RSS Feed  

Religion VS Science

Jan 20th, 2007 | By Jeff | Category: Theology

I found this dialogue online and found it intriguing and entertaining. I hope you enjoy.

“Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ.” 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.”

“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. “Ahh! 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 them? Would you try?”

“Yes sir, I would.”

“So you’re good…!”

“I wouldn’t say that.”

“Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could… in fact most of us would if we could… God doesn’t.

[No answer.]

“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?”

[No answer]

The elderly man is sympathetic. “No, you can’t, can you?” He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. “Let’s start again, young fella.”

“Is God good?”

“Er… Yes.”

“Is Satan good?”

“No.”

“Where does Satan come from?” The student falters.

“From… God…”

“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he?” The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience.”I think we’re going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen.” He turns back to the Christian.

“Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? Did God make everything?”

“Yes.”

“Who created evil?

[No answer]

“Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All the terrible things - do they exist in this world? ”

The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”

“Who created them? ”

[No answer] The professor suddenly shouts at his student. “WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!” The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian’s face. In a still small voice: “God created all evil, didn’t He, son?”

[No answer]

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.

Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues, “How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?” The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. “All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn’t it, young man?”

[No answer]

“Don’t you see it all over the place? Huh?”

Pause.

“Don’t you?” The professor leans into the student’s face again and whispers, “Is God good?”

[No answer]

“Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”

The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor. I do.”

The old man shakes his head sadly. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen him? ”

“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…in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?”

[No answer]

“Answer me, please.”

“No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”

“You’re AFRAID… you haven’t?”

“No, sir.”

“Yet you still believe in him?”

“…yes…”

“That takes FAITH!” The professor smiles sagely at the underling.”According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?”

[The student doesn't answer]

“Sit down, please.”

The Christian sits…Defeated.

Another Christian raises his hand. “Professor, may I address the class?”

The professor turns and smiles. “Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering.”

The Christian looks around the room. “Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I’ve got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?”

“Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”

“Is there such a thing as cold?”

“Yes, son, there’s cold too.”

“No, sir, there isn’t.”

The professor’s grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.

The second Christian continues. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super- heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit 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 458 -

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. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

“Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?”

“That’s a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn’t darkness? What are you getting at…?”

“So you say there is such a thing as darkness?”

“Yes…”

“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 and give me a jar of it. Can you…give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?”

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. “Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?”

“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error….”

The professor goes toxic. “Flawed…? How dare you…!”"

“Sir, may I explain what I mean?”

The class is all ears.

“Explain… oh, explain…” The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

“You are working on the premise of duality,” the Christian explains. “That for example 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 cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. 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, merely the absence of it.”

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. “Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?”

“Of course there is, now look…”

“Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality.

Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?” The Christian pauses. “Isn’t evil the absence of good?”

The professor’s face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.

The Christian continues. “If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil.”

The professor bridles. “As a philosophical scientist, I don’t view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable.”

“I would have thought that the absence of God’s moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going,” the Christian replies.

“Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! 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 makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

“Professor. 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 priest?”

“I’ll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?” the professor hisses.

“So you don’t accept God’s moral code to do what is righteous?”

“I believe in what is - that’s science!”

“Ahh! SCIENCE!” the student’s face splits into a grin. “Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed…”

“SCIENCE IS FLAWED?” the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar.

The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. “To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?” The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Christian looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?” The class breaks out in laughter.

The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. “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.

The Christian shakes his head sadly. “It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor’s brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE that the professor has no brain.”

The class is in chaos.

The Christian sits down.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • De.lirio.us
  • Ma.gnolia
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Live
  • TwitThis

Related posts:

  1. I just had to share this…. This made me laugh so hard that I just have...
  2. My Testimony At the age of around 12 I had figured out...
  3. Seeking the perfect Church? Earlier this evening in the guy's Bible Study we talked...

Viewing 5 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    In the absence of god life is pretty meaningless isn't it. No absolute truths. Only what people or society believes is right and wrong. The fact is that the morality in the world is a factor of gods grand design. Evolution is a religion and always will be. You have to believe there is no god. You put man in his place and you end up with a world like today where all it's moral structure is crumbling. If man makes the rules we are in real trouble. Our nation was founded on the premise that all men were created equal. Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Where do rights come from if not from god. Well you say they come from mans opinion. Might makes right. What a frightening world it would be without a god. Hitler knew that world and considered christianity to be the most fatal seductive lie ever created. Why? because if god created us then he cares about us. We have certain rights that cannot be taken away and he makes the rules. The real reason people don't want to believe in god isn't because of science, but it is because they want to continue living their lives in the belief they will never have to answer to anyone about how they live the life god gave them. Repent, turn from your sins, god loves you. Experience his love and fogiveness. Your life doesn't have to be empty and meaningless. You aren't a product of random chance. You have a purpose. Don't throw it away because you are too proud to say you need the lord. He sent his son to die on a cross for you and me and all who chose to accept his unbelievable gift, to pay for our sin debt. He loves you so much, don't throw that away. click this link it explains it all. please take the time to click it, it will change your life. ------


    http://www.oneplace.com/common/player/oneplace/...
    • ^
    • v
    "stop acting and preaching to others as if it was fact"

    Is this not what you are doing? You are here to let me know that what you are saying is right, and that I am wrong. That your message is fact and that mine is not.

    Interesting double standard.

