6
   

God Vs Science

 
 
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 12:09 am
God vs Science

[read this, its a bit interesting]

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "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?"

"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 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.

This students statements are true, can you or can you not make night darker?

Is it possible for it to get colder after absolute zero -458 degree's F.

Can you feel,taste,see,hear,or smell your brain,
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 10,438 • Replies: 102
No top replies

 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 12:33 am
ah, the mighty triumph of god over reason! the professor sat down!

and with such faith, that these things are manufactured. personally, i think faith is when you have every last reason to "believe" in evolution (call it what you like,) and you don't throw out the entire bible, because you realize that genesis is a metaphor and god put evolution into motion- despite the fact that evolution doesn't *require* a god at all.

that's faith.

ignorance is when you're shown that the earth isn't flat, but you start inventing stories about how it's flat, but the curvature of the eyeball can only show it as round, and then to deny the mathematical proofs from the world's physicists and optometrists. that's just stupid.

-as is expecting people to think that professors don't know that "cold" and "darkness" don't "exist" except as absences. but you're right, that was an interesting post. just not scientific, nor honest.
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 02:37 am
Scientists have actually observed evolution. This is the first example I've found: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/22/14274

Also, the argument that evil is the "absense of god" is circular. It tries to refute the argument from evil by assuming that god exists and that evil is his absense. You can't assume that god exists in order to refute an argument that he does not exist. If you're going to assume that there is a god without bothering to provide an argument for him, why bother having a discussion about whether he exists?

And anyway, calling evil the absense of god doesn't really help. God has the power to be everywhere, in everyone's hearts, and to make this a world where there is no evil, or absense of god, anywhere at any time. He chooses not to.

I prefer to make an argument from suffering, not from evil. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the Asian tsunami three years ago. Many others were injured. You could say that God was absent in the hearts of these people who suffered. First of all, that's very implausible. It seems pretty clear that earthquakes don't have anything to do with people's hearts... they have to do with tectonic plates and all that stuff. And secondly, whose fault would it be if the earthquake was simply an absense of god? It would be god's fault, of course.

If god exists, then he created human psychology and sewed the seeds for all aspects of human culture, including the rejection of god. He refuses to reveal himself to us, and expects us to believe in him and worship him based only on some dodgy old book that supports slavery. He has given us no good reason to believe in him or to love him, and he has blessed us with the intelligence to realise this. It is god's fault that there are atheists, and that many people do not accept god into their hearts. It doesn't matter if suffering or evil are caused by an absense of god, or lack of faith in god, because those things are god's fault anyway. God is the root of all things, including suffering. He can't be all-good.
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 03:05 am
If there is such a thing is a good God, why would he need our submission?

Besides, you'll need more than rhetoric to convince me that the magic man resides somewhere in heaven.

And I really don't understand how anyone would see that example with the professors brain as a good example of faith. You really don't need faith to know that the professor has a brain, aside from the obvious reasons you always have the possibility to sneak i peak inside and maybe ever take a whiff... who knows, maybe it smells nice. You can't dissect jesus to know he's for real.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 05:51 am
agrote wrote:
Also, the argument that evil is the "absense of god" is circular. It tries to refute the argument from evil by assuming that god exists and that evil is his absense. You can't assume that god exists in order to refute an argument that he does not exist. If you're going to assume that there is a god without bothering to provide an argument for him, why bother having a discussion about whether he exists?



I wouldn't call that particular argument circular as much as it is specious.

But you've trapped yourself in your own logical argument.

"You can't assume that god exists in order to refute an argument that he does not exist."

The begining premise for this argument requires an assumption as well - an assumption that god does not exist.

If one can take a postion that god doesn't exist based on an assumption then why can't the opposong view argue based on an opposite assumption?

Poor logic on both sides there.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 01:39 pm
fishin wrote:
you've trapped yourself in your own logical argument.

"You can't assume that god exists in order to refute an argument that he does not exist."

The begining premise for this argument requires an assumption as well - an assumption that god does not exist.


That's not true. My argument is consistent with the existence of god. I don't understand why you think it requires the assumption that there is no god, you'll have to explain.

