Professor and the Student

I’m sure many have seen the following article posted and reposted.

————————–

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?
Professor: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes.
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.
P.S.
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.
I hope you LEARN get additional KNOWLEDGE upon reading this STORY.
THANK YOU
LIKE & SHARE
REPOSTED by:
Creator: Prince Akhiro Sangukho

—————–

First of all, this article is using a psychological trick called the framing effect.  The accompanying picture shows a roomful of young students with one raising his hand, against a background of a huge blackboard full of information, with a man standing in front of it, supposedly the teacher or professor.  The reader is primed to see the professor as an authoritative and presumably intellectually superior figure, with the student being the underdog.  The two sides are already on an unequal footing, which makes for a good story (David vs. Goliath) but is intellectually dishonest and misleading.  Ideas should stand and fall on their own merit – who or how it is delivered should not make a difference.

Specifically:

Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you.

The truth is that our senses only give us an approximation of reality, and is biased to what has evolutionarily been relevant to us.  Our brain constructs a scenario based upon biased input from the senses, often ignoring conflicting or dissonant information.  Relevant examples include optical illusions, inattentional blindness, etc.  Science actually tells us that our senses are fallible and unreliable, and the scientific method can minimize or eliminate observer’s bias.  The implication of the author is that science relies solely only on the 5 senses (untrue).  So, the statement implies that religion does not rely on the 5 senses alone.  And what would religion rely upon?  Superstition?  Telepathy?  Magic?  Literature from the Bronze Age?

Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?

Science does not say that something does not exist simply because it is not empirical, testable, or demonstrable.  For example, as of today, we do not know that there is life outside of earth.  No evidence has emerged so far.  Yet no self respecting scientist will say that life outside of earth does not exist.  The default position of science is “we don’t know”.  To say that life exists outside of earth simply because there is no disproving evidence, is violating the null hypothesis, and a clear logical fallacy (ad ignorantiam).  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Absence of proof is not proof of absence; and certainly much less proof of existence.

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?


An opinion carries far less weight when it is not supported by evidence.  Evolution is not an personal opinion, but a well-formed and widely accepted theory, which in particular does not require immediate direct personal observation.  The usefulness of a scientific theory lies in its usefulness in not only explaining past occurrences, but more importantly, generating testable and falsifiable predictions.  If the prediction turns out to be false, then the theory must be revisited and possibly rejected.  There is ample evidence of evolution from fossil records and DNA analysis, and the theory generates predictions such as the existence of intermediate fossils that can and have been found.  Intelligent Design is, to the extent of my knowledge, not falsifiable, adds no knowledge or understanding, produces no useful prediction, and thus does not qualify as a theory, much less a valid competing theory.

Contrary to what the story says, electricity and magnetism are well studied and understood.  But for a moment let’s suspend reality and say that scientists do not understand the ultimate nature of electricity or magnetism.  Through observation and experimentation, they still devise the laws and equations of the behavior, and formulate a theory and use this as the basis to make electrical circuits and motors successfully.  The theory still produces demonstrably useful results, as evidenced in the medium in which I am posting and you are reading.  A theory is useful because it explains how things work and predicts how things will work.  It is not necessary to know how an electron originated for the theory to be useful.  Not knowing the origin does not diminish its usefulness nor does it invalidate the theory, much less turn into an opinion that can be dismissed.  Not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything.  That is a false dichotomy.

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 premise is that something has to be tangible to the senses to exist.  It is true that it is possible that by some freak of nature that the professor has no brain.  However any sensible person would consider that as highly unlikely, since so far every professor that has existed has been shown to have a brain, post mortem or otherwise.  Additional evidence can be obtained from X-rays, CAT scans, or a variety of other methods.  Absence of immediate, tangible evidence is not proof of absolute absence of evidence.  For example, not having $10,000 in my pocket right now could be because that I do not have that much money, or that I have it but simply not in immediate possession.  It proves neither scenario.

The point about not trusting the lectures is spot on, but for the wrong reasons.  It is always healthy to question authority, be it a professor or other authority figure.  An argument should always stand on its own, not because someone simply says so, it is popular, or because it is “ancient wisdom” (argument from authority/ad populum/antiquity).

Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.
This sounds more like something said by a pastor, not a person of science.  It is rather unusual for a professor to call out a student for his religious beliefs, and even more unusual that he would address the student as “son”.

By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.

This has been shown to be false (see link).  First of all, Einstein, being Jewish, was not a Christian.  Secondly, this line of thinking is not consistent with Spinozism, the philosophy Einstein seemingly favors in his writings.

“Never let facts get in the way of a good story”.  If only it were a good story.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.