I just recently received the following e mail and thought I would have a bit of fun dissecting it. At first I thought it was just an example of very muddled thinking about science coupled with very poor reasoning. Then I saw that the student in the e mail was supposed to be Albert Einstein. Not only is this wrong but Einstein would have been thoroughly appalled that he was given responsibility for this sort of muddled thinking. And more than a little ticked off I imagine.
It is this combination of muddled thinking and lie about Albert Einstein that made me decide to thoroughly debunk. My responses are italicized.
This explains “Faith” in a better way than I have seen before.
‘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? 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?’
Befuddled 2
This is so simplistic and obviously wrong that I do not believe for one minute that any philosophy professor ever would make this argument. Further I have a hard time seeing the vast majority of philosophy professors attacking the Christian beliefs of their students quite this roughly. I know I never had any professors like this and I was a philosophy minor.
First off he is conflating Jesus and God. While they are both part of the Christian Trinitarian God they are definitely different persons too. Jesus has enough evidence that I believe most reasonable people would say that he exists. Now God is a different question but to use this method – he hasn’t been seen with the senses – is laughably ridiculous.
The only reason to set up such a shallow response on the part of the philosopher is so that the student can more easily demolish him later in the story. Had they given the real issues and problems this would not be possible. A definite strawman professor here.
‘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.”
‘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 down 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.
Befuddled 2
Correct as far as it goes. However that does not mean it doesn’t exist, just that it is relational.
‘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?’
Befuddled 2
Same as about temperature.
‘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?’
Befuddled2
As I said above for a philosophy professor he is quite dense. Strawman philosophy professor so the student only has to deal with a strawman argument.
‘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?’
Befuddled2
And now we see the problem with the philosophy professor’s arguments. He relies only on direct evidence of the senses. However science relies on various sorts of evidence both direct and indirect.
In the case of evolution we have seen evolution actually working. Then there are several other streams of evidence from the geographical distribution of species, fossils, genetic evidence and so forth.
In physics, until recently scientists had never directly seen an atom. In fact you could say that they still have not since the images they have obtained rely on instruments. However they had very good evidence that they exist based on the effects – matter behaved as if it were made of atoms.
The same for quarks. No one has seen them yet they explain the properties of atoms amazingly well and have withstood experimental and observational evidence.
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.’
Befuddled2
Again a very very very simplistic view of how science works. If it can’t be seen then it can’t be scientifically proved. Good grief? Does anyone really fall for this?
I might wish there weren’t but given that someone thought this up, thought it convincing and it is making the rounds then there must be people who do.
Science involves testing ideas and concepts against the world. It can be direct confirmation or indirect as in the case of atoms or quarks. It does not have to directly effect the senses but be measurable by instruments whose reliability has been proven.
It has been demonstrated that every human, indeed every mammal, has a brain. In fact most animals do have brains and die without them.
It has been shown that the brain is the source of our cognitive functions. Given that the professor is human, is living and also speaking I would say that is pretty good scientific evidence that he exists.
Further if you really wanted to test this you can do an x ray of his head to see if it contains a brain. You could even do a surgical procedure and open his skull up to directly see it.
No faith needed in regards to whether the professor has a brain. Although I will admit that given the caliber of his answers I do have to wonder.
‘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.
Befuddled2
I am very glad the professor sat down. He was an idiot and should have his tenure revoked had he really existed.
The big assumption here is that evil is just like hot/cold and light/dark. He has not shown that.
Further it only deals with things such as man’s inhumanity to his fellow humans. It does not deal with such evils as when a baby is born severely deformed. Or when earthquakes and other such natural calamities.
It also does not deal with the fact that evil acts are committed by those who claim to be Chritians (historical examples include the many pogroms against the Jews, the many religious wars, the Inquisition, and so forth) while many acts we would call good are committed by those who are not Christian. This mythical student’s answer does not even begin to answer those issues.
f you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title ‘God vs. Science’
PS: the student was Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein wrote a book titled God vs. Science in 1921…
Befuddled2
The student most assuredly was not Albert Einstein.
First off he never wrote a book titled God vs. Science in 1921 or any other year. I have reviewed listings of every book he wrote and it is not there.
Second off this is totally contrary to many other details of his life and his writings. In regards to his life I would point out that he served on the advisory board of First Humanist Society of New York and was also an Honorary Associate of the Rationalist Press Association. The members of these organizations are not Christian.
Then there are his writings. Here are a selection of his writings about religion.
”The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel’s book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.” Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.
and
”At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.” Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.
And finally this:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” Albert Einstein, 1954, from “Albert Einstein: The Human Side”, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
Einstein was not a Christian. He did not believe in a personal God but was a Pantheist. Einstein did not believe in a life after death. To believe that such a person would act as in the story above is ludicrous.
What is really sad though is that someone thought up this falsehood to defend their beliefs. You know that your beliefs are wrong and in trouble when you have to resort to outright lies such as this to defend them.
Even sadder are those that read this and believe it. It reflects poorly on our society and our educational system that people can be taken in by such drivel.
