|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God vs. Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
I recieved this pretty cool e-mail that I'd like debated:
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. Iesous Christos H Theos H Uios Sotos Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
so did the students begin teaching the class, at that point?
Actually, that was a good exchange of ideas! What do you agree with and/or disagree with in that verbal exchange you presented? Are you asserting that Heat, Light, and God are absolutes?? Add by edit: If God created both light and darkness, it would follow that logically God created the possibility of free will by allowing for the existence of presence and absence of His Spirit. When He created evil, perhaps all that He actually created was the allowance for the possibility of evil. Choice by any entity would make that possibility a chosen actuality. Edited by Phat, : added features
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Not exactly sure what you want to debate here, so I'll toss a few random thoughts out.
If I were in any science class where the professor began with those questions, I'd walk out and demand my money back. I'm pretty sure that this tripe was written by someone whose misapprehensions about science would take a year to correct before they could even get started learning science.
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." I would run, not walk, as fast as I could from any university where the science department saw fit to hire someone as a professor who could not give a better response than this. As a whole, I'd say that this email you received is probably quite comforting to those who are looking for some kind of trite but substanceless reassurance that faith can overcome science. Instead, if it proves anything, it proves that faith can overcome science only if science is reduced to the level of a village idiot. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I'm not sure where you wanted to go with this, either. It's pretty unrealistic, here's a list:
Your story postulates a high school science teacher who has many of the misconceptions about science that creationists have. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Icthus writes: I recieved this pretty cool e-mail that I'd like debated: I saw that a couple of years ago on a site debating Islam, put there by one of the faithful, and with Allah instead God and Christ. The professor comes across as being as ignorant as the average religious nutter, and was clearly invented by one. A professor who thinks that science only accepts the existence of things that can be observed directly by the five senses? Obviously, the evangelist idiot who invented this character had the scientific knowledge of a baby. What's cool about religion thriving on ignorance, Ichthus? Do you think that scientists deny the existence of gravity, dark matter, the earth's core, and many, many other things because they cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or touched?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4115 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Besides the Criticism already leveled at that internet spam, there are several theological problems with it.
First of all, God is considered to be everywhere, which contradicts the punchline of the poorly written spam. Secondly, since God exists outside of time and is all knowing, God therefore knew what he would create before he created it. As he knew evil would be created, he therefore willingly created evil. That wouldn't be an problem for an non-abrahamic God but I've never seen that spam being argued by an non-Jew/Christan/Muslim. On top of that we have observable evidence of evolution. Hospitals and farmers have seen in up close and personal. Some have paid with their lives for observing it. The emergence of resistance bacteria such as the recent Staph infections is proof. As are the rise of pesticide resistance bugs. Part of the whole organic is to get away from promoting the evolution of these problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
I knew I was going to have trouble with this post only a few lines into it.
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. Can we clarify if we're talking about a science professor or a philosophy professor because philosophy and science are two separate areas, although they can overlap a bit in the philosophy of science? As a science professor, this imaginary individual really sucks at understanding what science is and does. As a philosophy professor he sucks as well. I'd be asking for my money back as well and at the same time asking the institution to check the validity of the guy's qualifications. The post is doing what is called arguing a straw man - i.e. it's setting up an incorrect view of science which it then demolishes with religious argument in order to "prove" religion. Wouldn't it be so much better if when trying to criticise science, the post actually criticised science and not an intentionally warped version of it? All the post does is shoot down in flames the erroneous ideas of science which tend to be held by Creationists. That's good for the evolutionists, since they don't then have to bother doing it themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Wouldn't it be so much better if when trying to criticise science, the post actually criticised science and not an intentionally warped version of it? All the post does is shoot down in flames the erroneous ideas of science which tend to be held by Creationists. That's good for the evolutionists, since they don't then have to bother doing it themselves. Yeah, but it's also incredibly funny to watch Creationists shoot down their own strawman attacks - the irony is wonderful. When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
