God vs Science

February 25, 2008 | 4 Comments

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." 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," the student says.

"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. "Aha! 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 him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you’re good…!"

"I wouldn’t say that."

"But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could.
Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "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?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can’t, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er…yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "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."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

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

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there’s cold too."

"No sir, there isn’t."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn’t darkness?"

"You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it 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? That’s the meaning we use to define the word."

"In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. 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 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. A very good semester, indeed.

"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 now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, 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."

"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.

Posted by NCOC | Filed Under Blog 
Tags: ,

Childhood of Jesus

January 4, 2008 | Leave a Comment

I’ve got another entry brewing–one about loss of faith. But it’s not there yet. In the meantime, let me take up Daisy’s questions about the childhood of Jesus from her comments on the 12/14 entry. Here’s a sampling of her comment: …for some reason in my mind it seems like Jesus’ birth makes a few waves maybe only ripples, and then the news of the birth of a King just fades away until he begins his ministry as an adult. I know about the story of Jesus as a boy wandering off to preach while his mother was looking for him, but not much else…Did people forget about his birth (even if they didn’t believe), or did they not know about it? Did Mary and Joseph tell everyone that their baby was a miracle?…It just seems so strange to me because we people have big gossipy mouths. Wouldn’t the story of Jesus (a baby King) grow and spread faster than he was actually able to literally grow up and prove it? So what Daisy seems to be asking is a question which has no-doubt been on the minds of so many Christians throughout the centuries. What happened to Jesus’ childhood? Why the gap? You’d think someone would be keeping up with things. After all, he’s the Messiah! Don’t they know how to keep up with their celebrity children like we do? Suri Cruise should be so lucky. (Wait. Did I just compare Katie Holmes to Mary? I think I’m going to have to come forward on Sunday.) Well. The truth is that we just don’t know. All we have from the canonical gospels is the story from Luke 2 to which Daisy alludes. Other than that there is nothing reputable. There are some pretty fanciful stories in later works (100 yrs. or more), but no one takes them very seriously. So, why the silence? I can think of a few possibilities.

  1. The stories were written but lost before the formation of the New Testament.
  2. No one wrote anything down. If they did exist, these stories didn’t “make the cut.” The only people who could have told such stories by the time Jesus was an adult would have been Jesus’ family: Mary, James, John the Baptist, etc. The only other people who had even a glimpse of his identity are the shepherds (If they talked who was going to listen?), the magi (They disappear to the foreign lands from whence they came), and a couple of old hermits living in the temple precincts. If those stories ever existed in written or oral form, the Gospel writers either never received them or chose not to use them.
  3. Jesus and his family preferred to maintain anonymity. Messianic claims were a dangerous thing to make. In her fictional account of Jesus’ childhood, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt, Anne Rice does an admirable job of developing this idea. In fact, she surmises that Jesus himself doesn’t even get it yet. There are these vague hints at something terrible happening in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16ff), but no one ever wants to talk about it. Only at the end of the book does he begin to get a glimpse of his true identity. This theory could also have some scriptural underpinnings. It’s clear in the Gospels that Jesus is not in a hurry to reveal his identity as the Messiah. He initially balks at his mother’s request to do something about the depleted wine supplies at the wedding in Cana. Over and over again, especially in Mark, he tells demons and disciples not to reveal who he is. You’ll see this referred to from time to time as “the Messianic secret.”

So which one is it? This is PURELY speculation, but I think I like some combination of all three leaning heavily upon the third option. Until his crucifixion, Jesus was never a “storm the gates” kind of Messiah. And even then, it wasn’t the gates of Jerusalem, it was the gates of Hell. It seems to fit that Jesus preferred to maintain a low profile. (That would be a great title for a sermon.) He hung out with the “least of these”, he served, he prayed in solitude…You get the point. So that’s my 2 cents. What do you think? Got any other ideas? Coming up Next: “Faith vs. Doubt?”

Posted by Robert | Filed Under Blog 

The Golden Compass

December 22, 2007 | 1 Comment

In recent weeks, a number of you have asked my opinion about “The Golden Compass,” particularly the movie based on the first installment of the “His Dark Materials” trilogy by writer Philip Pullman. For those of you who don’t know, Pullman has professed a very “anti-religious” bias. In 2003 he said that his books were “about killing God.” In 2001 he said that one of the goals of his writing was “trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.” He is an outspoken critic of C.S. Lewis, particularly his “Chronicles of Narnia.”

Is there really anything left to be said about the movie? It’s received so much attention already, and I feel a little bit behind in talking about it. If you really want to read some insightful stuff about it after you’ve read my thoughts, click here and read Kim Fabricius’ blog entry about it. I’m about to say something very similar.

