Disclaimer: The following contains my (Jay’s) own opinions and does not necessarily represent the views of the SSU.

Two of my friends on Myspace posted this story on their blogs. With a simple google search, I am seeing this story all over the Internet, with thousands of vulnerable web surfers exclaiming, “Great job!” and “This is amazing.”

The only thing that is amazing about this story is how stupid it is. 

Please correct me if I make any mistakes or logical fallacies.

I am using a New International Version of the Bible.

“The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists?

A student bravely replied yes, he did!”

“God created everything?” The professor asked.

“Yes, sir,” the student replied.

The professor answered, “If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil.”

The student became quiet before such an answer.

The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, “Can I ask you a question professor?” “Of course”, replied the professor. The student stood up and asked, “Professor, does cold exist?”

“What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?” The students snickered at the young man’s question.

The young man replied, “In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody and every 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 (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have too little heat.

The student continued. “Professor, does darkness exist?”

The professor responded, “Of course it does”.

The student replied, “Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton’s prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn’t this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present.”

Finally the young man asked the professor. “Sir, does evil exist?”

Now uncertain, the professor responded, “Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. 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 not like faith, or love, that exist just as does light and heat. 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.

The young mans name — Albert Einstein”

The first thing that must be emphasized is that this story is completely fictitious. This event did not occur.

1) The earliest mention of this story did not appear on the Internet until 2004. Or, at least, this is the earliest version of this story that I could find.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

2) How was this conversation recorded so perfectly? There are no gaps in wording, no lapses in perception.

3) There is not a single biography of Albert Einstein that discusses this incident. Even the “Albert Einstein” page on wikipedia refuses to acknowledge its existence.

4) Albert Einstein was not a Christian, not even a theist. At most, he could be labeled a pantheist, although he shuns this term himself. Einstein would not have agreed with the position that “all good comes from God.” This story is a blatant misrepresentation of Einstein.

“I believe in Spinoza’s God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” -Albert Einstein

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” -Albert Einstein

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” -Albert Einstein

“The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples’ lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.”-Albert Einstein

“The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints.” -Albert Einstein

“Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.” -Albert Einstein

“A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.” -Albert Einstein

“Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God.” -Albert Einstein

Basically, in the context of this story, Albert Einstein is nothing more than an appeal to ethos. The writer desired an impressive character to uphold his side of the argument. Thus, he chose a historical figure that is widely regarded as incredibly intelligent. He chose (insert smart person here).

Similarly, the entire role of the professor is to be pushed off his little perch. He is nothing more than a fundamentalist Christian stereotype of an ignorant, arrogant, blasphemous, heathen atheist.

Now, let’s move on to the actual argument.

 ”The young man replied, “In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody and every 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 (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have too little heat.”

In order to understand why this is not a valid argument, we must understand what heat and cold really are.

Both heat and cold are simply subjective terms that we use to describe the motion of particles. In regular speech, heat and cold are automatically opposites. This is an inevitable consequence of the flaws of language. However, when you are dealing with science, this is incredibly dishonest because heat and cold are not antonyms, but are different levels of the same phenomenon. 

According to The American Heritage Dictionary, one of the definitions for temperature is: A measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a sample of matter, expressed in terms of units or degrees designated on a standard scale.

Or wikipedia, “temperature is the result of the motion of particles which make up a substance.”

When particles bounce around faster, we feel hotter. When they are sluggish, we feel colder. Thus, saying that cold is the absence of heat is like saying that “particles moving slower” is the absence of “particles moving faster.” Or, perhaps, the lack of movement is the lack of movement. 

“Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton’s prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn’t this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present.”

The flaw here is similar to the flaw in the previous paragraph.

Light is an electro-magnetic wave. It has no substance, but is simply a form of released energy that can spread freely. Also, the writer forgot to mention that light is only part of the electro-magnetic spectrum. 

