The Great Debate: God vs. Science
Posted: Wednesday, October 14, 2009
by Terry Scerine
The following debate is considered to be a true story, though I have not been able to confirm it; nevertheless, it speaks for itself.
"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."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 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.
He turns to a different student. "Tell me, 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."
"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 its 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.
This Article has been viewed 1,382 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (5 total)That debate is an interesting piece, but it is entirely fictitious, although for some reason still widely repeated.See snopes dot com / religion / einstein dot asp for more on it.Einstein was not was not a Christian (he was culturally Jewish and did not believe in a "personal God" - he believed in Spinoza's God)It is probably widely repeated because it speaks for itself, stands on its own merit. Whoever wrote it, if it is indeed fictitious, was still very astute from every logical angle as well as scientifically.Nevertheless, I will now remove Einstein's name from the bottom, especially considering that the student's actual name is irrelevant anyway, because I don't want the name of the student to be a point of contention.They aren't all that astute.They are pretty much right about "dark" and "cold" not existing in themselves but merely being the absence of something else.They are wrong about evolution not having been observed - it has been observed. Also, evolutionary theory does not suggest humans evolved from monkeys.The logic is also flawed - the argument is based on opposites - light / dark and hot / cold, with the suggestion that dark and cold don't exist, they are merely the absence of their opposites.Following on from that, we are presented the opposition of Good / Evil.Therefore the conclusion SHOULD logically be "evil doesn't exist, it is just the absence of good".This is obviously nonsensical, unless you consider actively causing harm to others for one's own amusement as merely "not good" rather than "evil".The argument given in the piece only works if you assume that "good" means "the presence of God in men's hearts", but of course when you do that the whole argument collapses into circularity because this definition assumes what the argument is supposed to prove - the existence of God.Okay, you're right: You obviously know the difference between Darwin's two "theories": the correct one about the evolution of a species by natural selection, and his hypothesis "On the Origin of Species" which was nothing more than a fairy tale hypothesis about the origin of ALL life on earth, carried over from his original theory with some very weak assumptions.And I do agree that there is evil that exists on its own apart from good, just as there is a purely evil entity opposite to God that does exist on his own, along with a third of the angels from heaven who fell with him. But now we're getting into the Bible.This debate isn't perfect but I posted it simply as an interesting line of thought, to provoke thought from a different angle. A believer trying to use scriptures to encourage non-believers to consider the existence of a most-high God is circular logic that entices fruitless debates.I agree its an interesting line of thought, and its a good "example argument" to look at critically and learn from.I don't think Darwin thought of evolution as an answer for the origin of life, indeed for evolution to get started it needs an existing life form (once its got that, it can explain how many species evolved from that starting point, but it can't explain how to get from nothing TO that starting point - getting to that is abiogenesis, proceeding from that point to the myriad species we see today is what evolution seeks to explain).Modern science is investigating a number of possible models of abiogenesis, Darwin didn't really suggest one, saying his theory only explains what happened after life was "originally breathed into a few forms or into one".Modern neo-Darwinist models hold that it was in fact just one.I agree that using scripture alone to try and encourage non-believers is likely to lead to fruitless debates; as you rightly say, it is a form of circular logic.Thanks for posting an interesting and thought-provoking article!And thank you, Ben, for your thoughtful comments as well.
Good article. Well done.Albert Einstein was never Christian and never believed in any super natural being.Connor, I'll have to take your word for that because, as I stated at the beginning of the article, I was not able to substantiate either way that it was an actual event or that Einstein was the student. Apparently you know for sure that it wasn't. So I deleted the last line with his name. Thank you for your comment.
Funny....but how does everyone (even on other sites) know Albert Einstein wasn't a Christian believer?What if he had- at his very last moments - given his life to Christ? Were you all there?...or do you go by scientific deductions?....or what you've read that someone may or may not have written? Or have some of you seen him since he died and he relayed that truth to you?..... or it's just your plain old simple faith in him that he didn't change his mind at the last moment and choose God? :)I just wonder.... if I wrote something today about myself....would it be established as absolute truth about me if I died moments after writing it?What if there could have been a second in time just prior to the last breath leaving my body, that I could change my mind and thereby change my truth? Those living and left behind would never know.....perhaps that is the greatest gift God gave to man....the ability to change one's mind.On a side note: I believe in both - creation and evolution. Created by God....after being born again of the spirit...evolving into a child of God thru his son, Jesus.
Terry Scerine is an awesome writer! I have recently read hi book...and literaily it saved my marriage! Thank you Terry for your inspriring messages -
An awesome well-written piece. Thank you for sharing this to us. This is one of my favorite articles. Thanks for sharing this to us.Thank you so much for joining my fan club. I am honored and delighted.Best regards to you and yours,~Nenita~
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.