Tag: albert einstein

Einstein and the Atheist

Testable explanations
Testable explanations (Photo credit: bricolage.108)

This was posted by a friend on Facebook. Even though it may not be exactly “scientific”, I enjoyed the discussion.  Just thought I would share it here for anyone who might get a kick out of it.

Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?
Student : Yes.
Professor: 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 was silent.)
Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is Satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does Satan come from ?
Student : From … GOD …
Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: 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.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : 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.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn’t.
(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheated, 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 was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?
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 its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?
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. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Professor: 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 shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was 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 was in uproar.)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?
(The class broke out into laughter. )
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 was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.
I hope you have enjoyed the above conversation.  The post claimed that the student in this discussion was Albert Einstein.   I do not know if this is true, and it probably isn’t.  However, it is still a very interesting argument.

If Only God Were Not …

I have given consideration for quite a long time to why the atheistic radical left-wing is so strongly opposed to God and Christianity.  What inspired the “War on Christmas” and led to no “Pledge of Allegiance” in schools?  Why do these people insist that we interpret “Freedom of religion” to mean “Freedom from religion” and work so diligently toward achieving their agenda; re-writing our history leaving no room for God and attempting to erase any signs of the importance Christianity played in the founding of this great country. 

While it is certainly true that Christianity is growing dramatically in certain regions of the world, it does seem that there is a “war” being waged on Christianity in this country of ours.  I list here a few quotations to illustrate the point:

“It is wonderful not to have to cower before a vengeful deity, who threatens us with eternal damnation if we do not abide by his rules.” 

~Karen Armstrong, A History of God

“If he does exist, I personally want nothing to do with him.”

~Victor Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothsis 

“I want atheism to be true …. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God …. I don’t want to live in a universe like that.”

~ Philosopher Thomas Nagel

I have often wondered what atheists like this hope to gain in their arguments and actions.  I have no problem with their “non-belief”, that is certainly their choice and, as an American, though I disagree with them,  I would defend their right to have that “non-belief.”  However, I think we, as a nation, must draw a line in the sand when their “un-belief” threatens the very core values of this great nation.

I will tell you what I think is the real root of this effort.  The real “opium of the people” is not religion as Karl Marx stated, but instead it is, as stated by Nobel laureate Czeslaw Milosz, “a belief in nothingness after death.”   This belief would certainly have to be much less frightening to immoral people than the belief that their betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders and other assorted sins will be judged when their life on earth has ended.  

I think this is why people seek to free themselves from God and Christianity.  If you chose to live an immoral life, then God is essentially your mortal enemy.  He represents a very real threat to those who are selfish, greedy, lecherous, or filled with hatred.  It would certainly seem to be in the best interests of such people to despise and ridicule the belief in God and do what ever they could to rid our nation of His presence.

If God could be stamped out of existance by these people, then the seven deadly sins are no longer, as Dinesh D’Souza writes, “terrors to be overcome, but temptations to be enjoyed.”  Death is no longer a justification for morality … it is now a justification for immorality. 

Nietzsche understood this.  The death of God would allow us to escape guilt and live “beyond good and evil.”  In Nietzsche’s scheme, man would kill God to achieve the freedom to create his own morality.  This line of thinking, though toned down, can be found in many of Christopher Hitchens’ railings against Christianity.

And, it really seems to boil down to a simple concept … sex.  Hitchens wrote that “the divorce between the sexual life and fear … can now at last be attempted on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse.”  

Now, I am not a prude by any stretch of the imagination and I certainly am not against sex … and incidently, neither is God.  However, God does put some thoughtful limitations on when, and with whom, sex should be had.  The “sexual revolution” has left its scar on many people’s lives.  Unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, younger and younger single mothers, ill-advised marriages, etc.   Today we even have the ACLU defending such repulsive organizations as NAMBLA … and criminal judges issuing “slap-on-the-wrist” sentences for heinous child abuse, molestation, and rape cases.  Could Dinesh D’Sousa be correct when he writes that the orgasm has become today’s secular sacrament.   I think, sadly, maybe he is. 

What happens when you remove the horribly old, out-dated, Christianity inflicted, moral restraints surrounding sex … such as waiting until you are married?  You often get unwanted pregnancies.  Could it be simply a strange coincidence that this leads us to the next most important sacrament in the secular world; one very near and dear the to atheistic left-wing liberal’s heart … abortion.

To me, the real tragedy and horror connected to an abortion is not that a woman kills an unborn child.  It is that a woman kills her own unborn child.  I cannot help but think that the feelings of guilt associated with doing this to ones own child must be nearly unbearable for any morally healthy person.  Therefore … it would then become necessary, for the good of all immoral people in the country, for atheists to lead the way and free people from the guilt associated with abortions.  And how is this done?  By completing the following steps:

  1. Get rid of God … that way there is no soul of the dead child to bother the conscience and, no threat of going to Hell for the act of murder.
  2. Define the fetus as being “not yet human” …  hmmmmm, sound familiar?

Not really too far from opening the door to eugenics, euthanasia and infanticide are we?  In this atheistic new nation, under nothing, with no inalienable rights, and with an immoral system of morality, Hell on earth might be just around the corner folks … wait and see. 

I think D’Sousa is right.  Although they like to point to science as their guiding star, atheism is actually not an intellectual revolt at all, it is a immoral revolt.  Atheists do not find God invisible, they find Him objectionable.  The atheist simply seeks to rid himself of any later moral judgment by eliminating the judge.

Fortunately, contrary to what they would have you believe, not all scientists agree with atheistic claims of having the real truth. I leave you with this quote from one rather well-known scientist … often erroneously quoted by many atheists:

“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God.  But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views.”

~ Albert Einstein