I'm having second thoughts about my charge of circularity. But I stand by what I said about suffering being god's fault if he exists. What's your view on that?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 03:33 pm
original story
Quote:
"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?"


more realistic version
Quote:
"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor replies, "Yes. As an epidemiologist, I studied the evolutionary changes in infectious bacteria. This is an important step in developing therapies for treating disease. Scientists at the CDC in Atlanta study such evolutionary changes daily."

"No further questions."
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 06:08 pm
original story
Quote:
"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."


more realistic version
Quote:
"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"No one has ever taught that. Human beings and monkeys share a common ancestor. That common ancestor is now extinct. How did you ever get admitted into college, young man?"
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 04:50 am
Haha, nice one wandeljw. Laughing

Have yo uever come across anybody who actually understands evolution, and yet disagrees with it? I don't think I have.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 06:49 am
agrote wrote:
Have yo uever come across anybody who actually understands evolution, and yet disagrees with it? I don't think I have.

I haven't either.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 07:29 pm
Communism was an atheistic regime and without religion there was no unifying "spirit" and Andropov realized it so he went about changing it. Science only explains and dissect problems and rather than unifying people it divides people based on intelligence, ability, looks, etc. Eugenics is the worst aspect of a scientific system. I am not religious at all. I prefer a secular government with some religion on a social basis as it provides some unity most people. Only problem is when religion starts interfering in politics.
0 Replies
 
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 03:20 am
talk72000 wrote:
Communism was an atheistic regime and without religion there was no unifying "spirit" and Andropov realized it so he went about changing it. Science only explains and dissect problems and rather than unifying people it divides people based on intelligence, ability, looks, etc. Eugenics is the worst aspect of a scientific system. I am not religious at all. I prefer a secular government with some religion on a social basis as it provides some unity most people. Only problem is when religion starts interfering in politics.


Eugenics_is_not_science. And science is not atheism. And communism is not atheism.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 03:43 am
talk72000 wrote:
Communism was an atheistic regime and without religion there was no unifying "spirit" and Andropov realized it so he went about changing it. Science only explains and dissect problems and rather than unifying people it divides people based on intelligence, ability, looks, etc. Eugenics is the worst aspect of a scientific system. I am not religious at all. I prefer a secular government with some religion on a social basis as it provides some unity most people. Only problem is when religion starts interfering in politics.


Atheism is just a lack of belief in God. The word 'atheism' shouldn't even exist... we don't normally have a word for a lack of belief in something. There's no word for somebody who isn't a psychologist, or a buddhist, so why is there a word for somebody who isn't a theist?

You can call communism an atheistic regime if you like, but atheism isn't really a thing. It's an absense of something. Communism lacks other beliefs too: there's no mention of fairies, or the joy of playing cricket, in communist doctrines. But you wouldn't say that Stalin killed people in the name of anti-fairyism, or that communism fails because it lacks cricket tournaments which make people feel unified.

You don't need to believe things which are false (or at least, entirely unjustified) to create a sense of community or a "unifying spirit". You don't need to believe in god to meditate, to get together every sunday and sing songs, or to be kind to each other, etc. If it's a fact that these things are useful and beneficial, then why can't we do them for that reason? Why do we need to trick ourselves into doing them with unjustified, supernatural beliefs?

Yes, it is a problem when religion interferes with politics. But it's inevitable. The Koran describes a way of life and a political system which conflicts with democracy and with the western way of life. As long as there are people (muslims) who believe what the koran says to be true, out of blind faith, there will be religious people who try to interfere with secular politics. The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong; as far as I can see, any Christian who denies that it is wrong is simply ignoring part of the Bible. As long as there are Christians, there will be homophobes who want to interfere with the political liberation of homosexuals. I could go on.

The solution is for us to ditch religion. Show no respect for faith. Faith is simply belief without reason, and unreasonable beliefs are very dangerous. Another obvious example: muslim suicide bombers do what they do because they belief that they will go to heaven and be blessed with many virgins if they do it. They believe that it is their duty. They believe this because of what the Koran says - it's as simple as that. And their beliefs are only as outlandish as the beliefs of liberal religious people who just go to church and sing songs and pray.

By showing respect towards religious faith, and by making it taboo to challenge religious conviction, we are allowing extremism to flourish. Fundamentalists are getting away with what they do because they can shut up critics by saying, "but this is what I believe! This is my faith! How dare you challenge my religion!" Our response should be to say, "your religion is absolutely stupid, you have no reason whatsoever to believe what you do, and this faith which you hold so close to your heart does not deserve a shred of respect from anybody. Wake up."
0 Replies
 
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 03:56 am
agrote wrote:
By showing respect towards religious faith, and by making it taboo to challenge religious conviction, we are allowing extremism to flourish. Fundamentalists are getting away with what they do because they can shut up critics by saying, "but this is what I believe! This is my faith! How dare you challenge my religion!" Our response should be to say, "your religion is absolutely stupid, you have no reason whatsoever to believe what you do, and this faith which you hold so close to your heart does not deserve a shred of respect from anybody. Wake up."


Very true indeed! Religion is like a get-out-of-psychiatric-hospital-free-card.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 06:26 am
Coolwhip wrote:
Religion is like a get-out-of-psychiatric-hospital-free-card.


Hehe, well put.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 06:35 am
agrote wrote:
By showing respect towards religious faith, and by making it taboo to challenge religious conviction, we are allowing extremism to flourish. Fundamentalists are getting away with what they do because they can shut up critics by saying, "but this is what I believe! This is my faith! How dare you challenge my religion!" Our response should be to say, "your religion is absolutely stupid, you have no reason whatsoever to believe what you do, and this faith which you hold so close to your heart does not deserve a shred of respect from anybody. Wake up."

How do you balance your dismissal of religious beliefs against a person's freedom to choose their own beliefs?
0 Replies
 
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 07:04 am
Whoever said 'who are you to make your beliefs my laws' was right on the money, IMO.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 07:32 am
exactly!
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 07:36 am
rosborne979 wrote:
How do you balance your dismissal of religious beliefs against a person's freedom to choose their own beliefs?


I don't think you can choose your own beliefs. You can choose to pretend that certain things are true, but to actually believe something, you need to be convinced that it is true. That happens automatically when you become aware of reasons for believing certain things. So there's no such thing as the freedom to choose one's own beliefs.

If a Christian was aware of all the reasons that I have for my belief that Christianity is ludicrous, and if he understood those reasons, then that Christian (assuming he is of a normal level of rationality) would automatically come to share my belief that Christianity is ludicrous. As Sam Harris puts it, "reasons are contageous". It's not up to you to decide whether to be a theist or an atheist; it's up to your rationality.

Many religious beliefs are based on bad reasons, such as "I wouldn't want to live in a world where X is false" or "it has been privately revealed to my minister that X is true". These reasons simply aren't good enough; this becomes clear if you imagine X or Y to be something like "the Earth is flat". That these are inadequate reasons is one of the reasons that I believe Christianity and other religions are a complete joke. I didn't choose to hold this belief; it happened to me, as a result of my understanding that the reasons for believing in a personal God are, by normal intellectual standards, inadequate.

So I think it's a fact of nature that we are not free to choose our own beliefs. There is no such freedom to be defended, no such balance to be made.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 01:03 pm
agrote wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
How do you balance your dismissal of religious beliefs against a person's freedom to choose their own beliefs?


I don't think you can choose your own beliefs. You can choose to pretend that certain things are true, but to actually believe something, you need to be convinced that it is true. That happens automatically when you become aware of reasons for believing certain things. So there's no such thing as the freedom to choose one's own beliefs.

That's not exactly what I meant.

I mean, do you believe that a person has the right to his/her own belief? And if so, how to you square that with your previous statement which seemed to summarily dismiss someone's belief as being intolerable. (as follows)

agrote wrote:
By showing respect towards religious faith, and by making it taboo to challenge religious conviction, we are allowing extremism to flourish. Fundamentalists are getting away with what they do because they can shut up critics by saying, "but this is what I believe! This is my faith! How dare you challenge my religion!" Our response should be to say, "your religion is absolutely stupid, you have no reason whatsoever to believe what you do, and this faith which you hold so close to your heart does not deserve a shred of respect from anybody. Wake up."

You're saying that their belief deserves not a shred of respect from anyone, and yet, I'm guessing that you thing people have the right to their own beliefs. How do you square those two things?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » God Vs Science
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 05:37:18