GOD vs Science

by JudyP

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.’

At the back of the room another 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.

Like it? Share it!

Leave a Comment

  • wolfwalker

    Nyuk, nyuk. Cute story, but it illustrates why so many on either side of this argument have such a low opinion of those on the other side: it’s replete with stereotypes that demean both sides.

    1) “Science” and “philosophy” aren’t even close to being the same thing. So this little morality tale gets off on the wrong foot in its first paragraph.

    2) The question of the existence of evil is probably the oldest one in the Book. Any student of religion who was sharp enough to come up with the heat/cold and dark/light analogy would have a more direct answer to the first question. For that matter, the answer that “evil is only the absence of God” actually answers nothing, since it provides no way to define or test its assertion. The perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocities had faith in their god. Were their actions evil, or not?

    3) Nobody trained in even basic physics would get bitten by the heat/cold and light/dark questions. To think a student could trip up a professor using such a simpleminded trick of words …

    4) The whole point of science is that its results are reproducible. The students’ examples of “the faith of science” are all flawed, and all for the same reason: anyone can test the assertions made by science. And have. Biologists have watched evolution in action. Physicists have seen electricity and magnetism in action, and explained them fully by mathematical formulas. Doctors have seen the human brain and even watched it in operation.

    Arguing philosophy by means of parables is a time-tested technique, but please, try to use ones that have some relation to reality.

  • Ben

    Just curious as to when and how scientists have seen evolution in action…?

  • Eric

    For wolfwalker,
    The student was Albert Einstein, I think maybe he knew what he was talking about. Also the time this was written was back in the 20s, so a lot of what you say they nhave seen, they had not seen yet.

  • http://granitegrok.com/blog/2008/11/god_vs_science.html Victoria Cox

    Macro evolution cannot now nor ever be replicated in a lab. It is taken completely by faith!!!! Sorry to tell you, do your homework! It is easier for me to believe in a divine creator (Jesus) than time chance and random process. It is not really a question of good and bad or evidence even.
    Forgiven people go to heaven – no one is good except Jesus and there is evidence everywhere you look that God exists and even more evidence in His word. It is the heart that is deceitfully wicked above all things.
    We are all in need of Jesus!! Desperately and those who do not know this I pray right now by the blood of Christ that the spirit leads you into all truth and knowledge of Gods son Jesus Christ so that you can be saved for the day of redemption. Amen

  • evil1dwk

    More regurgitating straw man arguments. Let’s pick this apart some.
    The Christian God is supposedly omnipresent. Therefore, if God is literally everywhere, how can there be an absence of God anywhere? This is a fatal flaw to the Absence of God = Evil argument.
    The author contends that “heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy” and that is flat out wrong. An object giving off heat is actually the transfer of energy not the mechanism by which the transfer occurs or a means by which it can occur. Heat is energy not what makes a body or matter have energy. If one system is hot and the other one is cold then heat will transfer from one to the other until they are the same temperature. This is the transfer of heat energy.
    Darkness is not the absence of light. Perhaps you could say it is the absence of the visible spectrum of light. However using infra-red goggles you would still be able to see. The infra-red spectrum of light is not visible to the human eye. Then wouldn’t darkness ,to the human eye, be the absence of the visible spectrum of light? So, actually, you could make darkness darker by filtering out more and more of the non-visible spectrum of light.
    Both temperature and light are measurable even if not always to the human eye. So how either equate to the existence of an all powerful, all knowing, immeasurable, invisible being is beyond me.
    We have actually witnessed evolution (some say micro-evolution). What we haven’t completely figured out is the mechanism by which it occurs (the theory of natural selection). Although I would say we have a very good understanding of it. Darwin’s theory may have been altered some but the fundamental blocks are still in place. Not only can we actual witness evolution on some level we can see evidence in the form of fossil records.
    As for the professors brain (or lack of since he can’t argue against such over simplified and ignorant arguments). We could actually crack open the professors skull and visually observe, taste, smell and possibly hear his brain. Actually we could take a simple CT scan to physically observe his brain.
    As for thought, we can’t exactly explain thought but, it can be monitored and measured through the electronic impulses used. So can love or any other “feeling.” These things can be observed through the chemical reactions or electric impulses they create within our body and mind.

  • evil1dwk

    “Macro evolution cannot now nor ever be replicated in a lab. It is taken completely by faith!!!! Sorry to tell you, do your homework! It is easier for me to believe in a divine creator”
    You sir are completely misinformed. First off nothing in science is taken on faith. Based on the evidence before us science states that the best explanation is evolution. If new evidence was present to the contrary the theory would change unlike religion that stands firm in spite of evidence.
    All things being equal the simplest answer is usually the best. So for you to say that it’s easier to believe in a divine creator than random chance is beyond idiotic. You argument is it’s easier to say that an all powerful, all knowing being that exists outside the physical laws of the universe created everything that exists today is more plausible than something randomly happening by chance? If it is impossible for anything to be created out of nothingness then what or who created God? I would contend that man created God to explain the unexplainable to them at the time.
    Is it more likely that the universe itself has no creator or was never created than an all powerful creator just existed and created all of it? Why? Because we didn’t have to make up an all powerful, all knowing being that just exists before anything else could have happened. I’d say that since we know the universe exists and we have to have faith that God exists that it is highly more likely that the universe always just existed and God does not exist at all.

  • Stephen

    This is just a quick, “logical”, suggestion for you all to consider. I have never had this evaluated by people eager to pick it apart, so here it goes:
    If you are an atheist and you die what happens?
    Your body returns to Earth and your consciousness/spirit no longer exist. If you’re wrong, you go to hell.
    If you are Christian (or choose the correct faith in the end) and you die, what happens?
    You go to heaven. If you’re wrong your body returns to Earth and your consciousness/spirit no longer exist.
    Logically, what is the better choice? Personally, I do not like this argument because it has nothing to do with faith, but take it as you will.

Previous post:

Next post: