God vs. Science

I had to write this entry because this email has been circulating for several years, and I felt the need to interject myself into the conversation between the antagonist Godless professor and how he is made a fool by his alleged soon-to-be legendary student on the subject of the existence of God. I must say that the story is rife with assumptions, faulty logic, false claims, and nonsensical analogies. It reads word-for-word as I have received it, and it is the latest version, as I have found many. This one was apparently updated with some new tidbits that were not in the older ones.

I've broken it up into parts A through G, and added comments after each section, to make my points easier to understand and the whole thing easier to follow.

PART A
I wish I were sitting in this class...interesting "debate."
 
'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?  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.'
COMMENTS FOR PART A
This first part confuses me a little, mainly because the poor, meek "new" student states that the Bible says that he is evil. We never know why he's evil. Perhaps he just has a bad self image? It's an odd non-sequitor that doesn't seem to have a place in the story and is soon forgotten. Maybe it doesn't matter, since his apparent role is that of whipping boy to be made into an example by the evil atheist professor, who then snickers, "aha! The Bible!"

The story continues with the student standing mostly silently while the professor fills in the blanks and answers his own questions for him. After berating this young man, the professor makes a curious assertion, referring to "the principle that our works define who we are." Exactly whose principle is this? I suppose the reader is expected to assume that there is such a principle, creating the illusion that this is an actual conversation amongst intellectuals.

Continuing on, the professor interrogates the student further, about Jesus, and how the student has never had any sensory perception of Jesus but believes in him anyway. The professor then states that science says God doesn't exist "according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol." To clarify, the writer meant to say something about the Scientific Method, but since he or she does not know what that is, they have to invent the nonsensical "rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol." The logic begins to break down from here.


PART B
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own.  'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '
 
Yes.
 
'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 get down 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.  Everybody 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.
COMMENTS FOR PART B
Here we have the Student firing back, using what turns out to be bad logic and a pitiful understanding of scientific terms, concepts, etc. He begins with a discussion about heat and cold.

Just starting off, I must say that if you have ever been outside without a coat in January north of, say, South Florida, you may be scratching your head at the claim by the student that there is no such thing as cold. Cold is a sensation felt by any organism that might concern itself with temperature extremes for a variety of reasons, beginning with self-preservation. The student begins an explanation about thermodynamics that discusses "lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat." I am fully certain that his terminology was not lifted verbatim from any thermodynamics textbook.

Next we move along to the topic of Absolute Zero, stating that we can't go "any further than that", and therefore there is no such thing as cold. Firstly, Absolute Zero is completely theoretical, as it is never reached naturally in the universe. and has never been reached by anyone on Earth. The Student refers to this as the "absence of heat", which is incorrect. Absolute Zero is the the point at which a system no longer has enough energy to transfer energy to another system. Is it cold? I certainly think so. Freakin' cold.

As to the notion that cold cannot be measured, this is completely nonsensical. No one can measure cold because cold is not something to measure. It is as logical as trying to measure "like." They're correct in stating that cold is not the opposite of heat. Cold is the opposite of hot. Any first grader knows that. Hot and cold are not quantities, they are sensations, experienced by some life form relative to their surroundings. No one can measure cold because no one would measure cold. There is no such thing as a cold making machine (air conditioners and refrigerators do not generate cold, they remove heat). To be technical, anything experienced by a human being as cold is not by any means absent of heat. It would have a considerable amount of heat energy, relative to the theoretical Absolute Zero.

PART C

'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?'
COMMENTS FOR PART C
Similar to the discussion about heat, this part discusses light and darkness. The claim here is that light exists, but darkness doesn't. Try turning off the light in the room you're in at night and walk around. Do you bump into stuff and stub your toe? That's because its DARK. Darkness is a state experienced by little or no light. It exists not as a quantity, because it doesn't require a quantity. No one would measure it because no one has to. If there could be a scenario in the universe where there is no light at all, there would be nothing to measure. The only things in the universe that need to make sense of the state of darkness are things that require light to survive. It is, like hot and cold, relative to the life form and its surroundings.

PART D
'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?'
COMMENTS FOR PART D
The "premise" that the Student mentions as "duality" is actually "dualism", or moral opposites (i.e. good and evil). Unfortunately for this student, it is not the case here. Earlier in the story, the professor was merely applying simple logic to the concept of evil stating that if God created evil and all of the evil and horrible things in the world, he is evil. Then he uses reasoning to say that Jesus cannot be felt by the five senses and therefore cannot be proven to exist, finally finishing by dismissing faith saying, "and that is the problem science has with God.  There is no evidence, only faith". At no point was the professor using any kind of dualist moral opposites. The Student, in trying to stump the professor, attempts to use opposites, but as I discussed in PART B and PART C, these were not opposites. They were not even good analogies, and they were ignorant of basic scientific principles of light and heat.