    So it appears that this is what you would have me do: Instead of telling people that there is a God, that he has communicated a message to us through Jesus Christ and it is an amazing message of how much God loves us, I should just keep it to myself? In fact I shouldn't even tell people that I believe in God because I am unable to prove it suffeciently for everyone who could be in my audience.

    I should simply ignore all that I have read and observed in my life. I should ignore how God has changed me. Simply because someone may not like that I believe what I believe?

    This sounds absurd. You ask me not to preach, yet you are preaching to me about how wrong it is for me to be a Christian and also tell others what I believe.

    Again interesting double standard.
    • ^
    • v
    As an agnostic, I agree with virtually everything you say. I even believe that a higher power likely controlled the construction, if not the rules of the observable universe as we know it.

    But to blatently claim that a god, of which 0 proof is given, is fact is absurd. For all you know, god is a fat alien kid, and our universe is a high school chem lab experiment in a petri dish.

    You have a faith in what you beleive in. I applaud that. No doubt it has dictated how you have lived your life. Hopefully, you'll never lose that faith and everything you have believed in will be true.

    But ... since you have no proof of that faith, stop acting and preaching to others as if it was fact. It is not fact by your standards or mine. It is faith.

    Good luck with that by the way...
    • ^
    • v
    Lets go back to "The Scientific Method".

    The Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning.

    Science can only make claims on what have been measured and observed. The Christian in this story and the rest of the class have not observed that the professor has a brain. Therefore the scientific method is unable to verify nor prove that this is a fact. The humor in this is that we do know the professor has a brain. Based on precisely what you have claimed. But by stating this as fact we have stepped beyond the bounds of using science, since science is unable to prove this claim without additonal observation (for example cutting open the professors skull). So this story is not based on any assumptions, it merely uses the Scientific Method to form a proof, which is not true. The Scientific Method operates on the assumption that everything can be measured and observed, and even duplicated. This method does provide an excellent framework to observe and learn about our world, but it is nevertheless a flawed system since it can come to false conclusions.

    Now on to "Your Moral Laws". Morality is something that is not a learned phenomenom. We all know when something is right and when it is wrong. It is ingrained in us. You can look at people from all over the world and observe this in how the majority of people behave. When people behave outside of those boundries there are often laws created to provide consequences for wrong behavior. Your argument would say that I can come to your house and eat you if I were to find this as an acceptable form of behavior. yet you would then say I am wrong, because it is now affecting you and not someone else. Morality is simply knowing what is right and what is wrong. Nothing more complicated than that, and it has nothing to do with laws (which can change from culture to culture). The question then is why do the majority of people have the same basic set of morals? Is it learned from parents? Is it genetically encoded into us? is it learned from society? This is where science does not yet have a clear proof. But since people know what right and wrong are they have created laws to provide a framework of common rules so that socity can continue since people continue to do wrong. I am glad that the majority of society does not rely on only the Scientific Method, but also on what is called common sense.

    Now it is obvious that the Scientific Method is unable to prove the existance of God. Because you are unable to measure him and observe him. Yet this does not prove that he does is non-existant. Which is why you can go back and forth forever when a Christian and non-Christian who uses the Scientific Method discuss the existance of God. The non-Christian will only allow the Christian to use his method, and the non-Christian only asks for proof, yet does not use the Scientific Method to prove that God does not exist, as he or she claims. This is because the Scientific Method is not able to make such a claim a proof, because as is pointed out in the story above, if you can observe something you can prove it. So to observe the brain is to prove it exist. Thus to observe God is to prove he exists. So the only way to provide the necessary proof in both situations proves fatal for either the professor or the non-Christian. Therefore, when your exclusive premise is based on a method that has limits in what it can conclude you will obviously get incomplete results.

    It is in this case that we make assumptions based on what we have measured and observed. This is how we can conclude that the professor has a brain, not through the scientific method but through assumption. I ask you to look around you, go outside. Look up at the stars. Listen to the birds. Watch the intricate and complicated interactions between animal species. Observe how complicated the universe is, how beautiful it is. What can you assume? That this is all random, or that it is all designed. The choice is ours to make based on what we observe and the assumptions we can make based on our assumptions.
    • ^
    • v
    Oh please, could that be more contrived?

    First off, near the end of this story, the "christian" claims the professor has no brain. Yet we can easily determine this, by cutting him open. So the story makes a claim that he cannot have a brain, becuase we cannot observe it? Since scince may not have a way of observing the brain, WITHOUT killing the subject (yet, and not totally true either, MRI', xray, fiber cameras, aka technology is erasing this limitation slowly) that does not assert that we cannot prove he has a brain. I'd just prefer to make an assumption since A) we have proven that humans have brains B) brains control our bodies C) no human is able to live without one. this assumption is no great leap, and is made to preserve the life of our professor. So yes he has a brain.

    Stupid story, based on a flawed premise.

    So let's talk about morality for a second.

    I kill some one, thus you would perceive me to be immoral. I'm immoral, becuase you believe that your set of "moral laws" apply to me, thus I'm immoral.

    What if my "Moral laws" state that killing is an acceptable form of survival (I'm hungry, you look good to eat). Am I still immoral? What we'ere talking about here is perception. You perceive me to be immoral on a set of rules, you made up. Oh sure, you got them from god. Prove it? Morals are perception, and everyone has a different set of them. Are laws are based on a common set of morals, so as to make a common set of rules that we can live with in a society.

    I could go on and on, but alas I have no time. I must continue writing code on this computer. Of course, if science were truly flawed, we wouldn't have a computer would we. Maybe god invented it?
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus