Some things to ponder...
I was sent this by niece Amanda. My reply follows. I welcome your comments on this, and as long as they are valid opinions well stated, I will not censor them.
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.
My Reply:
OK, consider this:
There is a statistic that says that 39% of all traffic fatalities are caused by drunk drivers - a pretty staggering fact.
However, that means that 61% of all traffic fatalities are caused by sober drivers. Therefore my odds are almost 2 to 1 in favor of me driving drunk.
Now we know that this isn't true. But by presenting a statistic or series of statistics from only one side, you can use valid material to make statements which under further scrutiny don't hold up.
There is measurable evidence to this day of evolution. As a species we are taller than our ancestors. We are stronger, faster and more agile. The average life span has more than doubled since early man (and even just a couple of hundred years ago), and not all of this can be attributed to medicine. If you doubt these facts, why do sporting records keep getting beaten?
In the story, the student asks if anyone has seen the professor's brain and jumps to the "conclusion" that you have to faith it exists since no one has seen it. Sorry, but the presence of a brain is a measurable and provable process and doesn't require faith.
I am not trying to sway your beliefs or values. I just want you to be very aware that one side of a story is just that. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh (an ultra-conservative Republican talk show host), he can present very compelling arguments against concepts such as global warming, yet Al Gore (A former Democratic Presidental Candidate and VIce President) can sway you towards his side by watching "An Inconvenient Truth". Before committing entirely to one set of ideals or principles, make your own informed decision by gathering as much evidence as you can on both sides of the argument.
That's just my opinion.
4 Comments:
1. Most of what the student says is correct. (Light and heat exist, cold and darkness do not.) Most of what the professor said are just his opinion and are, in MY opinion, not true.
2. The "brain" debate is spurious on both sides.
3. The evolution point is that you cannot SEE evolution as a moment-to-moment process as you could, for example, see a fire burn or the sun rise. The student does not claim that evolution doesn't happen, just that you can't look at an animal and say, "See? Its legs are turning into flippers as we watch!"
4. Your comment on drunk driving doesn't make sense. Are you saying that, should you be killed in a traffic accident, you think the odds are 2-1 that the other driver will be sober? Or that you will be sober? If there are only twice as many sober drivers on the road as drunk ones, then IF you are killed in an accident, you might be right. But only a small percentage of drivers are drunk, so they represent a disproportionately large percentage of fatalities. So IF you drive drunk the odds of you getting into a fatal traffic accident are significantly higher than if you are driving sober. Trying to flip the statistics to say that you're twice as safe driving drunk as driving sober is incorrect and intentionally misleading.
5. Finally, the story you related is not true. It is fiction. Therefore, to attempt to draw ANY conclusions for or against science or religion based on a fictional story is illogical. (And don't try to say, "Well, you believe in Jesus because you read about him in a book." That would not be an accurate statement; your story is known to be fictional and mine is believed by a billion earthlings to be true.)
My comment about the drunk driving statistic WAS intentionally misleading. That was my point - by stating "facts" in a particular order, one can present an argument any way they want to. That's the nature of debate. It's not much different than the "glass is half full" vs. "glass is half empty"...
I wasn't trying to sway the argument one way or another. I was really just trying to get my niece to consider ideas as important as this from every angle possible and arrive at her own conclusions.
Very well said, Roger. However, there are two additional points to consider. First, science in fact does not have a "problem" with religion, and in most cases, religion doesn't have a problem with science. Both of those statements are political arguments that people throw about to try to argue one side or the other. There are just as many religious believers, of all faiths, in scientific pursuits as in any other profession. The Vatican has acknowledged evolution and says it in no way contradicts the book of Genesis. (And yes, I know that the Vatican does not represent all religious people, or even all Christians for that matter. It's just an example that there is no conflict between most scientists and most theologists.)
Second, and this is more directly in response to Skylemming: do you honestly believe in Jesus Christ because you read about him in a book, or do you believe in him because you simply believe? I suspect it's the latter. That is the definition of faith - you believe because you believe, not because any particular person or book or whatever says you should. The question non-believers posit to believers of "Why do you believe in God?" (and that believers tend to echo back: "Why don't you?") is ultimately moot. There is no *why* - you believe because you do. And that is neither good nor bad. It's just the way it is. Atheists tend to discredit followers of any religion as being "silly" or "superstitious", but in so doing they ultimately miss the point. And again, followers of various faiths tend to discredit those who do not believe as they do. So while I agree with most of your points, Skylemming, I have to disagree with your last: that your "story" is valid because lots of people believe it to be true, while Roger's isn't because it is known to be false. That likewise misses the point. Ultimately, the relative truth of the Bible, Koran, Torah, or other text (and by the way, there are plenty of devout followers of each of those faiths that do not believe in the literal truth of said text) is beside the point. You believe that the Bible holds important stories and lessons that guide you through life. That, as Roger said, is why he wanted to bring this up: because this story, whether true or false, can illustrate some important facets of life; he thinks he can get his niece to possibly look at some things in life a little differently because of it.
But if The Book was not written, would we even know about Him to believe in Him?
Like it or not, I know about Him because I read about him. I believe in Him because of who the Bible said he is and what it said he did.
Everything we know and believe, regardless of topic, from prerecorded days we believe because it was in a book.
Post a Comment
<< Home