• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Are Science And Religion Compatible?

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 24, 2006
2,921
1,656
BIttu Ji,
In Sikhism, God creates the cosmos by his Word. He sets them in motion then watches over them. Sikhs might run into some problems with things like vestigial traits and laryngeal detours, etc but the creation story of Sikhs leaves enough room for Evolution. In fact, some verses can be interpreted to resemble Evolution e.g.
ਸਾਚੇ ਤੇ ਪਵਨਾ ਭਇਆ ਪਵਨੈ ਤੇ ਜਲੁ ਹੋਇ
साचे ते पवना भइआ पवनै ते जलु होइ ॥
Sācẖe ṯe pavnā bẖa▫i▫ā pavnai ṯe jal ho▫e.
From the True Lord came the air, and from the air came water.

ਜਲ ਤੇ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣੁ ਸਾਜਿਆ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਮੋਇ
जल ते त्रिभवणु साजिआ घटि घटि जोति समोइ ॥
Jal ṯe ṯaribẖavaṇ sāji▫ā gẖat gẖat joṯ samo▫e.
From water, He created the three worlds; in each and every heart He has infused His Light.
pg 19 < link to the whole passage
The three worlds could mean life on land, water and air. So based on this interpretation, some might argue that Sikhism supports Evolution.

Actually, to be honest, even the Bible creation story is often interpreted symbolically. When that is done, evolution fits in. If you choose to tale it literally in the face of all the evidence against it then you are just rejecting reality, IMO.

I think there is one last thing I can do for you. I can show you how you are making logical fallacies with your "Evolution is false so creationism must be true" argument.
You are setting up a false dichotomy. Its not evolution vs Creationism but Evolution vs No Evolution. Evolution vs (Biblical) Creationism is a false dichotomy because there are an infinite number of other possibilities. If its not the Biblical creationism then some Hindu creation myth or Pagan myth or whatever else our minds can conjure up.
If evolution is shown to be false then that's that, its false. You cannot say Creationism is true because Evolution is false. You still have all your work laid out ahead of you to show that Biblical Creationism is be true, as Bib. Creationism vs No Bib. Creationism is the correct dichotomy.
If Biblical Creationism turns out to be false that doesn't automatically make the Hindu Creation stories true. Again that would be setting up a false dichotomy of Bib. Creation vs Hindu Creation. etc

The following video shows the fallacies in the most prominent creationists' arguments, and of course, some of the things you have said fit right in.
YouTube- Top 25 Creationist Fallacies

BTW I was a creationist before I studied science.
Enjoy the videos, Goodbye!
 

Seeker9

Cleverness is not wisdom
SPNer
May 2, 2010
652
980
UK
Dear Biitu Ji

This will be my last reply to you as I fear we are going in circles and not progressing anything

This is because you have consistently refused to acknowledge the counter-proofs we have presented to you, which is fair enough,
as they challenge what you believe in

But clearly, what you believe in is not the same as what myself and others on this thread believe in so we are all wasting our time here

I could continue to argue the points you have presented in red for example your comments around Pi...you call it logic, I call it a
subjective judgement and interpretation that suited your subsequent calculations. As for numerology, I have more than proven the point
and you really don't have a leg to stand on in terms of a counter-argument.

But ultimately this going back and forth will not get us anywhere as you have demonstrated a way of justifying and interpreting things
to suit your beliefs and you then refer to them as scientific proofs!

Mai Harinder Kaur Ji made an excellent observation in an earlier post about your approach in that you are using the thing to be proven as
it's own proof, i.e the Bible. Naturally, you know exactly where you are going to end up when you apply this circular self-fulfilling logic

It is my humble opinion that what you keep on referring to as your proofs are thus no more than hypotheses, which wikipedia
defines as “a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon”

But there is no credible empirical evidence to support your assertions. Here's what wiki has to say in this area:

“A central concept in*science*and the*scientific method*is that all*evidence*must be*empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent
on evidence or*consequences*that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of*empiricism*by
the use of the adjective*empirical*or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working*hypotheses*that are*testable*using*
observation*or*experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations.*
Empirical data*is*data*that is produced by*experiment*or*observation.”

You keen on going on about the Bible and Science but I see nothing at all in your approach that complies with the above definitions

Now you could say wikipedia has a grand anti-christian agenda or you could accept it as a neutral third party contributor in this debate.

