Science vs. God

[johnf]

Obvious copy and paste job. I've heard part of this before but not all and never put together like this. 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," 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 : "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."

Without allowing the student to answer, the professor continues: "Is

there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do

they exist in this world?"

The student: "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 is confident: "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 actually 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 smelled 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 it self. 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.

[muggs]

That's an interesting way to present the differences between what some would consider "scientific thinking" and "religious thinking." I've read it, or similar versions of it before, and I always come away with the same reaction.

Why are so many people so quick to pit "relgion VS. science?" It amazes me that so many people view the two ideologies as opponents.

I personally believe that science is man's basic understanding of how God works. Sure, many don't realize this, but if you consider the univeral laws of gravity, time etc...nothing can overcome them. So, wouldn't it be logical to think that these are God's laws? Also, if you consider concepts like infinity (referring to the size of the universe)- something we as man can't even begin to comprehend, wouldn't it make sense that since we can't measure this distance it is Godly?

Also, evolution is the #1 idea that religion tries to argue, even to the point of censorship in schools. But, the way I see it, it's probably the one thing that proves to me there is a God. Think about it...give it enough time and all things lessen or wear down, the idea of entropy. But, when you look at mankind, with time, our capacities increase. Our knowledge, health, life spans, minds, inventions etc... What causes mankind as a whole to be able to overcome entropy? I think it's God.

In a lot of ways, science is too focus on what it can only see with it's own eyes, and on the other hand, religion is too afraid of science and tries to prevent some very useful practices (especially in the medical field) from being used.

It's sad really. If the two schools of thought could just realize they're basically one in the same, the amount of progress they could achieve would be very impressive. But again...I think both sides are too small minded for that to ever become a reality.

[johnf]

I don't think that it really is "Science VS God" But more some scientist against God. To be a true scientist is to search for the truth. To perpetuate a theory with no basis is unscientific.

[Ravin R10 man]

without God first creating the universe and what we have, you wouldnt have science to study. The world and universe are governed by God's laws, he put it all into excistance to begin with.

[Jeramie]

I don't think that it really is "Science VS God" But more some scientist against God. To be a true scientist is to search for the truth. To perpetuate a theory with no basis is unscientific.

Actually im listening to an audio book (not this very second) of a scientist that is proving God through science. Great stuff. He has like three degrees so he is a little hard to understand sometimes but he has some great, great points.

[muggs]

Actually im listening to an audio book (not this very second) of a scientist that is proving God through science. Great stuff. He has like three degrees so he is a little hard to understand sometimes but he has some great, great points.

That's what I'm saying. The idea of light, time, gravity etc... sure, science can measure them (to a certain, limited degree anyway) but they can't explain why they're there and why man can't overcome them regardless of the technology. I think the reason is that those properties are God's laws, or in other words, things a higher power have put in place to keep order in the cosmos.

btw- John, I most definitely think there's science vs. religion and religion vs. science, it works both ways and both groups use up too much energy trying to agure the other's merits.

But you bring up something interesting when you say scientists search for truths. I'd agrue that a person trying to reach a higher level of spirituality is also searching for truths...yet another reason both groups are more alike than they are different.

[johnf]

That's what I'm saying. The idea of light, time, gravity etc... sure, science can measure them (to a certain, limited degree anyway) but they can't explain why they're there and why man can't overcome them regardless of the technology. I think the reason is that those properties are God's laws, or in other words, things a higher power have put in place to keep order in the cosmos.

btw- John, I most definitely think there's science vs. religion and religion vs. science, it works both ways and both groups use up too much energy trying to agure the other's merits.

But you bring up something interesting when you say scientists search for truths. I'd agrue that a person trying to reach a higher level of spirituality is also searching for truths...yet another reason both groups are more alike than they are different.

Then we are in agreement muggs. I think that God not only is love, and compassion, and vengeance and all those things. But also that the unchanging nature of God also makes Him truth incarnate. To search for any truth I think is a Godly endeavor.

[Guest Andrea]

Very good post John.

[wtnhunt]

Guess I never really understood why some felt the need to have this science versus God argument in the first place. Seems to me that science tends to prove Gods existence, some men by nature just do not have enough faith to let themselves believe, Sad.