Ugh... These Facebook posts about atheist professors v. christian student is getting tiring. Really, I have to say that is just spreading ignorance. I feel disgusted because it discredits science, and more importantly, hundreds of years of scientific discoveries in the field of biology. Maybe it became a little bit personal because it directly attacks my field of science -- genetics and evolutionary biology.
This is my version on how the conversation would have gone if the professor is a real intellectually informed professor.
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
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 (or as many as up to 20+ according to some scientists, or just 6 if you want to include common sense) 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, smell your god? Have you ever had any sensory perception of god for that matter/
Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Professor: Even with current scientific advancements we could not detect god with our scientific instruments. Yet you still believe in god?
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 theatre 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, were 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 is that even related?
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. (actually, neuroscience is just beginning to unravel the mystery of consciousness, it doesn't mean we cannot explain it in the future, just like how we wasn't able to explain lightning in the past but we can now.) It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one (this is just plain ignorant, the science of electromagnetism flourished during the late 19th century when experimentalists such as Tesla, Ampere, Fleming, Maxwell, Edison, etc. began to reveal the science behind it. Modern advancements in quantum physics gave further insight into electromagnetism, so much so that without at least a decade or more of studying in the field you wouldn't be able to fully understand it because there are just so much discoveries made in the past few decades .) 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.
Professor: Alright, I'll grant you that. So?
Student: 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, we did evolve from the same ancestor as monkey, but not from a monkey. You see, this is a flaw in your part, with a little bit of reading you would have found out that not a single evolutionary biologist in the world claimed that we evolved from monkey, we just happen to share the same common ancestor.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
Professor: As a matter of fact, yes. Evolution is the reason why so many pathogenic viruses and bacterias cannot be fully killed. Tiny variations among the micro-organisms allow some of them to survive the onslaught of anti-biotics and our body immune system and then reproduce by billions. That is the reason why in a few decades almost ALL of our medical antibiotics will be useless against bacterias if we do not discover new antibiotics soon. That is the reason why HIV is still running rampant in the human population, because the virus mutates and evolves so fast we cannot pin down an effective vaccine. But let's not dwell on something so small, but take a look at a more relatable example. Say for example a group of male lions are competing for lionesses, the strongest one wins out and gets to reproduce with the female. Because the male lion is strong, the offspring inherits some of its characteristics -- bigger paws, larger body mass, faster sprint speed, etc. This gives the offspring natural advantage over other lions and allows them to be able to produce more offspring. Slowly, they start to replace the whole population, and the population fully "evolves" when every lion in the population has the same advantageous characteristics. These are small changes, but given enough time, small changes accumulates into a huge change, but that would take thousands and sometimes millions of years. Humans do not have lifespan long enough to witness any major changes, that is why no major evolution has ever been observed, but microevolution happens everyday and scientists are very well aware of it.
[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?] (See above)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?
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?
Professor: With biology, science predicts that every normal functioning human has a functional brain. We may not have seen mine or yours, but so far the prediction holds true under all circumstances. With this in mind, I can be pretty sure that if I crack open my skull, we will find a brain inside. But we do not have to do that to see if you or I have a brain, scientific advancements gave us equipments that can observe a brain without any invasive technology. Instruments like CT scan and MRI allows us to see our brain activity. So yes, I have a brain, and you do to. But can we say the same about god?
Student : (silence)
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
p.s. The student wasn't Einstein. Einstein believed in a non-personal god, a non-judeochristian god that is not interested in the affairs of humans. He wouldn't be so motivated to prove the existence of god, and he certainly wouldn't be so ignorant and have weak arguments. Please do research before posting these kind of stuff and spreading ignorance. 'Nuff said.
Till next time, cheers~
