which nature has granted our existence. I think we can agree that the assault upon Christian belief, raging around the world during these times, is a fight for dominion over the minds of men. This of course, is somewhat obtuse to your own position, but must be factored into any equation concerning this debate.Given the above supposition, who among us is under any illusion as to the utter horror of the final outcome, should the Marxist philosophy currently being foisted upon a Western World, under the guise of compassion and universal brotherhood, will have any other conclusion than every other attempt at creating that always elusive communist paradise.All of the above, of course, is a divergence from the original focus of this post Just Another Richard 08.17.09 - 2:54 am #

"We simply don't know" is precisely the point (though we're getting closer to knowing).The problem is people who think they know - the word "think" being the operative. They don't actually KNOW - they THINK they know; which is a very different matter.