What do you think about this article on religion vs science???

"Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ." 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."

"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. "Ahh! 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 them? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't.

[No answer.]

"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? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

[No answer]

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, young fella."

"Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?" The student falters.

"From... God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience."I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian.

"Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Really? You mean like a substance?"

"Yes, or maybe a type of energy."

"And what is this evil made out of?"

"I don't know, um, it is the absence of good."

"Ok. Explain"

"Is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No, there isn't. Cold is the absence of heat."

"Well, that's true, that is how cold is defined. So, what you're saying is that there is this substance or energy or something called "good", but God doesn't provide enough of it to "heat" things sufficiently everywhere."

"Well, um"

"Well, let me rephrase my earlier question. Does good exist? If so, what is it?"

"Good is love! God is love!"

"God is an emotion?"

"Well, um, no, um, it is doing good things"

"Now, you've just used it to define itself"

"In reality, there is no such thing as good or evil. They are both judgements. When I say something is good or evil, that tells you much more about my judgement than it does about the something. That book you're holding there, is it good?"

"Yes, it is the Bible"

"Show me where the good is in there. You mentioned a type of energy before, but that book is made out of paper. It has just the usual types of energy, gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. Now, the words in the book may make you feel emotions, and even make you feel good. However, it doesn't have that effect, and frequently has the opposite effect on other people."

"It's God's word"

"Well, there's an empty claim. And the Bible, itself, denies it. Each chapter lists a person who wrote it."

"God inspired it."

"Oh, really? What makes you say that?"

"It says so"

"Sorry, again, that's circular, just like you defining good as something good. But to back to my questiton, how do you measure the "goodness" of something like that book? Just saying, "It's God's Word" doesn't really answer the question. In fact, the goodness of the book is relative. How I value that book will differ from how you value that book, or any book. If I say something is blue, that's something which is a well-defined characteristic. I can take a measure of that something and tell you just how blue it is. You can measure the "good" of anything, other than subjective saying how much you, personally, value it."

"You have to have faith."

"Oh, I do. And here is where science and religion differ. You think faith a good thing that you should rely on. Science doesn't. It tries to reduce belief that is based on our wanting to believe it. I have faith because, as a human, I'm conditioned to fill in gaps in my knowledge with guesses or what I want to believe. It did help us in our survival, because it let us get on with business without getting penned up contemplating a pebble while a lion stalked us. However, it is not a source of knowledge."

"But science has faith!"

"No, science makes assumptions, and it tries to explicitly list those assumptions to point out possible weaknesses in a theory. Faith is belief that something is true, without evidence. An assumption is something that is supposed true, for the sake of convenience, until further evidence can backfill that gap in knowledge. Now, please sit down. Class is about to begin. Perhaps you are ready to learn something now."

What is your point? There is no proof of any kind of god creature. There is ample proof that religion was developed by men to control other men. There is proof that the scientific method can aid us semi-intelligent humans to learn all we can about the universe. People who turn to religion are either brainwashed, or have a psychological need for the crutch that religion seems to be able to supply. If people would study science and life, instead of religion and the biases it provides, we would have a saner and more peaceful world.

It's typical empty rhetoric. Without resorting to imaging, there are numerous means of indicating the presence of a brain. An electroencephalogram and evoked potentials are two. This sounds like Creationist reasoning -- deny the obvious evidence and then claim there is none.

I agree. the controversy can bypass on constantly without selection because of the fact there is not something to establish. faith is philosophy and may well be debated as such ... you the two have faith or you do not technology is an evidence of how the international works. You throw a rock up interior the air and a hundred% of the time it is going again off. Gravity. it somewhat is not proper in case you suspect it or not. It in basic terms is.

An interesting story. The first part is a good demonstration of some of the absurdity of religious belief. The second part an illustration of the type of fallacious argument that believers use to overcome the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of supernatural gods.

Well, I guess both make good points both ways. (though the professor was quite hard on the first student, and the second student was quite hard on the professor).

One thing I don't understand though, If the second student really holds those views, whys he taking a course in science?

The christians argument is flawed. He is correct in saying that cold is merely the absence of heat, and darkness is just the absence of light, but evil is not just the absence of good and immorality is simply the absence of morality. Evil and immorality are concious, active decisions. An absence of good does not make on evil as an absence of light creates darkness or the absence of heat creates cold.

Typical distorted christian logic

What a load of self serving drivel..

This kind of stuff (with just a few words changed) would have been class A material in the Nazi propaganda office.

Not exactly compelling. More like the kind of stuff you'd find in a Chick tract.

It reads like a protracted 'Chick Tract'.

Hence, not a lot. Sorry.