All of these things are virtually identical to light, except for their wave lengths, (remember the period in a sinusoidal function?) which are two long or two short for the human eye to detect. Thus, saying that darkness is the absence of light is simply a description of what we observe with our eyes.

In a weird way, the writer is correct on both counts.

The problem is he is still arguing from secondary qualities. Why? Why doesn’t he explain the scientific principles behind these claims? 

Is death the absence of life? Is stupidity the absence of intelligence? Though these rhetorical questions might seem credible at first, they all commit an elementary logical fallacy by confusing the casual definitions of these words with their scientific processes. To say that death is just the LACK of life, this is nothing more than playing with semantics. The writer’s arguments are incredibly misleading. Either he is impotent or he is being intentionally dishonest. 

Also, these scientific principles are not related to each other in any way. Placing these “lack ofs” next to each other does not somehow make the overall argument stronger.

Furthermore, what exactly is the writer doing? How does a sophomoric rant about particle motion and electromagnetism prove anything about God and 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 not like faith, or love, that exist just as does light and heat. 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.”

What do particle motion and electro-magnetism have to do with morality? Absolutely nothing.

The writer, in a surge of faith, reaches a completely baseless assertion. He seems to be insinuating that the previous two examples should prove this statement simply because they are in a similar literary form.

A is the lack of B

C is the lack of D

Thus, E is the lack of F

This kind of logic is worthy of a Young Earth Creationist.

If God is omnipresent, then how can something lack God? 

“Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast” Psalms 139:7-10

“”Am I only a God nearby,” declares the Lord, “and not a God far away?” declares the Lord. “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” declares the Lord.” Jeremiah 23:23-24

“”But will God really dwell on Earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!” I Kings 8:27

“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” Matthew 18:20

“Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance?” Isaiah 40:16

http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog11.htm

http://www.tecmalta.org/tft138.htm

http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/xian/omni.html

http://www.unionchurch.com/archive/050700.html

http://www.reformedwitness.org/pmphltlst/Attributes/Omnipresence.html

http://allanturner.com/omni.html

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/god.html

http://www.dashhouse.com/sermons/1998/AM/980301.htm

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_1/book1_06.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4610/lifelines/omnipresent.html

http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/God_is_Omnipresent.htm

http://www.christian-oneness.org/chapter1.htm

Good and evil imply action. A human, doing nothing, cannot logically be good or evil. If I help an old lady cross the street, I am being “good.” However, if I trip an old lady that is walking across the street, am I being “evil?” According to this story, once I trip the old lady, I am then lacking God. It’s like God suddenly leaves? This is ridiculous.

“Beloved, let us LOVE one another: for love is of God; and every one who loves is born of God, and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is LOVE.” 1 John 4:7-8

Why aren’t all atheists pure evil?

Morality is subjective, not absolute. Thus, it has little to do with science. Even in religion, morality changes. 

In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to stone anyone that spewed blasphemy against the Lord. Thus, we can only assume that whenever the Israelites stoned their kids, they were being “good.” (ha)

“If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” Deuteronomy 13:6-10

This is different in the New Testament.

Finally, according to the Bible itself, evil DID come from God. 

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)

“Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? Why should any living man complain when punished for his sins?” Lamentations 3:38-39

“Perhaps when the people of Judah hear about every disaster I plan to inflict on them, each of them will turn from his wicked way; then I will forgive their wickedness and their sin.” Jeremiah 36:3

“When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?” Amos 3:6

Also see: Jeremiah 11:11, 14:16, 18:11, 19:3, 19:15, 23:12, 26:13, 26:19, 35:17, 36:31, 40:2, 42:10, 42:17, 44:2, 45:5, 49:37, 51:64, Ezekiel. 6:10, Micah 2:3, 1 Kings 21:29, 2 Chronicles 34:24 and 34:28, Isaiah 45:7, and more.

Special thanks to Todangst on Rational Responders, whom I plagiarized shamelessly. 

Tags: God evil Albert Einstein

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 15th, 2008 at 10:56 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.