Friday, 21 November 2008

  • Showdown: Christianity and Science in the College Classroom

    Guest post submitted by anonymous


    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.

Comments (145)

  • MrCheetah@xanga

    @AmazinGuy@xanga - Sorry, I meant hopeless as in not being able to put both science and religion together. Not being able to bring them in harmony.


    "What you state seems more of drastic similarities."
    Scientists had to start somewhere. They had "evolution" in mind, and when they found these similarities in Rickettsia and the mitochondria, it was in their favor.


    "After all, our body's cells are incredibly tiny (more or less than your average bacteria, I don't know...but still SMALL)"
    Actually, a bacterial cell is much smaller than that of a human cell. Why is this? A bacteria lacks many of the average cell's structures including a nucleus, the ER, a mitochondria, etc.


    "Why do we automatically assume "origin"?"
    Because people want answers. Science, in my opinion, gives people more answers than the Bible does.


    Rickettsia sp. is a bacteria known to create their own energy in the form of ATP. That's exactly what the mitochondria in our bodies does. This and much more give a clearer answer than the religion does.


    "The soul is a spiritual factor. It was affected by the physical/mental restrictions by his condition."
    So you're saying that the soul and the body are together. That'd be a dualistic point of view. But then the question arises, where is the soul? If it affects the physical, it must be somewhere in proximity. Or at least somewhere in this universe.


    "The error in the professor's questioning is that the SOUL can be duplicated."
    I assume you meant "can't be duplicated." I ask again, where is this soul? If cloning an individual means to creat the exact same duplicate of the original, does the soul not fit in to the criteria? What is the soul? I think my professor had a great point when he asked that. It's not that God doesn't allow cloning, it's society that's against cloning and therefore is illegal. It's unethical to clone because of obvious reasons. However, current technology does not restrict us from cloning. We do it to farm animals, and we can sure do it to humans as well.

  • NaitoOfNarnia@xanga

    Science explains HOW things function. It points to the fact that there is an order in the world. But it will never explain why we choose the things we do. The Bible answers that, and more. It gives testimony to the fact that God set science in place.
    I believe you would mean the bacteria is able to process energy on its own. Energy cannot be created. Simply gathered up and used/dispelled.
    And actually, I do not hold a dualistic view. I hold that the soul is the spiritual manifestation of a person and the body is the physical aspect. But they are together, yes. The "where" is not so easily answered if we're thinking PURELY in physical matters. There is not yet enough understanding about the spiritual world (at least, not as far as I am aware of, personally) to give a "physical" description in where the soul resides. But it is there, with each person's body.
    And yes, I did mean the soul cannot be duplicated. Thank you for catching my typo. :) And no, cloning cannot include copying the soul. That's because the soul holds the actual embodiment of the person...the body is the physical manifestation of the person (if I have made it sound otherwise, forgive me. I have admitted that this is not an easy thing to describe). Because God is the author of life, we cannot actually duplicate life, only the physical components. Also, there are a lot of things that society is against that God does allow (go figure, huh? All that complaining that God is just a big task maker and here He actually says, "YES! Go for it!"). Many times God allows us to do something because we just simply won't listen to Him, so He says, "Fine, if you won't listen to My warnings, I will let you see for yourselves the harm you will eventually suffer."
    If I am actually wrong about our ability to clone humans, so be it. That will not change the fact that if a life is "born" of cloning, it's only because God has allowed it to happen. As Mr Malcom from "Jurrasic Park" said during their "dinner", "We're so busy trying to figure out whether or not we could, we're not stopping to think about whether or not we should." How true those words are. If God does not stop us from going down a particular path, it's because we're so headstrong to do our own thing that we have no idea about the cliff that's at the end. (It just happens to be that society has apparently (unwittingly?) agreed with God.)

  • mooshikishidoughboy@xanga

    This story is OLD.


    "Science requires evidence. Faith requires...well, faith." I agree with this one, moss_icon. Science updates itself, gets rid of obsolete information, and makes way for new discoveries. Religion, on the other hand, stubbornly insists that is is always right and will always be, even though facts are against its claims.

  • Lestat9Moriquendu@xanga

    I have never been in a class that mocked Christianity. We've mocked some of the ridiculous propaganda put out, and lamented the presence of the offensive and disrespectful preachers on campus, but the general attitude at my university is "Hey, whatever floats your boat and doesn't sink someone else's."

  • Bijouli@xanga

    The story, for all of its simplistic sugar, is immature and cliche.

    Sorry.