As I noted earlier, there are other faiths with their own view of the Creation. There are mathematical and scientific references in other scriptures
including the Vedas and the Koran. Looking at Islam, they also revere Jesus but in a completely different way. Different religions with different
views and you are posting on a forum that is focussed on Sikh scriptures.

Whilst it has been a stimulating debate, I'm sorry to say it's just getting a bit boring for me now

I daresay you will have a response to this..I would expect no less going by past expeience!

But I have said my piece and won't be responding to you any further and wish you well in your quest for enlightenment

All the best Bittu Ji!
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,024
7,183
Henderson, NV.
Hi <!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->Tejwant Singh<!-- google_ad_section_end --> and all commenters.ffice:eek:ffice" />
I read this article & the comments and I found them anti-Christian. That’s nothing new! First of all I want to say that many commenters and writer/poster are ignorant of many things, like Creation Science, Holy Bible and Christianity.

Let me write about the article. As a Bible believing Christian I believe Christianity and True- Science can co-exist. As I said the writer and many commenters are ignorant of Creationism. When Creationists say Earth is Young, it is not billions of yrs old, but just thousands they are not wrong in their argument. You cannot prove Universe & Earth is billions of yrs old, just from carbon dating (C14) of fossils. Carbon dating is neither 100% right nor it is fully reliable, if you doubt my argument you may search it. Just because something seems to be billions of yrs old it doesn’t mean it is! Creationists have proofs for their arguments and you must check them. Creationists are not garden school kids they are also PhD holders and Scientists from all fields of science. Many creationists are well known for their work, and their position in the community of scientists. The matter is that only you guys don’t know who they are because of your ignorance. Evolutionist cannot prove Big-bang neither Darwin’s useless theories and about their arguments, Creationists can refute them all.

Today everybody tries to prove that Christianity is anti-science. But the fact is that it is not!! No creationist would call himself anti-science because they themselves are using science to prove their point. No Bible teacher would ever say that Bible (whole Bible) must be taken literally or allegorically. Bible is literal where it says it is, and it is allegoric where it says it is. No Creationist or Christian reject true or established modern science. If you think you are right and creationists are wrong then why don’t you have debate with them? Your problem is that you only listen / look Evolutionists and never creationists. If you are sincere then you must look both sides (without partiality) and then conclude. Young Earth Creationism and Christianity are completely compatible with established modern science.
<o:p> </o:p>
Well, I am not a Roman Catholic but I want to ask <!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->Mai Harinder Kaur<!-- google_ad_section_end -->, “where did she leaned that little girls would burn eternally in hell if they questioned”? When you know nothing about Christianity how could you say such things?
I also want to say here that the Holy Bible is the only oldest book in the world which is scientifically correct, though it is not a science book, nor was it written to teach science lessons but The Way i.e. Jesus Christ. Bible also promotes education and inspires to increase wisdom; the whole “Book of Proverbs” is dedicated for it.
“When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.”
-- Dr. Donald DeYoung. Ph.D. (Physicist)
“Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence.” -- Hank Hanegraaff
If you want to see whether Bible is scientifically correct or not, visit my site http://ktzion.webs.com/scienceandthebible.htm .

Bittu ji and Aulakh ji,

Guru Fateh.

First and foremost, this article is not written by my but shared, thanks to Narayanjot Kaur ji for this excellent seva. The original authour is:Karl Giberson, Ph.D: Are Science and Religion Compatible?<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

As a Sikh, a learner, a seeker,it is our duty to expand our horizons by making knowledge our best friend, hence the name Sikh, so that we can get rid of man made cobwebs of dogmas which are based on subjective truths like Hell and Heaven rather than objective reality on which Sikhi is based, which helps us become pragmatists.

Bittu ji,

I have a few questions for you regarding your faith.

1. Were you born a Christian or a convert?
2. Which denomination of Christianity do you belong to and why did you choose this denomination in particular?
3. If you are a convert, what made you choose Christianity and what was your faith before that?
4. If you were born a Christian, then who was the first to convert to Christianity in your family/ancestors and what was the reason of the conversion?

