science VS faith

**Posted:** Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:49 pm

This came in a e-mail from to a friend of mine. I am unaware of who wrote it: 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 them? 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?" 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. "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, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 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 -458 degrees. 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?" 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." <div style="text-align:center"><img src="http://www.anansispaceworks.net/Home/Rozzychan/RIn.jpg"/></div> <div style="text-align:center">Torchbearer for the nihilistic generation.</div>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub19.ezboard.com/btenchimuyo79943.showUserPublicProfile?gid=deathbeforedishonor>DeathBeforeDishonor</A> at: 11/5/03 12:21 pm

**Posted:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:49 am

The last comparison in the story was weak. Faith is belief without proof or evidence. As there is empirical evidence indicating that all Homo sapiens have a brain, that in fact all vertebrates do so, there is a significant body of indirect evidence to support the belief that the professor has a brain. Hence, faith is not required to hold the belief. Evolution is a different matter. As a basic theory, it in itself is unsupported by evidence that all lifeforms in existence today evolved from previously existing lifeforms, ultimately originating from a pool of base amino acids created by a random natural event. It takes faith to have belief in it because the surrounding mechanics of adaptive processes and molecular biology have no irrevocable connection with evolution itself, anymore than "order", or the perception of it, has an irrevocable connection with a creator. Nevertheless, religion is a man-made creation, just as science is. Religion is a derivative form of philosophy, just as science is. The difference is that religion brings the perception of order through the personifying of environmental occurences into deities or spirit creatures, often accompanied with animistic beliefs. Like scientific theory, a religious belief can be just as wrong, for ultimately there is truth and there is falsehood, lack of truth. Not all religions can be right, if there is truth, but no religion might be right completely, if at all. Ultimately, science is simply a systemized method of learning. We derive it from observation, experimentation, and analysis. It is a tool to be used in the pursuit of truth and understanding. It is a separate discipline from that of religion, to be sure, but there is no demand for rejection of it, so long as there is no conflict with what is known to be true. Yet, in order for science to progress, there must be something left behind. Whether it be superstitious belief or unsupportable theories, what is false need not be tolerated. Where it leaves the individual is up to them. Religion and other branches of philosophy have been used for moral and ethical guidance by humans for untold centuries of time. So long as critical inspection is utilized to verify alignment with society's fundament principles, that which permits men to coexist, a person might make successful use of religious and philosophical beliefs. In this writer's opinion, perhaps the most sensible state is that of being willing to admit that which is unknown and, perhaps, unknowable.

**Posted:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:43 am

It seems that everyone has to take "a leap of faith" so to speak. Have you ever noticed how almost every one you ask belives in something. Wether Monotheisium, Polytheisium, or Evolutionary, people tend to seek an answer to why they exist, and all 3 of those belifes provides an answer and none can be out right irrefutably provable using science. Science is a fact base system of making theories, and testing them, but as of yet, none of those 3 things havre been proven, and we still seek the answer. Sence we have such a great desire to seek these, then shouldn't at least one of them be true? And if there was one that was true, isn't it possable for it to be an unfavorable belife. In any case, it just seems like people are going to choose to belive in something. Personaly I seek a religion that values coexistance with others around me and a single deity fromn a merciful god that has lots of pations. Other people have diffrent opintions, they may want a god that is supertough and wouldn't hasitate to kill them on the spot if they did any thing wrong, and some others may wish to belive in the ability to evolve into something that could be an all powerful god. Granted I wouldn't agree with it, but it isn't my place to smack them down, that would be just rude and inhuman, as well as go against what I seek! Can't coexist with someone I am fighting now can I?

**Posted:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 2:12 am

Taking things as what they are, looking at what is knowable, does not require a "leap of faith". But that's the problem. People want to know what is beyond our knowable world. They want to grasp that which cannot be percieved. In order to give themselves some sort of frame of reference, an ultimate point of origin and a final destination, they take that "leap of faith". Whether by believing in a creator, an intangible 'soul', evolution , or the Big Bang Theory, people feel the need to know. Ultimately, that is the common ground. Society, cooperative coexistence, does not mean absence of conflict. It simply means that humans agree to abide by rules that permit a cooperative existence. When a person threatens the life or livelihood of another, there is no middle ground to speak of. Coexistence of the two individuals in conflict is not possible, so one or the other is killed or imprisoned by the other or society. Perhaps one will die and the other will be imprisoned or killed as well. The rules of society do not exist to eliminate conflict, they exist to permit the continuation of that society, despite conflict. So, whether or not there is agreement or tolerance, there are simply lines that society does not permit one to cross. Ultimately, that is what makes coexistence possible, though it does not guarantee it.

**Posted:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 2:32 am

Most of what you said is true, faith is not necessary to a society to work, just a set of rules and guidlines. Never the less, 1 person is not an intire society, and a belife system is for the one person, nopt a society. What you belive in is going to be your own matter, but at the same time there is a lot to choose from, and there is still a remote chance that one of those many belifes is true. What is unknow is what requires the "Leap of faith", we both know that. And if you really pay attantion, every one does take a leap towards something, and it is their own choice. Granted it is still a choice influance by their suroundings, but it is still the choice they make alone, and not as a group. A group can influance and suggest, but not make the choice for you. Hell they can even try and force a person, but even thren that person has the choice to give in to the demanes or not.

