Friday, December 31, 2010

The Logic of God and Science

A professor of science & philosophy begins his school year with a lecture to his students.

The professor pauses before his class, 'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.'

He 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 and you can cure him. Would you help him? Would you try?'  

'Yes sir, I would.'  

'So you are 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 made everything, correct?'  

'Yes.'  

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, and 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 smelled 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.' 

At the back of the room another 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 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 some thing. It is the absence of some thing. 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?' 

'My point is this professor; 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.

The student continues; '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.' 

'So, 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?' 

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.' 

The student replies, '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.

4 comments:

John Myste said...

T. Paine,

Based on this article and my recent dealings with you, I have become a fan. I really enjoyed our debate before I came forth ferociously and won. (Please do not take this as me sign I am throwing down my gauntlet. I lost my gauntlet in the battle somewhere).

Did you write this article? Obviously, I don't agree with it, but I did send it to a friend after I summarized it thus:

This was on someone’s website (You are someone. He does not blog, so it does not matter whose). It is a summary:
Cold is not a thing. Is the absence of a thing: heat. Darkness is not a thing. It is the absence of a thing: light. Evil is not a thing. It is the absence of a thing: God. That is the answer to the problem of evil. It only exists in the absence of God. It is only defined by the absence of God. Why did God create evil? He did not. Mankind continually creates evil when he deviates from God’s commandments.

I know what you’re thinking: I should visit John’s blog. Don’t bother. It is in a state of transition and dysfunctional for several days.

J

T. Paine said...

Myste, I too enjoyed our debates, although you obviously suffer from some malady that causes you to wrongly perceive that you "won" said debates! :)

I did not write the article itself, but rather a friend forwarded it to me in an email. I have heard my Priest explain this same topic in a similar way though and found this most worthy of posting accordingly.

Please let me know when your blog is finished as I look forward to perusing it, sir! Cheers!

John Myste said...

T,

I normally never "market" my posts elsewhere, because it seems base. However, the funny thing is at Dubya's site, I took one road and Bee took another to make the case for homosexuals. I told Bee, I was not going to go there, as I found it an unproductive route to take.

This is funny, because by pure coincidence, I just posted an article, maybe three days prior, arguing that the route Bee took would be fruitless in a debate over homosexuality. I did not know she would take this route three days later. I love Bee. The exact thing she did, I argued would not work and should be the avoided. She is a living example of what my article talked about.

The article is not on my blog, which is still out of order. It is on someone else’s:

http://www.testimoanials.com/blog/blog1.php/2010/12/30/speaking-in-tongues-debating-homosexuali

I post lots of places.

By the way, I don’t actually think I won. It is just funny to say it. I don’t think one can win an argument like this, for the reason I argued at the testimonials. We are both speaking in tongues and the other does not speak the same language. I tried the hypocritical approach to persuasion, but it did not convince you. I actually enjoying being a hypocrite in debate. I just play the game for love of the game. I am not a seeker of truth. It is too hard to find.

Razel Jane said...

its so good...and funny..
now our faith increase..because we learn something from this article..or debate by a student and his professor..=)