After you have responded to the above, then we shall continue on our interfaith interaction and hopefully learn from each other. I am ready to learn as a Sikh and I hope you are too.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mai Harinder Kaur

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Oct 5, 2006
1,755
2,735
72
British Columbia, Canada
Dear Biitu Ji

This will be my last reply to you as I fear we are going in circles and not progressing anything

This is because you have consistently refused to acknowledge the counter-proofs we have presented to you, which is fair enough,
as they challenge what you believe in

But clearly, what you believe in is not the same as what myself and others on this thread believe in so we are all wasting our time here

I could continue to argue the points you have presented in red for example your comments around Pi...you call it logic, I call it a
subjective judgement and interpretation that suited your subsequent calculations. As for numerology, I have more than proven the point
and you really don't have a leg to stand on in terms of a counter-argument.

But ultimately this going back and forth will not get us anywhere as you have demonstrated a way of justifying and interpreting things
to suit your beliefs and you then refer to them as scientific proofs!

Mai Harinder Kaur Ji made an excellent observation in an earlier post about your approach in that you are using the thing to be proven as
it's own proof, i.e the Bible. Naturally, you know exactly where you are going to end up when you apply this circular self-fulfilling logic

It is my humble opinion that what you keep on referring to as your proofs are thus no more than hypotheses, which wikipedia
defines as “a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon”

But there is no credible empirical evidence to support your assertions. Here's what wiki has to say in this area:

“A central concept in*science*and the*scientific method*is that all*evidence*must be*empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent
on evidence or*consequences*that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of*empiricism*by
the use of the adjective*empirical*or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working*hypotheses*that are*testable*using*
observation*or*experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations.*
Empirical data*is*data*that is produced by*experiment*or*observation.”

You keen on going on about the Bible and Science but I see nothing at all in your approach that complies with the above definitions

Now you could say wikipedia has a grand anti-christian agenda or you could accept it as a neutral third party contributor in this debate.

As I noted earlier, there are other faiths with their own view of the Creation. There are mathematical and scientific references in other scriptures
including the Vedas and the Koran. Looking at Islam, they also revere Jesus but in a completely different way. Different religions with different
views and you are posting on a forum that is focussed on Sikh scriptures.

Whilst it has been a stimulating debate, I'm sorry to say it's just getting a bit boring for me now

I daresay you will have a response to this..I would expect no less going by past expeience!

But I have said my piece and won't be responding to you any further and wish you well in your quest for enlightenment

All the best Bittu Ji!

I have also said all I have to say; I have other things to do. I have one suggestion for you:

The Great Commission

<sup id="en-NIV-24209" class="versenum">16</sup>Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. <sup id="en-NIV-24210" class="versenum">17</sup>When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. <sup id="en-NIV-24211" class="versenum">18</sup>Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. <sup id="en-NIV-24212" class="versenum">19</sup>Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in<sup value="[<a href=" #fen-niv-24212a="" title="See footnote a">a]" class="footnote">[a]</sup> the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, <sup id="en-NIV-24213" class="versenum">20</sup>and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Please go do what your religion requires of you. Be a good Christian. But please do it somewhere else.
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,024
7,183
Henderson, NV.
Bittu ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:
I believe in the Bible. You are free to choose, that’s how God made us with free will.
By the above you have proven that the God you believe in is not omnipotent. If he were omnipotent, meaning ALL POWERFUL, then you as POWERLESS can not have the power to have freewill. If God gave you freewill then the God you serve is not omnipotent.

So, with you claim above, what you have done is that not only you have contradicted the God you serve but also contradicted yourself, which is a self defeating prophecy.

Regarding Adolf Hitler, He was a Christian like you are, hence he had the same faith/religion as you do. I hope you do not deny that fact.

Tejwant Singh
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Seeker9

Cleverness is not wisdom
SPNer
May 2, 2010
652
980
UK
Last edited:

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,024
7,183
Henderson, NV.
Dear Tejwant Singh Ji

A very good point I failed to pick up on earlier

http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

This site contains some quotes from Mein Kampf and Hitler's speeches which confirm Hitler's belief in The Bible and Christian roots

http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/2006/08/hitler-creationist.html

And this one has a German and English translation of an excerpt from a speech where Hitler specifically speaks out against evolution

I hope this is helpful

Seeker9 ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the above info. I have studied Mein Kempf and most of his speeches quite intensely just to learn what had turned him the way he had become. It was an eye opening experience.

Regards

Tejwant Singh
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Bittu ji

Debate issues. If Sikhs visit forums of other religions they are expected to be respectful of the religious sentiments of their Hindu or Muslim or Christian hosts. If they are not, then they are banned or their comments are deleted. Most forums segregate the commentary of members of other faiths into sections where they may speak. We have not done that. You are welcome to discuss any subject as a Christian but you must respect that this is a Sikh forum and certain types of remarks are not acceptable. Now please continue without resorting to name-calling. Thanks
 

Bittu

SPNer
Oct 24, 2008
44
4
Maharashtra,India
Please dont post threads on interreligious dialogues, so noone will defend his beliefs and noone will be hurt. By the I didnt start anything.