It's a simple trick that is easy to pull on the ignorant or those who weren't paying attention. You make them think that they agree with a statement you've made because they either don't understand it and assume that you are smarter, or they think they missed something earlier on.

The argument begins to take a turn for the worst here, and the Student makes some major blunders here regarding thought, electricity and magnetism. The assumption here is that these things are not detectable or explainable by science. The writer has some reading to do, and I would start them off with textbooks on biology and physics. This is the 21st century, and maybe this was written in 1930 or something, but science has seen thought in human brain activity, and electricity and magnetism are both used extensively in the computer you're reading this on.

Moving along, the Student brings up the topic of death, claiming that it also does not exist, as "a substantive thing." If by substantive they mean "having independent existence", then it most definitely exists as a substantive thing, just ask anyone who is dead. You can't, because they're dead. Furthermore, death is not the absence of life. If that were true you could say that life was the absence of death. Death is the end of life.

Next we move on to evolution, and the Student asks if the professor teaches his students that humans evolved from monkeys, which I would hope he does not, but he says he does. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, humans share a common ancestry with monkeys. The Student then erroneously states that no one has ever observed the process of evolution, which is untrue. It has been observed in fossil records and in real time. Evolution is not a belief or opinion. It is a fact, like gravity.

It's worth mentioning that the professor is now described a second time as "still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going." Is this meant to be in deference to the seemingly more logical and intelligent Student, who is the hero and protagonist in the story?

PART E
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?'
COMMENTS FOR PART E
I decided to write this blog post after reading this section, because it is utterly absurd and insulting to any intelligent person. Are they serious? Are they really saying that there is no empirical evidence that people have brains? The students can't see the professors brain, but is there any reason to doubt that he has one, and are the students accepting the notion that he does on faith alone? Or could it be the vast body of knowledge provided by fellow humans who have been studying anatomy for hundreds, if not thousands of years? I defy anyone who needs surgery on their brain to run the idea by the surgeon that the procedure may be unnecessary because they may not have a brain, since no one has ever seen it. Haven't we all seen CAT scans or MRI's? And if we were still in doubt, there certainly is a sure-fire way to find out if someone has a brain. All you need are simple household tools. We don't go to this extreme because we know it to be a fact that all humans, that is ALL humans, have brains.

Again, the author uses the phrase, "established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol." Are they trying to sound "scientific?" To the lay person, this may bear similarities to something they may have heard about called the Scientific Method. But it doesn't. Not at all. It's another application of the trick I mentioned earlier. I had a friend who once said to me that pseudo-science makes perfect sense to the ignorant.

PART F
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.'
 
So, 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 every day.  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.
 
If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs. Science'
COMMENTS FOR PART F
The now humbled prof apparently is unsure that he has a brain, as he decides that it is by faith that he is accepting the proposition that he has a brain. This leads the Student to draw a very ambiguous line from human brains to faith to the notion that "faith exists with life," to the dualism of God and evil, which are not even opposites. Good and evil are opposites. The Student then states that evil doesn't exist, or as he put it, "not unto itself." Well, does it exist or not? If its existence is contingent on being paired with something else, then it still exists. And in order for you to buy the idea that evil is the absence of God, you have to assume that God exists, and not once is that ever proven here.

The Student goes on to say "It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light." So what is the analogy? He says earlier that cold and darkness don't exist. If you put God and evil into the equation with heat and cold and light and darkness, the analogy would go, A is to B as C is to D as E is to F, but according to the Student, B, D and F don't really exist. But cold and darkness really do exist. So according to the analogy, so does evil. But he states that evil doesn't exist. This just doesn't make any sense.

PART G
PS:  the student was Albert Einstein
 
Albert Einstein wrote a book titled God vs. Science in 1921.
COMMENTS FOR PART G
There are two sentences here, and my comments are as follows: no it wasn't, and no he did not. Look it up. Adding the name of an important figure in the scientific community is an attempt at adding intellectual weight onto this for people who won't know any better.

AND FINALLY
If the faithful want to believe in God, then so be it. Just don't attempt to prove it using logic because you can't. Do your faith a favor and leave it at that.