Posted by: markcarlton | December 5, 2007

Concerning Evil: An Interesting Argument

Like everyone, I get a lot of articles forwarded to me. Usually I just scan them quickly and delete them. But I thought the following short story was especially good. I’m sure this story is fictional. It features an argument between a Christian college student and his atheist professor.

Most of the arguments are not that good (the professors brain argument, for example). But the student does make a tremendous argument concerning the nature of evil. I’ve highlighted the argument I find interesting. After you’ve read the short story I have a couple of short comments. — Mark

“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,” 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 : “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.”

Without allowing the student to answer, the professor continues: “Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?”

The student: “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 is confident: “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 actually 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. Ab solute 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 o f 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 endeavour, 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 smelled 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.

Now the reason we know this story is fiction is the professor sat down and shut up. I’ve argued with enough atheists an agnostics to know that they will never just give up. I’m sure in real life the professor would have a comeback. It might totally miss the point, but it would be comeback. I would suspect he would ignore the really good argument the student made and focus on one of his weaker ones, like his argument against evolution.

However, the highlighted argument is good. It’s similar to C.S. Lewis’ argument concerning the nature of hell in The Great Divorce. It also ties in to an argument I’ve been trying to make in the Tirebiter correspondence; that when a society refuses to acknowledge God he judges it by turning it over to its own corruption, allowing evil to punish evil.

Responses

A humorous use of straw man. The irony of the student using a logical fallacy to point out the professor’s logical fallacy is especially delicious, since that very fallacy would disprove the student’s conclusion.

“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.”

TB: I was really more interested in the point that evil is really the absence of God (the student said, “God’s love,” but I would just say, God). The point being, the more God and His moral law are excluded from a culture the more evil it will become, because God will not stay where He’s not wanted or, to use a word I used earlier, acknowledged (Romans 1:28-32; cf Psalm 9:17). More on this in my next major response to you on the morality question.

But doesn’t Chistianity teach that man is evil at birth, before he even has the opportunity to commit an evil act? That would seem to indicate that good is the absence of evil.

TB, Exactly right. The Bible teaches that in their fall, Adam and Eve really did die. As a result of their disobedience they died spiritually, and spiritual death and its ultimate consequences of physical and eternal death, were passed on to all of their posterity. An illustration I use is of a rose cut off of the rose bush. For all intents and purposes it’s dead as soon as it’s cut off from the source of life. For a while the traces of its beauty remain, and the illusion of life can be maintained for a while by putting it in a vase of water. But sooner or later the reality of its condition will become evident.

So it is with the the human race. This is the human problem as understood by Biblical Christians; We are dead in trespasses and sins, and as dead men and women, unable to save ourselves. Yes, like the rose we retain vestigages our our pre-death beauty…for a while. But ultimately reality catches up with us.

So, yes, the indeed, the human problem is indeed an absence of God. This state of being is indeed the source of all of that we call evil. Our sad condition is mitigated by the common grace of God (analogous to putting the rose in water), but — as with the rose in my illustration — apart from Grace, the human condition is ultimately irreversible and progressive.

I also have no problem with your definition of good, since we are told that “God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all.” So the holiness of God — pictured as light — is portrayed as the absence of darkness. That’s why I find this argument intriguing. It seems to fit.

Mark,

It’s not my definition at all. I was just making an observation about Christian beliefs. I utterly reject any suggestion that I bear any responsibility for actions other than my own. This may be a good candidate for our main discussion if we ever get to it.

Tirebiter, you said:

I utterly reject any suggestion that I bear any responsibility for actions other than my own.

Sounds like solipsism to me. Which is fine. I think it is one of three conclusions that a true atheist can logically reach on the basis of a materialistic worldview. So I compliment you on your logical consistency.

But as you refuse to take responsibility for anyone other than yourself let me share another point of view, as stated in one of my favorite quotes and an brief analysis of it from the Indiana State University website.

“All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated…As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness….No man is an island, entire of itself…any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

– John Donne

“This famous meditation of Donne’s puts forth two essential ideas which are representative of the Renaissance era in which it was written:

No man is an island, entire of itself…The idea that people are not isolated from one another, but that mankind is interconnected; and

Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee The vivid awareness of mortality that seems a natural outgrowth of a time when death was the constant companion of life. ”

Death is still the constant companion of life. There is great wisdom in the statement, “Even in the midst of life we are in the midst of death.”

Hello Mark, I also believe that this story is probably fiction, since the majority of the world believes in God or at least some type of higher power, but Jesus is where the major religions of the world start to diverge. Any professor who ever took a general biology course could easily believe in God just by understanding the cell and all its workings. There are exapmles of God and his power all around us, its just that people rarely stop and really look at the world around them.

Hi Di, I’m sure the story is fictional, but similar silliness does go on on many college campuses as many professors think they were hired, not to teach but to destroy their students’ faith.

Haha, 1 flaw: The idiot teacher said people evolved from monkeys. We branched off into 2 directions from a common ancestor.

But, such a rude conversation was an annoyance. It’s the idiot teachers fault for us Christians AND Evolutionists. Evolution does not explain origin of life, but only how things change over time, and we all see this. If you have been in a microbiology class, you have seen evolution, if you test progressive antibiotic resistance. :)

Hi a person, and welcome! You are right, at the micro-level, evolution is a fact of science. But when it comes to the Macro level it nothing more than an idea looking for a mechanism. So my position is, micro-evolution, no doubt. Macro-evolution (one species or “kind to another,” never observed and no mechanism to explain how it could happen. Thus we have Gould’s punctuated equilibrium.

As to the above illustration, I’m sure its fictional — unless the professor was teaching humanities or something — certainly no biology prof would say we came from monkey’s (Although we did have a Phd Cosmologist say that his hypotheses are well supported by theories, so I suppose there is nothing so stupid that a professor somewhere has not said it, just as there is nothing so stupid that some evangelical somewhere hasn’t tried it to get a crowd and save a soul).

I just posted it because I liked the argument concerning the nature of evil. So, to me, the whole short story is of limited usefulness.

Leave a response

Your response:

Categories