But still sorry for hurting you.

You have received a 10 month infraction. Proselytizing and hateful language are not tolerated. You did start something as this thread was in play and doing just fine until you entered the discussion. We have had this conversation before. What you are doing would not be tolerated on a Muslim forum or a Buddhist forum. Now please cool down. Narayanjot Kaur
 

Bmandur

SPNer
May 15, 2008
198
235
Canada
I know one thing what My Guru Nanak Dev ji said.
Lakh agaasa agaas, lakh ptaala ptaal,
But the Science is telling us NOW
So explain me how Science & Religion are Compatible

Thanks..

Tejwant singh ji it was very nice & Clear Artical you have put it together however, this is what I want an explanation for my understanding.
Bhul Chuk Maaf
 

Bmandur

SPNer
May 15, 2008
198
235
Canada
Sorry to say but you are hiding truth to save your position.


BITTU JI,

No one is hiding the truth from any one to save their Position. The fact is
we al have to give an opninion to understand qith your question
so you tell us what you think ( Are Science & Religion Compatible?

Bhul chuk Maaf
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,024
7,183
Henderson, NV.
Bittu, ji,

Guru Fateh.

Still waiting for the response about your start in Christianity as I asked you. Please do not feel hesitant to share and were you able to know what omnipotence really means or not? I am sure you are aware that you can use the help of internet dictionaries.

And, please act like Jesus and be polite and respectful. Your recent posts have shown the contrary.

I would like to share one thing though that you may not be aware of, that I am well versed in OT, NT and the scriptures from other main religions. We can learn a lot from each other provided we have no other agenda which makes us rude, full of hatred and disdain that I am sure a Christian or a Sikh or a person who breeds goodness within is not like.

So, stick to the questions asked rather than prejudging others and playing God which you have done often in your posts, which is a shame because it is so UNJESUS like.

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,024
7,183
Henderson, NV.
Dear Bmandur,

I posted reply but administrator deleted my post. Ask her to show that messege. And trully she is hiding truth, I presented.

Bittu.

Bittu ji,

Guru Fateh.

You are being unfair to Narayanjot Kaur ji and to this forum where you have the liberty to say what you have said in many of your posts. Once again you are acting very UNJESUS like when you claim that she is hiding the truth.

This would be the most open forum you would find on the internet because we as Sikhs- students, learners- love to learn from others and share ideas how we can become better within. Many forums would not have given you a chance to continue when you started with your UNJESUS like behaviour in your posts.

Truth needs no belief, no faith because it stands on its own, that is why Guru Nanak wrote IK ONG KAAR SATNAAM, the first two words in the SGGS, our only Guru and you know what the second word means.


In case you did not know, I do not consider Sikhi as a religion, faith or a belief but a way of life to seek SAT which needs none of these things I mentioned.

No one can hide the SAT no matter how much one tries. Blind faith and belief make people blind because TRUTH does not need either.

Lastly, I will urge you NOT to post any URLs here but share your own views. One can be very good at copying and pasting URLS but they are of no use when one can share things directly.

I would urge the Moderators to delete any URLs posted here because this forum is an open discussion forum where one can post one's thoughts instantly unlike other forums.

Regards

Tejwant Singh
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Tejwant ji

You as usual give some good advice and food for thought. Beyond that your perspective is one that keeps discussions free from sectarianism in places where it has no logical role to play.

Whatever position I am trying to preserve is a mystery but Bittu can explain his thoughts if he wants to do so. I was not offended and understand his frustrations even when I do not agree. Thank you.
 

polpol

SPNer
Jun 14, 2010
65
119
I found the following article and would like to share it here as I found it most amusing. The legend says the second student was Einstein but this is false. Enjoy!

God vs. Science

'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? 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 on to 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.'

'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 down 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
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 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...a very interesting semester, indeed!
 

polpol

SPNer
Jun 14, 2010
65
119
Dear All,
I sent the previous post without knowing about the conflict raised by our friend
bittu. I do not wish to add to the confusion and hard feelings, I really thought it is amusing and it is not to be taken sereously. So peace to all...
 
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
Top