**Posted:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 2:42 am

The whole thing is a fallacy, anyway. It fails to say either way whether one of the other proves something only that it is possible, which is a bunch of meaningless drivel. To be more to the point, it would have to show that it is reliable or worth hearing, not that it's possible to be correct, which is just a wishy-washy circle argument. It doesn't help that this appears to be a ficticious dialogue, which gives it parallels to Socrates, who, in all honesty, was an annoying bastard who played with words and circle logic to prove his points. All that aside, science isn't set in stone and nothing in science is fact, only theory. It is a method of gathering and using information. Faith and science have very little, if any, similar ground. <div style="text-align:center">blut krieg sieg</div>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub19.ezboard.com/btenchimuyo79943.showUserPublicProfile?gid=deathbeforedishonor>DeathBeforeDishonor</A> at: 10/27/03 1:44 am

**Posted:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:11 am

It's a fun read though. <img src="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/107598/Shavedhead2.JPG" style="border:0;"/><div style="text-align:center">"Hashiriya are lonely drivers so, we do not need girlfriends."</div>

**Posted:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:44 am

I find it intresting that the professor tried to intrap the student and try to shame him. That professors job is to teach science, not teach belife, so when the professor addressed the students religion, he acted outside the bounds of his job. A science class is a class to teach the scientific method, not influcance a belife. As the story goes on the student stands firm in his belife and uses the professors argument against him, an arguement the professor should not have addrest in the first place. It was not his job, and not his place to do so, that is an issue for the student alone to concider.

**Posted:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 4:42 pm

Actually, I believe the story sets it up as a prof. of philosophy, in which case the prof. has the right to talk about any and all topics. My philosophy class can be a lot like that...the teacher has to play devil's advocate after all...

**Posted:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:34 pm

Um, this professor in this story is teaching a science class, not a philosophy class, and when I attend a science class, I expect to learn about science, not philosophy. When I attand a philosophy class, I expect to learn about philosophy, and when I join a launguage class, I expect to learn about the given sercomstances in that given launguage class, the sentax, how letters are used, weather a vowal is long or short in a given word. If the professor wants to discuss religion and belife, he should do it out of class. In the story given above, the professor did it in class, and it was a trap setup against the student. Science and belife are seporet, so they should not be addressed in a science class. In your philosophy class it is ok, the class objective is not to learn about science, it is about understanding other philosophy. The professor in the given story is exceeding his boundries. He has a job to do that he is payed to do and that is to teach science, not the diffrence between science and belife which is philosophy.

**Posted:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:31 pm

"The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand." You can stop arguing about that now :P I took an elective physics class last year at uni, entitled "The Universe and Everything" (heh, no prizes for guessing where the name came from). One of the many fascinating subjects covered was the theories derived from Schrodinger's Cat. I'd need to dig out my notes to go into the details of it, but it states that just as for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and that for every piece of matter in existance there is a near infinite number of actions occurring every moment, that for any reaction to occur, it must be measured and/or controlled by an outside entity. It pretty much concludes that there is a God and that this God must be intimately involved in every single aspect of all existance. I found it all fascinating, and it's something I must read up about at some point, as I'd been very keen to find out just what physics has to say about my faith in very practical terms... --------------------- PEACE AND CAKE! <img src="http://www.dimensionalstars.com/jiggs.jpg" style="border:0;"/> "Words of love and words of leisure, Words are poisoned darts of pleasure..." - Franz Ferdinand

**Posted:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:39 pm

That whole story is an urban legend that's been circulating for years now. In fact, that's the sixth variation I read. And it's always the same, a brave christian student stands up to the bad atheist professor with a series of questions most novice skeptics could answer satisfactory. And I never seen a name attached to the professor nor a university..... hmm. Read more about how it started here: <a href="http://www.theskepticalreview.com/jftill/turkey.html">www.theskepticalreview.co...urkey.html</a> I deem it christian propraganda in the first place and I hate to get that stuff shoved down my throat. <div style="text-align:center">I'm a Ayeka/Ryoko fan for good reasons..... <img src="http://www.ewulf.com/images/kiss_ts.JPG"/></div>

**Posted:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:55 pm

So what, the point is that same, and it is not about a big bad atheist, infact that doesn't matter much at all. It is a matter of respect and coexistance dispite small disagreements. Personaly I thing the last 2 post inbetween mine where unnesseary, We can get along just fine even if we have diffrent belifes, just as long as we don't bash each others belifes. Heck this is a Misc. Anime board for tenchi muyo, so there very first reason why we came here was the incomman trait that most of us share, we like the show Tenchi Muyo. Don't let a petty diffrence of belife be a big subject of conflict, it is stupid, and up till the last 2 post, it has been totally civilized with the seporet parties involved abile to discuss the view point with out mallis, so don't try and start trouble turing this in to a god vs. evolution BS, that would be pointless as well as offtopic and would only rouse hate. Don't bring your personal dislike of christains here. This topic is ok as long as we don't get out emtions involved and push to change another persons belife. This is after all a Misc. anime board for Tenchi Muyo, if we are going to talk about this, don't come with the againda to change a persons belife or degrade another person, and don't blindly defind your belife frighten that your going to be attack when your not, aka don't panic for nothing.

**Posted:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:01 pm

So what is your point? I said it's christian propraganda. How can I dislike Christians? My mother, father, half-brothers, two nephews and niece are christians, with varying degrees of participation in that community. I don't dislike them for that. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It is a matter of respect and coexistance dispite small disagreements.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Don't bring your personal dislike of christains here. This topic is ok as long as we don't get out emtions involved and push to change another persons belife.<hr></blockquote> Don't contradict yourself. <div style="text-align:center">I'm a Ayeka/Ryoko fan for good reasons..... <img src="http://www.ewulf.com/images/kiss_ts.JPG"/></div>

**Posted:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:24 pm

*shrugs* I think it was about standing firm in what you think is right. Both the athest and Christain did this while keeping it civil.

science VS faith

Who is online