This post could also be titled Science and God part 2 as it follows on quite well from my last post. Some time ago I quoted a conversation between an atheist professor of philosophy and a student which can be read here. However it appears this was part of a longer conversation and today I was sent the fuller account. So I am now posting the rest of the conversation, minus the part that has previously appeared on my blog:
‘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.’
…
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 it 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.
‘Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?’
‘To continue the point, 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.’
Thanks Alison for sending this 🙂
Thanks Alison for sending this 🙂
The theory which mentioned in the post does not exist… I could not find any credible source claiming that theory. Hence the story is just a complete tale that taught by religion.
Moreover, the student made a big mistake for claiming the professor does not have a brain. Using the same argument against him, he also does not have a brain since he can not see, touch, or feel his own brain.
Human are believed to have brains is because the "brain" concept has been studies and justified by examining dead bodies. The concept became facts because it has been justified and accepted. However, god cannot be tested by any means.
The theory which mentioned in the post does not exist… I could not find any credible source claiming that theory. Hence the story is just a complete tale that taught by religion.
Moreover, the student made a big mistake for claiming the professor does not have a brain. Using the same argument against him, he also does not have a brain since he can not see, touch, or feel his own brain.
Human are believed to have brains is because the "brain" concept has been studies and justified by examining dead bodies. The concept became facts because it has been justified and accepted. However, god cannot be tested by any means.
The timing of your comment was quite interesting as I went to see the movie, Salmon Fishing, last night. One of the main characters was a scientist who professed not to have faith and only believed in science. However it is a Muslim who proves to him that he actually does have faith! As a Christian I found this quite amusing in a secular film. My point is we all believe things that cannot be tested by any means.
You seem to come from Portland so I imagine the movie has been released in your part of the world?
Also perhaps you can tell why so many people in the last two days have been typing empirical testable demonstrable protocol into Google?
The timing of your comment was quite interesting as I went to see the movie, Salmon Fishing, last night. One of the main characters was a scientist who professed not to have faith and only believed in science. However it is a Muslim who proves to him that he actually does have faith! As a Christian I found this quite amusing in a secular film. My point is we all believe things that cannot be tested by any means.
You seem to come from Portland so I imagine the movie has been released in your part of the world?
Also perhaps you can tell why so many people in the last two days have been typing empirical testable demonstrable protocol into Google?
What I am saying is that the story has no credibility. And there was no evidence claiming that the student was Einstein either. The reason there are a lot of people googled the theory proves that we want to justify the credit of this story. Are you gonna believe in stories that have no credibility?
Science may not have the answer for everything. However, it does admit it limitation and weaknesses. It does not lie. Concepts, which are incorrect, will be proven false and disregarded. People will never stop learning and re-evaluate existing knowledge to justify it.
The reason you posted this story was because you thought that the story justified your faith, wasn't it?
What I am saying is that the story has no credibility. And there was no evidence claiming that the student was Einstein either. The reason there are a lot of people googled the theory proves that we want to justify the credit of this story. Are you gonna believe in stories that have no credibility?
Science may not have the answer for everything. However, it does admit it limitation and weaknesses. It does not lie. Concepts, which are incorrect, will be proven false and disregarded. People will never stop learning and re-evaluate existing knowledge to justify it.
The reason you posted this story was because you thought that the story justified your faith, wasn't it?
The reason I posted this story was the same reason I commented about Salmon Fishing. I find science and faith an interesting debate. I find scientists often have an amazing blind spot when it comes to issues of faith. For this reason I found Francis Collins’ book: The Language of God a fascinating read. Amongst other things it tells the story of how this well respected scientist came to faith from being an atheist. His story is very credible whereas the story I post here is more of an amusing poke at scientist's blind spots which I found funny. Also the student doesn’t actually claim the professor does not have a brain. He claims that science says he has no brain which, of course, science doesn’t, but I think you have taken the story too literally and rather missed the point.
Also you haven’t explained why this post is suddenly getting a lot of hits in the last two days although it has been up for over year, why now? I suspect something else is going on here or perhaps I just have a suspicious mind.
Btw the may want to familiarize yourself with my “three strikes and you're out” policy click here as you are up to two strikes.
The reason I posted this story was the same reason I commented about Salmon Fishing. I find science and faith an interesting debate. I find scientists often have an amazing blind spot when it comes to issues of faith. For this reason I found Francis Collins’ book: The Language of God a fascinating read. Amongst other things it tells the story of how this well respected scientist came to faith from being an atheist. His story is very credible whereas the story I post here is more of an amusing poke at scientist's blind spots which I found funny. Also the student doesn’t actually claim the professor does not have a brain. He claims that science says he has no brain which, of course, science doesn’t, but I think you have taken the story too literally and rather missed the point.
Also you haven’t explained why this post is suddenly getting a lot of hits in the last two days although it has been up for over year, why now? I suspect something else is going on here or perhaps I just have a suspicious mind.
Btw the may want to familiarize yourself with my “three strikes and you're out” policy click here as you are up to two strikes.
I just wanted to point out that I replied to this comment on my blog, http://ttdty.blogspot.com/
Zach
I just wanted to point out that I replied to this comment on my blog, http://ttdty.blogspot.com/
Zach
Thanks Zach for dropping by, I read your blog post, but it wasn’t really relevant because as I mentioned in my previous comment I personally do not take this story literally.
However I would disagree with your thoughts on free will (as per the chart). If God gives us free will we must be able to choose wrongly and our choices must matter, otherwise it wouldn’t be genuine free will. Without free will we would be no more than robots or puppets. Therefore God cannot logically give us free will and remove evil. As a Christian when I say that God is all powerful I don’t feel the need to add the disclaimer, except when it comes to the illogical.
Thanks Zach for dropping by, I read your blog post, but it wasn’t really relevant because as I mentioned in my previous comment I personally do not take this story literally.
However I would disagree with your thoughts on free will (as per the chart). If God gives us free will we must be able to choose wrongly and our choices must matter, otherwise it wouldn’t be genuine free will. Without free will we would be no more than robots or puppets. Therefore God cannot logically give us free will and remove evil. As a Christian when I say that God is all powerful I don’t feel the need to add the disclaimer, except when it comes to the illogical.
IT's a very interesting story and I do agree with you Susan, science is very ignorant when coming to faith, and it should be clear that faith is more than an intangible concepts, thus even science researches will never come close to proving God's existence with facts. Just wish to read that book you mentioned earlier , The language of God.
IT's a very interesting story and I do agree with you Susan, science is very ignorant when coming to faith, and it should be clear that faith is more than an intangible concepts, thus even science researches will never come close to proving God's existence with facts. Just wish to read that book you mentioned earlier , The language of God.
Yes, The Language of God by Francis Collins is a very interesting read. He is a highly qualified scientist and a committed Christian.
Thanks for dropping by.
Yes, The Language of God by Francis Collins is a very interesting read. He is a highly qualified scientist and a committed Christian.
Thanks for dropping by.
we can't argue with faith. faith is given to us to believe what we want to believe. it's a matter of influence and persuasion. it's a matter of making one another believe to what you ever believe and not. we cannot debate with faith vs science. it's totally opposite in some way. for example, science can't even explain a simple thought and faith does even with or without prior evidence.
we can't argue with faith. faith is given to us to believe what we want to believe. it's a matter of influence and persuasion. it's a matter of making one another believe to what you ever believe and not. we cannot debate with faith vs science. it's totally opposite in some way. for example, science can't even explain a simple thought and faith does even with or without prior evidence.
Hi, if you mean faith and science are two different things – then yes, I agree.
However I believe, it's more than a matter of influence and persuasion. It's also about being curious enough to look at historical evidence.
Thanks for dropping by.
Hi, if you mean faith and science are two different things – then yes, I agree.
However I believe, it's more than a matter of influence and persuasion. It's also about being curious enough to look at historical evidence.
Thanks for dropping by.
Have you ever seen, tasted, smelled, touched or heard everythong??
No
So, everything doesnt exist.?
No
Then how come we existed?
We have seen the part of it.
Thats the point, bible and scriptures are part of God's existence. But some just dont wanna look at it. So how come they would see and believe
Have you ever seen, tasted, smelled, touched or heard everythong??
No
So, everything doesnt exist.?
No
Then how come we existed?
We have seen the part of it.
Thats the point, bible and scriptures are part of God's existence. But some just dont wanna look at it. So how come they would see and believe
Yes some just don't want to examine all the evidence for faith.
Thanks Jethro for dropping by.
Yes some just don't want to examine all the evidence for faith.
Thanks Jethro for dropping by.