A challange to your best arguments: TEAR THIS APART.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Feel free to tear this apart with your best argument. I have my own refutation, but I want to see what others come up with first.

------

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem Science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new Christian students to stand and.....

PROF: You are a Christian, aren't you, son?
Student: Yes, sir.

PROF: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.

PROF: Is God good?
Student: Sure.

PROF: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.

PROF: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal Him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?
(Student is silent.)

PROF: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?
Student: Yes.

PROF: Is Satan good?
Student: No.

PROF: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...

PROF: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.

PROF: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.

PROF: So who created evil?
(Student does not answer.)

PROF: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.

PROF: So, who created them?
(Student has no answer.)

PROF: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.

PROF: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.

PROF: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

PROF: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.

PROF: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

PROF: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
PROF: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
PROF: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, 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. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
PROF: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness 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? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

PROF: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

PROF: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is 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?
PROF: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

Student: 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 not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class is in uproar.)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain? (The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....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, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)
PROF: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir... The link between man & God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

The professor sat down.

The young man's name ---
Albert Einstein

[yovargas]

I'd bet money that Albert Einstein didn't do this.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Interesting. C_G, how about it, was this really Einstein? What's the source?


(Irregardless of whether it really is Einstein, I still find it interesting, and mostly agree with it.)

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

And Snopes agrees with you Yovargas. He's often credited by whomever forwards that story in order to make the student's argument seem more credible. After all, who thinks he's smart enough to disagree with Einstein?

Einstein was a pantheist at best. He was fairly agnostic. He didn't come up with it.

Snopes Link

Now the first hurdle is cleared and we're no longer in awe of the supposed author.

[River]

First of all, aside from the fact that philosophy professors don't teach evolution, evolution has been observed.

Second of all, any good scientist would have answered the kid right off the bat that "cold" is simply a colloquialism for "lack of heat". Just as darkness is a nice way to put "lack of light".

Third of all, science does allow for inferences. If someone is acting like they have an intact brain, it's acceptable to assume an intact brain is there unless new evidence comes to light (Occam's Razor).

The whole thing reeks of a set-up, if you ask me. Written by someone who didn't understand what science is and how it works. Maybe I'm mis-reading it, but it's almost as if they're trying to draw a false dichotomy between religion and science when really the two are so separate they can't and shouldn't compete.

[yovargas]

I've seen this before (several times, it seems) and I really hate it for all those reasons.

[Impenitent]

IAWR

It's too easy to pick that apart, C_G.

[Primula Baggins]

IAWR, too. People with tremendous fanfare are always using the tools of science to disprove religion; other people with tremendous fanfare are always using what they imagine are the tools of science to prove religion. Both sets of people are wrong. Science can't prove or disprove religion; religion has nothing to say about science. Like many people, I'm comfortable in both realms. There's no dichotomy—there are no opposing viewpoints, science OR religion.

Only a strict materialist can fairly claim that because science can't measure the existence of God, it is a proven fact that God does not exist. (And it would have to be a strict materialist with a shaky knowledge of science; scientists know you can't prove a hypothesis, you can only continue to fail to disprove it.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Maybe I'm naive, but I didn't interpret that as trying to set science against religion. On the contrary, I thought it was trying to demonstrate the difference between them.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

It's not so much an attack on science as it is an attack on atheism.

So far we've found:
appeal to inappropriate authority
equivocation between technical and colloquial

[Primula Baggins]

Maybe I'm naive, but I didn't interpret that as trying to set science against religion. On the contrary, I thought it was trying to demonstrate the difference between them.

Really? My impression is that it's an attempt to use science against itself, to carve out a space for religion—something I think is unnecessary, setting up a false dichotomy.

Edit: Cross-posted with C_G. Yes, it's an attack on atheism. But that's religion attacking religion, not religion attacking science (as the author of this seems to believe).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't interpret it that way at all.

[yovargas]

These are the two parts that are most bothersome to me:

PROF: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist.

**************************************

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....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, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)
PROF: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

**************************************

Both statements are pretty deceptive and they sound exactly like the sort of thing I've heard many times from evangelicals who don't quite understand science but still hope to use scientific thinking to justify their religious worldview.

[Frelga]

Yes, that brain thing. It IS possible to prove empirically that the Professor has a brain. Before the MRIs we might have ended up with a brain but no Professors, but we would have proven the presence of brain conclusively.

And that GOD thing. Science doesn't say that God doesn't exist.

Like everyone else said, a pretty weak attempt at scientific reasoning by someone who is not advanced in either science or reasoning.

[Inanna]

Maybe I'm naive, but I didn't interpret that as trying to set science against religion. On the contrary, I thought it was trying to demonstrate the difference between them.

Interesting, V. I am of the same mind as others here, but I am very-very curious to how you came to this conclusion.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Two of the three biggest fallacies in this popular email have been found. I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the third.

Hasty Generalization.

Assume he's right about those particular dichotomies; light/dark, heat/cold. Those dichotomies would be where one is the absence of the other. He still hasn't established that good/evil is similar.

There are examples of other types of dichotomies.

For instance, there are dichotomies where one is the compliment of the other, such as male/female. Nobody will say either gender is the absence of the other.

Then there are the dichotomies where one is truly the opposite of the other, such as positive/negative. Negative one is the opposite of positive one, yet the absence of either of those is zero, not the other. They are so opposite that when combined they result in zero (addition).

Now that it's been shown there are at least three categories of dichotomies (absence of other, compliment, opposite) the student has to prove that good/evil belongs in the category that bests helps his argument.

[Frelga]

I don't interpret it that way at all.

Well, you have the right to your interpretation, of course, which I respect. (Osgiliath)

Still, this is a very common line of attack on scientific thinking by adherents of a certain religious outlook. The point is to prove that science takes some things on blind faith, and is therefore no different from religion. Hence the ridiculous statement attributed to a Professor (!) that he takes it on faith that he has a brain.

What was the point of light/dark examples, I am not sure.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

The light/dark example was to prove that God didn't create evil.

The professor's version is:
God created everything. Evil exists. Therefore God created evil.

The student's version is.
God created everything. Evil is an absence, a non-thing. Therefore God didn't create evil.

[Frelga]

Indeed, CG.

And that, to put my Vulcan ears on, is illogical. The Professor's complaint is that God permits suffering, which a good human person would attempt to alleviate if they could.

I also noticed that the story had the Professor word the question "Is Satan good?" thus allowing the Student room for evasion. What would the answer be if the Professor asked "Is Satan evil?" "No, Professor, he is just goodness-impaired?"

[River]

The trouble there is you're assuming something about the nature of evil - that it's simply the lack of good.

I personally think evil is more than a lack of good. There's intention behind evil, a force behind it if you will. But that's a side discussion.