Tuesday, April 19, 2011

The "Debunk" - Episode II, God vs. Science

This is a weird one. It was a chain email I got called, "God vs. Science". It really adds nothing to either argument. It seems to show the validity of using the same type of argument to support a different cause. I have various arguments with the logic of the whole thing, which I shall address henceforth...

Subject: FW: God vs. Science

My first is that I conjecture this never happened, or happened very differently. I could see it as a type of "feel good tale" for the faithful.

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.....

Professor of philosophy? This story is already bogus. You don't debate science with a philosophy teacher. But I like how he's immediately called out as an atheist without any support.

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? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)

The above exchange sets the tone for the whole email. Notice the evil atheist grilling the good Christian student about God.

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. 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.)

You are supposed to be clued into the assertion that a Christian god created all those things.This part of the exchange is a common philosophical denial of the existence of an all-loving, all knowing deity (but does not deny the existence of said deity). Which, as far as philosophy goes, is a valid argument and should be discussed as part of philosophy with theological scholars. But has nothing at all to do with science.

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.

This is a common thing that annoys the HELL out of me (and why I don't think this debate ever really took place). Religion is, by definition, supernatural; not of the natural world. Science is, by definition, the study of the natural world. And, finally, by definition, science cannot prove or disprove something that leave no trace on the natural world. No one who understands science would say that.

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.)

This is why you don't debate science with a philosophy teacher. Any science teacher, or anyone with a BS for that matter, knows that "cold" is as the student says it is. And of course heat is just energy, blah, blah, blah, I could go on. Also, the "shocked" nature of the lecture hall amuses me as well. For reference, -458 F is 0 K (absolute zero).

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness? seriously???

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?

This "darkness" definition is a little annoying (it doesn't really matter for this though). We define dark as something that does not interact with, or lacks emission/reflection of optical light. Optical light being the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (400 - 700 nm) that we can detect with our eyes. But in fairness, when something is "radio dark" it doesn't emit any radio waves. So the definition works for the EM spectrum, but not really "the absence of something."

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?

Yes, please explain. The philosophical premise that God cannot be, at the same time, the creator of evil and all-loving, is actually valid. And the perceived "scientific" premise that God does not exist is just wrong. So, since he says the philosophical premise is flawed we'll concentrate on that.

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.

Honestly, I get somewhat confused about the point of all of this about here. My philosophy is amateur (at best), but I'll take a whack at what seems to be going on. Duality in western philosophy is the internal conflict between 2 sides (good/evil, right/wrong). Life and death are not dualities, but states, I could even agree on a high level that death could be the absence of life for argument's sake. But it's not duality. Good vs. bad? Absolutely. So I guess what the student is hinting at, based on the previous assertions of light/dark and hot/cold, is that either good is the absence of evil or vice versa. To which I say, philosophically, is bullshit. Dark is the absence of light b/c you measure no light, cold is the absence of heat because you measure no heat (science argument); but is good the absence of evil or evil the absence of good? Time for a philosophical thought experiment:

You find a wallet on the ground. For argument's sake, we'll say there are 3 options from this point.

1) Return the wallet as found

2) Return the wallet, but after you took the cash out

3) Keep the whole wallet

One could say that 1 is complete good, 2 is partial good, and 3 is no good. Or depending on your stance, 1 is no evil, 2 is partial evil, and 3 is total evil. This disrupts the argument about hot/cold and light/dark. According to the student, from best I can tell, you don't measure dark or light, ergo you don't measure good or evil (depending on what scale you use). I argue that you can measure good vs. evil, and you can have both. These are not the same thing.

The student then goes on to tackle the "because you don't see it, it can't exist" argument, which doesn't really work because his example is easily testable. Sure a thought is some chemical/electrical interaction in the brain which I don't understand (I would say neurologist have a pretty good idea, but there is a lot we don't understand about the brain), but then the student says we have no complete understanding of electricity and magnetism. We absolutely have complete understanding of E&M. Just ask Maxwell. We don't always see it, but we can measure and predict it's effects with ridiculous precision.

Student: Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

I'll answer for him; no, he's a philosophy professor. And to drive the point home, even if he were a biology professor he would tell you that we did not evolve from a monkey, but that at some point in time we and modern day apes (not monkeys) had a common ancestor. Of course I only differentiate us from apes for the sake of understanding as we are still apes.

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.)

BUZZ - wrong, game over. Evolution has been observed. Numerous instances have been observed. And, better yet, we understand this process so well, that it makes predictions (which are correct). Plus, we can even observe previous evolution by looking at the stuff that died before us. This information is friggin' everywhere. I hear this argument a lot; that science is a religion also. No, not at all.

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

(The class breaks out into laughter.)

Hahahaha - let's say our teacher is brainless. Classic. Calling the elitist learned professor dumb because he's educated.

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.)

This is becoming utter horse shit. The difference between a god and a brain (reference my mini-rant above about the natural and supernatural) is that we can use science to show there is a brain in the professor's head. And, being something I assert that never happened, the professor has no response while an actual professor (even of philosophy) would be able to argue that he did indeed have a brain because he breathes, thinks, talks, and that we have seen brains in every other breathing, thinking, talking specimen so it's reasonable to say that he does.

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Well, you don't actually, but cue the defeated intellectual.

Student: That is it sir.... The link between man & God is FAITH . That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

Sure, faith is all humanity really has of a deity. And? I'm not sure where the assertion that that's what keeps things "moving and alive" comes from. I would say that I will be breathing tomorrow because I have faith in it, but because that's what my brain does. Of course, I don't have to have faith that that's something my brain does because we know it (measured observed), but do I have to have faith that my brain knows what its doing and that I don't have to do it? This is why I don't like philosophical arguments. There isn't really ever a winner.

My take-away from this is there is no science in this at all. So, a long winded way of getting to the point that calling this email "God vs. Science" is a complete misnomer.

I stand by my statement that this exchange never took place. It completely reeks of hardcore Christian feel-goodery. A trouncing right from the Book of Samuel; David (student) even decapitates Goliath (professor) with Goliath's own sword (existence argument), just like the story! Way too convenient.

So the only real "debunk" here is that there was no science. Only weak, easily disputed philosophical arguments (on both sides) for the benefit of the target audience.

No comments:

Post a Comment