    Be Blessed~

  • mclinny@xanga

    really good story. I loved it. :)

  • Ghost_X@xanga

    This text was in an email I read ages back. I've seen it done its rounds a few times actually, and here it is now on xanga. The problem with creationist arguments is that there is no peer review system before publication (like there is with scientific research). This text being a prime example. Its full of ignorant crap, which I'm sure ignorant religious sheep would get a chuckle out of, thinking this is really how people of science and reason think.

  • alexcatcat@xanga

    if god do on everyone,
    no one will die
    and we in Eden~

  • mini_mayfield@xanga

    Ugh, this is such a stupid argument ... Evolution HAS been witnessed. Common sense, dude: bacteria evolve to become resistant to drugs. And if you did a little research, you could also learn about the peppered moth in England and others.


    Also, the professor's brain could be proven to exist with a catscan. Ta-daaaa.


    And at the end of this whole ludicrous story, there's still no solid argument for the existence of God .. only a little argument against the theory of duality.
    Hilarious.

  • sammjane@xanga

    This was great, no matter how many hater comments you get.

  • xiaosnowtenshi@xanga

    The brain argument is flawed. If the professor didn't have a brain (which could easily be proved with an xray), he wouldn't be able to function. There's no similar way to prove that any god exists. 

  • Isismoon@xanga

    I doubt this really happened. There is a distinct lack of details.  A professor of philosophy would not be a science prof for starters.  Science would be chemistry, biology or physics, not philosophy.  It seems as if the prof  talks about so many random things that are very vague that this would never happen.  He would not be really a prof of anything except a figment of an imagination.   And of course we observe evolution all the time. It is on going and just for starters, bacteria have evolved to be resistant to antibiotics. This is just put up to cause faux  controversy.  

  • angelbaby12487@xanga

    This was good. Thank you for posting this!

  • pnrj@xanga

    If I'd been the professor, I wouldn't have sat down. (Actually, someday I may be that professor...)

    Fine, we'll define "evil" as "the absence of good." It still makes no sense that God, being omnipotent and omnipresent, would allow things to exist that did not have good in them. It makes even less sense that he would create such things.

    If darkness were intrinsically bad, and we had the power to illuminate the whole universe with a word (or rather two: "fiat lux"), would it not be incumbent upon us to do so?

  • anonymous

    Oh my gosh.
    This post is just--
    !!

    The professor's argument was logical, for the most part.
    The student's argument contained so many fallacies that I stopped counting.

    Look, I don't have a problem with people who believe in God. But there is no way to compare God and science. The questions the professor asked were questions of faith based on faith. He was not questioning faith with science. But the student tried to question science with faith, and that's where he messed up-- the two are on completely opposite ends of two completely different spectrums. It's like comparing guava trees and sunbonnets-- you can't do it, so don't try.

  • galthouse@xanga
    yay!

    This kind of thing does take place.  I've experienced it, and witnessed it.


    There is more evidence to supprt the theory of a "GOD" than there is to support the theory of evolution.

  • galthouse@xanga

    @mini_mayfield@xanga - evolution and adaptation are two different things.


    If the moth evolved to change its color at will, then there is evidence.  If a bacteria evolved into a fly - then there is evidience.


    It has to do with DNA.  If the codeing is already there - it is NOT evolving.  In order for evolution to have any merit - living things would actually have to be able to rewrite their DNA code.  Impossible?  Yeah, I know.

  • PreciousOnyx@xanga

    the evidence for and against God is the same- it is merely our presuppositions that lead us to our conclusions.

  • ayah_vivi@xanga
  • Rieana

    I have also read this several times but for me, every time I read it, it demonstrates how Science is trying so hard to denounce that there is a God. Like Thomas, most people will only believe if they see with their natural eyes. This reminds me of a young Christian (Behind the Iron Curtain that i read a few years ago and a real story ...Richard Wurmbrand) in one Communist country who was also in a class and the Professor said there is no such thing as the Spirit realm. This young Christian said, "Sir, I want to challenge your statement and prove you wrong and walked straight up to him and started to slap him on the face. The guards rushed to his defence but the Professor stopped them albeit he was red with anger. The Christian boy then proceeded to continue his demonstration and got hold of a chair. He started to hit the chair against the wall and it broke.

    He turned around and faced the Professor and said, "Sir, that is pure matter. The reason why you got angry when I hit you is because you have a spirit within you which why you reacted but this chair, is pure matter because it did not get angry and did not hit me back. To that end, Sir, I have just disproved your theory that there is no such thing as the Spirit realm because I have just proved it". The poor young Christian paid for his answer with his life but not before new converts joined the faith from this brave demonstration of a young Christian.

  • Choose Identity

  • Give eProps (?)

  • Post a Comment

  • Say it with Minis! (?)

  • Profile Pic

    Default | Choose » (?)
  • New! You can now edit your comments for 15 minutes after submitting.

About this Entry