Before I get started I should clarify what I have and haven’t seen: I’ve seen the movie, and I’ve read the first two books of the “Dark Materials” trilogy.

As for the movie, I have to admit that I liked it very much. (If you’re not interested in a review just skip ahead.) As you may know, the anti-Christian rhetoric has been toned down considerably, a decision that angered many fans of the books. It is largely devoid of religious talk. What’s left is a fine movie. It’s beautiful to watch. The look of the movie is wonderful. The acting is solid. Nicole Kidman is perfect as the villainous Ms. Coulter. And I loved Dakota Blue Richards as the hero, Lyra. On top of all that, this movie has what is hands down the COOLEST polar bear smackdown I’ve ever seen. (Actually, it’s the only one I’ve seen, but I doubt anyone will top it.) I’m probably in the minority in regretting that the film’s poor showing at the box office has put its sequels in jeopardy.

So should you see it? Should you let your kids see it? My answer (as usual) is “It depends.” If, after screening it for yourself, you feel that your children might be unreasonably swayed by any hidden atheistic agenda, I would encourage you to protect them from it. Further, if you yourself fear that the same might happen to you, I would advise that you do the same. I’m basically taking the same approach to it that Paul takes to the issue of meat in his letter to Corinth. (Go read 1 Corinthians 8, or listen to my sermon from 01.07.07)

My opinion is that the film gives no such cause for alarm. For that matter, neither do the books. The god that the book is taking aim at bears no resemblance to the living, powerful, merciful, dynamic God whom I worship. And Pullman’s church is merely a shadow of the historic body of Christ. Pullman does what many do, he doesn’t present an accurate picture of faith or of the church. He presents caricatures and precedes to destroy them. Rhetorically speaking, Pullman’s God and Pullman’s church (called the Magisterium) would qualify as “straw men.” As Fabricius says, “…the death of this God would actually do the church a great service.” This is the problem that I have with much of what the “New Atheists” are doing, but that’s another blog entry.

Perhaps the ultimate irony is this: Pullman’s books actually hold forth some very Christian virtues. No doubt, Pullman would object to my use of that label, but there it is. The heroes of his books display selflessness, courage, creativity, and an openness to spirit (I would say, Spirit). In fact, I fail to see how you can talk about any of these virtues or talk about anything that transcends the natural world without appealing to the Creator who gives us these values.

So to repeat: you’ll have to draw your own conclusions on this movie depending upon your own faith or the ability of your children to think critically. My guess is that most of our kids won’t come away questioning their faith. They’ll probably just say the same thing I did: “That polar bear fight was AWESOME!”

Anyone else seen the movie or read the books? I’d love to hear your take.

Posted by Robert | Filed Under Blog 

What? We Have a Blog?

December 14, 2007 | Leave a Comment

So I was rummaging around the proverbial “internet attic” looking for something, and I stumbled across this box hidden behind a bunch of other stuff. Picking it up, I wondered out loud, “Hullo! What’s all this, then?” (I said it that way, because my internal voice is that of a British constable.) I held it up to the light and blew off an inch-thick layer of dust. Written in permanent marker on the outside of the box was the word “Blog.” Suddenly, I remembered: “Oh Yeah! This church has a blog!”

Ok. That’s how it happened in my imagination. Really, though, I’ve had a few faithful people send me some kind reminders that I need to get off my duff and get this thing going again. They are so right. To those of you who have “spurred me on,” thanks.

But man has it been hard. And the longer I’ve let it sit, the more immovable this thing appears to be. I guess, as with most other things, the trick is to stop fretting about how to start it up again and just start. So let’s just plunge right in…

It’s always nice when something you say is echoed by someone who is brilliant. Click here to read a great post from Ben Witherington about the modern picture of the Nativity Scene and how the biblical witness actually describes something else. He speaks to that whole “No Room in the inn” idea, saying, as I did last Sunday, that Jesus and his family weren’t forced to live in a barn because the Motel 6 didn’t have any vacancies. More likely, they slept in an attached bedroom that also housed livestock: a common practice in those days.

If you don’t read the whole article, at least check out this beautiful little paragraph at the end of his entry. I wish I had said this:

The old medieval Christmas poem said ‘though Christ a thousand times in Bethlehem be born, if he’s not born in you, your heart is still forlorn.’ Let me just tell you however, if you let that Guest into your inner sanctum, even if you put him in the very back, he will surely take over and become the center of attention in due course.

Nicely said.

Coming Soon: The Golden Compass

Posted by Robert | Filed Under Blog 

« Previous Page