quote: Wow. This was a totally differant reaction from what I expected. Well, first, I know that the professor wouldn't have been that, well, dumb. However, it makes for a good story to have the student explain to the teacher. Well, it would seem that heat and light are absolutes. I live in Montana, and it says you live in Colorado, so we should have a very good understanding of what's 'cold'. In reality, just like the student said, when you're cold you simply are lacking heat. Or, scientifically, your body is giving off more heat than it can produce, therefore you feel cold because of your need for more heat, so you put on a coat to keep some of your heat. When its dark, you simply need more light. Well, God did create us with free will (as evidence with Adam and Eve). He allowed us to walk out into the snowdrifts and feel cold. He allowed us to walk into a cave without a flashlight, putting us into darkness. And He allowed us to go throught life away from Him and His Spirit. And this life away from God, I believe, we call 'evil', like the student says. So, evil may not have been created, but it was simply the name for the choice of staying/straying away from God, just like you stray away from a warm house or the light.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
quote: Now this is the reply that I was expecting. Well, what would your answer be? One thing I know is that first-hand expiriances cannot be handed down. What happened to me cannot be passed onto you and you take it as if it happened to you. So, even if you have seen your brain (via a mirror or even a moving picture during open brain surgery), I haven't. Therefore, 'by rules of emipical, stable, demonstratable protocol', I have no reason to believe you have a brain, therefore, I have no reason to take this reply seriously. However, I can conclude you have a brain by its actions, even though I may not have actually seen it. I have never actually seen Go, but I've felt Him save my life (twice) and seen Him help me out (uncountable times, one of which is very promonent). So, just like I can say you have a brain because you were able to type a response to my thread, I can say that God exists because of what He's done for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
quote: First, I never expected people to take this story literally letter-by-letter. I felt that all of what you've put wasn't an accurate representation, just like you said, and I fully expected this to happen. I felt that P.S.If you'll notice, some of the story is wrong. The professor talked to two students, and he made two differant points to each. The one he made to the second was refered to by the second as 'the point you were making to the previous student'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Well, what would your answer be? One thing I know is that first-hand expiriances cannot be handed down. What happened to me cannot be passed onto you and you take it as if it happened to you. So, even if you have seen your brain (via a mirror or even a moving picture during open brain surgery), I haven't. Therefore, 'by rules of emipical, stable, demonstratable protocol', I have no reason to believe you have a brain, therefore, I have no reason to take this reply seriously. Logical inference is still valid evidence. Every human ever examined has a brain, and when the brain is damaged significantly, the person dies. It is therefor perfectly reasonable to infer from direct observations that you have a brain.
However, I can conclude you have a brain by its actions, even though I may not have actually seen it. I have never actually seen Go, but I've felt Him save my life (twice) and seen Him help me out (uncountable times, one of which is very promonent). So, just like I can say you have a brain because you were able to type a response to my thread, I can say that God exists because of what He's done for me. If I replaced the word "God" in your statement with, say, "fairies" or "the flying spaghetti monster" or "your imaginary friend" or "chance," would you be able to show that the statement is incorrect? Would there even be any difference whatsoever? There would not, beyond perhaps a "feeling" you may have felt at the time. It's literally identical to a small child who, when asked how he found his lost toy, responds that his invisible friend "helped" him. If I am helped on the side of the road by a man, I can say "I physically saw him. I spoke with him, he responded to me verbally, and you can probably find his fingerprints on my car." With God, you are saying "I survived a situation where I think survival was highly unlikely without intervention. I will assume that there was intervention, and I will attribute it to the deity I already believe in."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Typical creationist crap. Recycled from Chick Pubs tracts. Which I have on occasion found left in public restrooms. Where they are woefully too small to do much good should the stall have run out of TP.
And could you please correct your signature? It is an affront to everyone who has ever studied Greek. Which you quite obviously never have.
Ichthys - Wikipedia Edited by dwise1, : No reason given. {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Ichthus writes: Well, what would your answer be? One thing I know is that first-hand expiriances cannot be handed down. What happened to me cannot be passed onto you and you take it as if it happened to you. So, even if you have seen your brain (via a mirror or even a moving picture during open brain surgery), I haven't. Therefore, 'by rules of emipical, stable, demonstratable protocol', I have no reason to believe you have a brain, therefore, I have no reason to take this reply seriously. Rahvin writes: Logical inference is still valid evidence. Every human ever examined has a brain, and when the brain is damaged significantly, the person dies. It is therefor perfectly reasonable to infer from direct observations that you have a brain. You are absolutely correct, but, you forgot to include the fact that Ichthus could examine your brain. It is there and ready to be examined. Although, it is highly more convenient, he doesn't just have to infer, logically or otherwise. He could subject you to an MRI or go the Hannibal route and simply open you up and see for himself (the cannibalism is entirely optional tho). There are many scientific facts that people can logically infer or that they "take on faith" because their own research confirms prior research or because the theory/model explains all of the evidence, but the knowledge is there for the taking. It's not a big secret or conspiracy like creationists make it seem It's just more time consuming and complicated than most people have the patience for. Thus, we have witty chain e-mails which make you go hmmm, but don't tell the whole truth or oftentimes anything resembling the truth. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London "Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024