God vs. Science

[Old Gringo]

Science is a threat to religion, no doubt. Knowledge is a powerful eraser of faith.

But if history is any guide, the biggest threat to each and every deity is time. No god has withstood the challenge. All of the hundreds of gods from the past are now on the scrap heap of history. Those currently in fashion will someday join them.

[Roxolan]

Originally Posted by BigHouse9

I actually posted this becasue I thought it might help gain perspective from how a Christian believes, not to have anyone look like an idiot. Maybe instead of people posting negative comments about the story, someone could post a similar anecdote from a Science perspective.

Ok, I'll give it a try. There are plenty of logical fallacies in the original story, but I trust that at this point most of it has already been pointed out. What follows is, I believe, a more reasonable dialogue. I will add a few comments at the end.
(Warning: I have not read the entire thread. Also, English is not my mother tongue. My apologies.)



A science professor taught an extra course of philosophy for science students [1]. He began his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The professor pauses, then tell the class: "I'm going to need your help for that. Which of you believe in a god?" A number of hands are raised. The professor picked one student.

"What is your religion, son?"
"I'm a Christian sir," the student said.
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."[2]
No emotions transpired on the professor's face. "I see."

He turned to another student with a hand raised.
"And you, are you also a Christian?"
"Yes sir."
"Do you believe in miracles?"
"There are miracles in the Bible. So yes, I guess."
"True. But," said the professor, turning towards the rest of the class, "are miracles still being performed today? Have you ever seen someone walk on water, or raise the dead? Outside of zombie movies, of course", he added, drawing a few chuckles from the students.
A student raised a hand.
"I've read about some things. There was a priest who spent an hour in a burning house saving people, and the house collapsed just after he had gone out with the last survivor. He wasn't burned at all, too, even though it was an inferno inside."
"Indeed. Amazing recoveries from illness, unbelievable luck... Those are still occurring today."

He paused again. Students exchanged glances, not sure where all of this was going.
"Here is another interesting question. Suppose a good Christian get a very nasty illness - let's say cancer. And please note that though I'm using Christianity as an example, it applies equally to any belief. No known religion has ever granted immunity to cancer to all its followers. Now, suppose this Christian prays very hard to be saved. And his family prays for him too. Can you guarantee me that he will be cured?"
Silence filled the auditorium. Then a braver student stood up.
"Professor, no one can order God. Yes, we can pray, and we can hope. But we are all sinners, and we have no right to question God's decisions. That would be arrogance. Nowhere in the bible does it say that God has to heal all those who ask him."

"Please sit down," said the professor. Surprisingly, he began to smile at the student. This was going to be a good semester. "You're right. And this is very important. Possibly God helps some people live and let other people die, according to a grand design we can barely understand. But from the scientific point of view, it means that we cannot make any predictions based on the existence of God." He took a sip of water from a glass on his desk, gathering up his thoughts.
"Religion is a pretty big theory. You can use it to explain anything. And it makes sense. And it can help people. But, because God is so different from us, so "alien", and infinitely more intelligent and wise than humans, we cannot guess what He will do. This is where the definition of science comes in, so please pay attention and take notes."

He turned to the blackboard, writing as he spoke. "For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. This means that the theory makes a number of predictions that can be tested. For example, the theory of gravitation is easily falsifiable. It makes tons of predictions about the movement of thrown objects, planets in orbit and many more.
Here's another theory: we're all characters from a book, none of us are real, and neither is this classroom. Is this falsifiable? No - it is impossible for characters to realize they live in a book unless the writer wants them to know.
This is where the problem with religion is. Can any of you give me an experiment to prove the existence of God? Something that will happen one way if God exists, and another way if he doesn't?"
"Well," proposes a student, "you could kill yourself, and see if you go to heaven or hell?" Laughter ran through the auditorium.
"Indeed. This is arguably the biggest prediction that religion makes. I don't know of any other theory that predicts the events that will happen an eternity in the future. That will definitely be the ultimate experiment. But I don't think I have to point out the flaw in your suggestion, do I?"

The professor waited for the laughter to die out. Then he concluded: "There you are then. This is why scientists tend not to use religion in their work. It does not have any practical, predictable consequences in our world. This is not to say you should not study it - after all, some of you are probably studying mathematics, which by the same criteria is not really a science. I'm not saying your religion's not true, either. This is your decision, a faith-based decision, and not the subject of my course. What I am saying is that it should not be mixed and confused with science. [3]"


The teacher paused, then asked "What do you think?" At this point, the debate started.




[1] Where I study, science teachers don't speak of religion at all in their classes. If a teacher was to act like the one in the original story, he probably would get in all sort of trouble. Speaking as an atheist, I find his words shocking, in this context.
However, at my university, there are a number of optional courses more or less related to science that any science student can take, and some of them involves a lot of philosophy. An open debate about science and religion would be possible in such a class, provided everybody involved is respectful (I tried to correct the teacher's attitude to make him sound more respectful as well, and less like a crazy militant atheist).
I also removed the part about the teacher being an atheist. Many Christian scientists reason much the same way about separating science and religion.

Originally Posted by BigHouse9

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

A Christian could say this as much as an atheist - the only difference being whether they, personally, have that faith. The teacher still sounds like an atheist, but I don't think it's necessary to remove the doubt.

[2]This is the bit where the teacher goes all "militant atheist" on that poor student. It's unrealistic, and it makes it sound like Christian all-atheists-are-evil-and-stupid propaganda. Heavy editing of this part was needed. Even now, I still think it sound unrealistic, because I tried to stay at least somewhat close to the original version.

[3]Incidently, this was also one of the big problems of Einstein's theory of relativity: there was little way of testing it with the technology available at the time. Just to show that I'm not bashing on religion either. And, who knows? Maybe we will find some experiment in the future, and if we ever can, religion will take its place in the body of science, alongside relativity.

Oh, and note that I use "theory" all over the place, when I sometime means "hypothesis". I know. Don't go all creationist on me . In real life, we tend not to use the proper terminology at all times, it would sound really weird otherwise.

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by BigHouse9

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.

First of all, we know people have brains because we can autopsy a cadaver and find it. We can do empirical studies on the brain, and know from those that a person with intelligence is that way because of his/her brain. So it is NOT on faith to assume someone talking has a brain.

And about evil being only the "absence of good," is Satan a real character like God allegedly is? If so then he is not just an absence of something. But in my experience, pain is not just an absence of nonpain, torture is not just an absence of nontorture, suffering is not just an absence of nonsuffering.

And God is omnipotent and omniscient, meaning he can do everything and knows everything. So he knew exactly what would happen if he made our world the way he allegedly did. He knew that his specific way of creation would bring evil. So evil is here because of God (because he didn't create enough good, if you want to look at it that way).

[Whyte Byrd]

Originally Posted by Haaziq

This is an old story that was made to make scientists look like idiots.

No, not to make him look like an idiot--to suggest that with knowledge doesn't necessarily come wisdom. A man who's lived on the streets all his life can be wiser than the most educated of men.

[Roxolan]

Originally Posted by Public_Newsense

No, not to make him look like an idiot--to suggest that with knowledge doesn't necessarily come wisdom. A man who's lived on the streets all his life can be wiser than the most educated of men.

Replace "wisdom" with "quick-wit" and I will agree. Really, the debate in the story has little to do with wisdom (or in fact knowledge, given the various fallacies) and more to do with live debate skills.