Which Deity Are We Discussing?

However, the truth is that Einstein never articulated such thoughts; he identified more as an agnostic who distanced himself from religious affiliations. Besides being fictitious, these arguments are riddled with flaws.

To begin with, the premise that “God is evil because he creates everything” is misleading. If God is indeed the creator of all, why focus solely on evil? Are not the beautiful and quirky aspects of life also part of His creation?

Interestingly, a phrase once etched on the wall of a concentration camp reads: “If there is a God, He will have to beg my forgiveness.” This suggests that some people feel justified in believing God has intentionally caused suffering.

When examining the argument regarding cold, while we understand the point being made, a scientist could easily conduct a study on how “cold” affects human behavior by operationally defining it—such as setting a temperature of 32°F or -10°C—while agreeing that those temperatures are perceived as “cold.” Moreover, “cold” is an experience shared universally, except among a few with specific conditions; claiming that it does not exist seems exaggerated.

Yet, for the sake of argument, we might entertain this assumption; it is not entirely inaccurate.

The flaws arise when he leaps to his conclusion: “Evil is simply the absence of God,” and “Evil results from not having God’s love.” But which God are we referring to? Are we to believe that Christianity is the sole religion with the truth? What about the many other faiths that worship multiple deities, and the countless good individuals within those traditions?

Are we to assume that only followers of your belief system can be “good”? And what of the agnostics or atheists? Are we to disregard the goodness found among them? Take, for instance, the list of notable American atheists; while they may not resemble saints like Mother Teresa, they are not inherently evil.

Furthermore, if one's motivation for doing good stems from a fear of divine punishment or a desire for heavenly rewards, it falls short of being true altruism as defined by psychological standards. Genuine altruism involves acting for the sake of goodness itself, without any expectation of reward, including divine acknowledgment.

Removing references to “God” from these arguments reveals the storyteller’s biases and limited perspective.

Renowned naturalist David Attenborough noted that he is often asked why he does not attribute nature’s beauty to a divine creator. His response illustrates the complexity of the issue:

“When people cite nature’s wonders as evidence of a deity, they often highlight beautiful aspects like orchids and butterflies. Yet, I cannot forget the child in West Africa suffering from blindness due to a parasitic worm. Presumably, the same God created the worm, which complicates the narrative of a merciful deity. I prefer to present the truth as I see it and let others draw their own conclusions about morality and theology.”

He further discussed the brutality of nature, such as chimpanzees hunting and consuming monkeys alive.

Thus, if a deity exists, it is uncertain whether they can be classified as “loving” or “merciful.”

Is Seeing Believing?

Another spurious tale features a professor insisting that God cannot exist because no one has physically seen, felt, or heard Him. A clever student supposedly counters, “Have you seen or felt our professor’s brain?” and the professor is left speechless.

This misunderstanding of science is as prevalent as our fondness for sweets. Individuals lacking scientific training often equate science with “seeing is believing.” However, if that were true, we would have to accept that the moon expands when it rises and that the Earth is flat.

In science, the focus is not on mere perception but on measurement. If an object, phenomenon, or concept can be quantified, it is considered to exist. We may not see wind, electricity, or heat directly, nor can we observe romantic love, yet we can measure them through instruments or validated surveys. While we cannot directly view the professor’s brain, an MRI could provide clarity. The same cannot be said for God; no current instrument can objectively identify or measure Him, leaving the matter entirely subjective.

It is unfortunate that such half-baked tales are circulated to convince others—and perhaps the storyteller themselves—that science is flawed and that a deity exists.

Nonetheless, the inability to measure something does not inherently imply its non-existence; it simply indicates our current lack of knowledge. We should remember that scientific evidence for or against the existence of God remains elusive. Science has its limitations, representing humanity's imperfect pursuit of truth; it is not infallible, but it is our most effective tool.

The Issue of Violence

Lastly, there is a narrative about an atheist professor who challenges the existence of God by declaring, “God, if you are real, knock me off this platform.” Naturally, nothing occurs. The professor continues to provoke until a Marine or Navy Seal intervenes, punching him off the platform, thus rendering him unconscious. The Marine then claims, “God was busy; He sent me.”

This scenario is particularly troubling. It seems unfathomable that someone would concoct a violent narrative to validate their belief in God.

This story does not prove the existence of God; it could easily be replaced with other figures like “Santa Claus” or “aliens.” What kind of rational professor would waste time attempting to disprove a deity? It is nonsensical to demand that God “knock me off this platform,” as even a parent would not respond in such a manner.

Narcissism often stems from insecurity, compelling individuals to resort to violence when their egos feel threatened, whether genuinely or not. Those who propagate such stories often exhibit troubling behavior and, in certain circumstances, pose a danger to society.

Science and Religion: A Complex Relationship

Some individuals humorously express that “religion is like a private part: it’s fine to take pride in it, but don’t flaunt it.” While amusing, I believe religion should resemble a bouquet: it should attract others with its beauty rather than instilling fear or false beliefs, which merely reflects arrogance and self-doubt.

So, are science and religion fundamentally opposed?

From my perspective, a true scientist might assert: “There is no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of God, so we must acknowledge our ignorance. Personally, I believe…” Many scientists identify as agnostics or atheists, but that is their personal conviction; they do not claim their beliefs as absolute truths that others must accept.

Attenborough articulated this well when asked why he does not simply declare himself an atheist. He reflected on observing termites, blind to his presence, and pondered whether he might also lack some sense of understanding.

In my earlier piece on the Science of Afterlife, I explored scientific insights into Near-Death Experiences (NDE). Accumulated data over decades suggests that death may not signify an end but rather a new beginning. Many individuals who undergo NDEs report feeling a connection to a Higher Being, even as they often distance themselves from organized religion afterward. This indicates that many NDE survivors perceive that established religions lack the spiritual essence they experience during such encounters.

The research surrounding NDEs contributes to my agnostic stance, rather than outright atheism. As a scientist and professor, my response to whether God exists is simply that I do not know—and I would be equally astonished if either scenario proved true.

Should a deity exist, I have countless questions for this Higher Being. Richard Dawkins, a noted biologist, has discussed various distressing occurrences in nature, such as the female digger wasp that paralyzes a caterpillar before laying its eggs inside it. He commented:

“Nature is not cruel; it is merely indifferent. This is one of the most challenging lessons for humanity to grasp. We must accept that events may neither be good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply indifferent to suffering, devoid of purpose.”

This inquiry encapsulates my greatest question for the Higher Being(s) as well.