A Philosophical Argument…
This is one piece of writing (said to be a fictional interchange) that I really enjoyed – mostly because I am completely biased towards “God Rocks”. People have often attributed personalities from Abraham Lincoln to Mahatma Gandhi, A.P.J Abdul Kalam to Socrates to have been the student. Read & Enjoy.
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and…
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? Hmmm? (Student is silent.)
Prof: You can’t answer, can you? Let’s start again, young fellow. 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 it’s 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.
I am sure you enjoyed it too – visit http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-31622.html for a disection of this piece.
something similar was also attributed to Einstain.
Interesting conversation…. Thanks for bringing it to us. I too think that Science fails to explain a lot of important things (Evolution theory, for example). A lot of it is based on assumptions. Science is good at explaining the question of ‘how’ (though not always) but it hopelessly fails when it comes to the explanation of the question ‘why’. Religion on other hand, has done a decent job on explaining this question. But with the kind of ignorance that our human race has been kept on this subject, religion has done a fairly good job.
People these days believe in science. They believe that Science would take them out of all the miseries and help them lead a everlasting happy life. But first, they should think if such an ‘everlasting happy life’ is possible at all. It defeats the purpose of duality – happiness and misery. We are dependent on misery as much as we are dependent on happiness. As, for the lack of the former, we would not even be able to recognize the latter.
Destination Infinity
Radha: Ya, it was attributed to Einstein too. And yes, he had the brains to come up with something like this.
Destination Infinity: I strongly disagree with the idea of having to “know everything”. Science is trying to explain phenomenon that have happened miliions of years ago, happening everyday with zero downtime. This whole universe, as a setup, is so foolproof that there can be no comparison. And yet, Science refuses to give in to the fact that there must 1 superior force that binds all these and keeps everything ticking.
As you rightly said, Science makes numerous assumptions – only if it considers the superior force as an valid assumption…
Understaning Religion is very difficult because a lot of “Gyaan” has gone missing over the last few generations – we are not exposed to / we don’t have access to a lot of stuff that would help us understand better. But before getting to understand anything, there is the first step – complete faith. As long as one lacks that, the first step would itself be an insurmountable hurdle.
i think god and science are just the same thing.