EINSTEIN AND THE PROFESSOR

There’s an email circulating concerning a discussion between a student and a professor, wherein a professor seeks to argue for atheism while embarrassing his Christian student. The dialogue is apocryphal and erroneously attributed to Albert Einstein. I’m hesitant to recite the entire thing, because it’s lengthy, but. just so no one feels left out, here’s the link for it at Snopes (I’m offering the Snopes link for those who wish to read the apocryphal dialogue, not for their subsequent comments).

 

It should be noted that all too often, many people are so anxious to pass on an interesting email that they fail to verify sources or factuality of claims made. Though no one is above reproach, myself included, one should do all in one’s power to fact-check and verify sources to one’s best ability. That doesn’t mean errors can always be avoided, for even so-called “fact-checking” sites like Snopes are heavily biased and should be consulted with caution. Nevertheless, one should do one’s best to acquire the truth.

 

That said, the responses to this “urban legend” have been mixed– from irrelevant comments, to ad hominem attacks on anyone who holds to biblical theism. I’d like to respond to one in particular.

 

In the apocryphal dialogue between Einstein and his professor, Einstein points out that evil is the deprivation of the good, much like darkness is not a thing unto itself, but merely an absence of light. One response to this by Chris B at Yahoo “answers” was the following:

 

“Open your door :- interesting. Especially as I use this argument of the professor alot. I would point out that any measure of Evil you can imagine, I could make even more Evil. Inaction is the 0 point much like a number line

negative —————- 0 —————- positive

Mathematics does not really have a begining or an end however it is a human philisophical construct used to measure things.

The above number line could just as easily be.

Evil ——————- Inaction ——————- Good

Now that we can accept that Evil is NOT the absense of good but an action onto itself we must accept that Evil exists. This links closely to the professors original argument.

If Evil exists and God created all things then God is responsible for evil.

The premise that Evil does not exist is flawed, therefore the conclusion was also flawed.

I do appreciate an intellectual argument on the subject though 😉

OOOPS nearly forgot. Animal husbandry is the human directed evolution of domestic animals. We would be unable to make cows more dosile and meatier if the process of Evolution did not exist. Evolution has been witnessed and harnessed.

Class Dismissed.”

 

 

Chris gives us a diagram of a number line with “positive” on one end, and “negative” on the other, the central point being “0”. He then offers another diagram, one that he claims “could just as easily be” a line with “Evil” on one end, “Good” on the other end, and “Inaction” serving as equivalent to “0”. He then follows with:

 

“Now that we can accept that Evil is NOT the absense of good

but an action onto itself we must accept that Evil exists.

This links closely to the professors original argument.“

 

Somehow, Chris thinks that, by offering two diagrams, he has successfully demonstrated that the latter diagram is equivalent to the former one. However, he never offered anything resembling an argument. He merely gave us two diagrams and assumed an equivalence. If this is the best atheists have to offer, they’ll never gain traction with rational people. One can prove anything with such a poor offering. For example, imagine if Chris’ second diagram had been thus:

 

Atheism ———— Ignorance —————– Wisdom

 

By claiming this diagram to be equivalent to Chris’ first numerical diagram, I’ve proven that atheism is the opposite of wisdom (i.e., that atheism is foolishness) — given Chris’ own form of reasoning. But of course, little diagrams like this prove nothing. Chris’ entire argument rests upon a fallacious premise, hence, his conclusion fails.

 

Chris then switches gears and goes off on a tangent, arguing against intelligent design, claiming that “animal husbandry is the human directed evolution of domestic animals”. Chris is fallaciously knocking down a straw-man, because no theist claims that micro-evolution, horizontal transitions, or variation within a kind (call it what you will) do not occur. That’s never been the argument against Neo-darwinism. I.D. proponents only ever argue against darwinian macro-evolution, something of which animal husbandry knows nothing. Nor has Chris, nor has anyone else, empirically observed a case of macro-evolution. If evolutionists want their beliefs to be anything more than faith-claims, they’ll have to offer empirical evidence, i.e. an empirical observation of macro-evolution. Unless one believes in Gould’s punctuated equilibrium, darwinism ( of the gradualism variety), is, in principle, unscientific, precisely because it can never be empirically observed by humans with such limited life-spans.

Washington Redskins & Political Correctness

I received this in an email recently. It purports to be “an email sent to Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune after an article he published concerning a name change for the Washington Redskins”. Whether this was an actual letter sent is irrelevant. If it wasn’t really sent, it certainly should have been.I received this in an email recently. It purports to be “an email sent to Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune after an article he published concerning a name change for the Washington Redskins”. Whether this was an actual letter sent is irrelevant. If it wasn’t really sent, it certainly should have been.

Dear Mr. Page,

I always love your articles. and I generally agree with them. I would suggest, as in an email I received, they change the name to the “Foreskins” to better represent their community,paying tribute to the dick heads in Congress. Here is some other political correctness to consider:

I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward. Let’s ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians.

If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns. The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60’s alive. Gone. It’s offensive to us white folk.

The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy?  No!  There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men’s lives.

I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints,the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.

Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!

Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children.The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.

The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children.

The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children.

The Milwaukee Brewers—well that goes without saying. . . Wrong message to our children.

So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing congress loves . . .

As a diehard Oregon State fan, my wife and I, with all of this in mind, it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women’s athletic teams to something other than “the Beavers.”

Is Lawrence Kraus a Sociopath?

In his debate with Dr William Lane Craig, Lawrence Kraus claims to know that homosexual behavior is permissible on the grounds that it exists among other cultures and some other species. His argument amounts to :

1. Any behavior exhibited among other cultures or species is morally permissible.
2. Homosexual behavior is practiced in other cultures and species.
3. Therefore, homosexual behavior is morally permissible.

Here’s the problem. Killing of the innocent, theft, and rape are also behaviors exhibited in other cultures and species. Given Kraus’ operating premiss, we can find that:

1. Any behavior exhibited among other cultures or species is morally permissible.
2. Killing of the innocent, theft, and rape is practiced in other cultures and species.
3. Therefore, killing of the innocent, theft, and rape is morally permissible.

But this system of ethics belongs to the sociopath. Given his implicit endorsement of heinous behavior (which logically follows from his operating premiss) is Lawrance Kraus a sociopath? Surely Kraus would protest if asked directly, but this only demonstrates that he is either too irrational to see the logical consequence of his operating criteria for moral permissibility, or he is disingenuous. While I would like to think Kraus is not the moral monster which follows from his system of thought, one has to wonder…