It’s an old story; the Evil Atheist Professor is telling his students why god isn’t real, and then the heroic student proves him wrong, usually causing the Evil Professor to leave in shame. It’s a staple of Christians on social media, and the latest example is no exception; instances of it are cropping up with surprising frequency. It goes something like this.
Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?
Student : Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent.)
Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does satan come from ?
Student : From … GOD …
Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Student : No, sir. There isn’t.
(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?
Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness 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 its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is 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?
Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)
Student : 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 not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class was in uproar.)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?
(The class broke out into laughter. )
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? 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, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.
I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you’ll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won’t you?
Forward this to increase their knowledge … or FAITH.
By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.
First off, Einstein was an Agnostic, who didn’t believe in the concept of a “personal God.” But since Einstein is the go-to name when someone wants a stereotypical smart character, we can just chalk this one up to a lack of creativity.
Second, this narrative attempts to address Epicurus’ famous statement about god and evil; “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
It fails hilariously, because it missed the point.
It tries to say that evil is an absence of god. However, these same people will tell you that god is omnipotent; all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-capable. That means that there is no such thing as an absence of god; how can an omnipresent being not be present?
It does do a good job of diverting the attention of the reader, giving it weight when you first read it. But it collapses like a house of cards the moment you look at it critically.
Now, just for grins and giggles, I’ll go ahead and point out the flaws in the students arguments that cause the professor to place his foot in his mouth.
First up, the point that evolution hasn’t been witnessed and must be “taken on faith.” While true that macro-evolution (The mutation of one species into another over millenia) has not been proven via observation, there is hard, physical evidence for it; fossils of intermediary species long extinct, unusual similarities between different species, etc. In addition, the process of micro-evolution (changes to a species by random mutation not resulting in the creation of a new species) is a measurable, observable, and proven process, accepted even by fundamentalist Christian scientists.
These Christian scientists will tell you that micro-evolution’s proven existence does not prove macro-evolution, claiming that they are different processes. This is, however, incorrect. The two processes are identical, with the exception of the time taken. In addition, the classification of species is based solely on a judgement by (fallible) scientists; a decision is made as to whether or not this new specimen is different enough from previous ones to be classified as a different species. The line is blurry.
The second observation by the student, which the author intends to be humorous, is the comment that since the professor’s brain has not been observed, it does not exist. First, one is capable of observing a human brain via a vast number of different scanning methods, as well as by surgical dissection. Second, it can be safely assumed that he has one because he’s alive, moving, and speaking. I don’t need to go any further, as this point made by the student is so obviously ignorant.
Obviously, the lack of evidence for god presented by the professor is not proof of god’s non-existence; indeed, there are logical arguments in favor of the existence of a higher being. But there is no physical evidence that cannot be easily refuted proving the existence of a higher being, and until some evidence presents itself, Agnosticism remains the logical choice.
Have something to say? Leave a comment!
- nevtelin likes this
- allanjh reblogged this from happyandcatholic and added:
- happyandcatholic reblogged this from allanjh and added:
- allanjh posted this