The Mythic Hero That Tells Off Atheist Professors

You may have seen this floating around your facebook, or your inbox:

"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."

All it requires to understand that this story probably never happened is about thirty seconds of research on Google. It's not recorded in any of Einstein's extensive biographical works, it is understood to be in conflict with his religious views, and this chain e-mail existed way before the story was being attributed to Einstein.

Now, if you want to read a nice, heartwarming story that villainizes the "evil atheist professor" and turns the Student That Sums Up All The Truths of the Universe In One Cute Anecdote into the mythic hero, cool. But why attach Einstein's name to it and advertise it as an opportunity to "increase knowledge or faith?" It's made up, so you're not increasing knowledge or a faith in anything real.

Perhaps the more important question here is... Why do we, as people of faith, feel the need to attribute characteristics to great thinkers that make us feel better about ourselves? Is your God so small that you cannot have faith without rewriting history, that you cannot appreciate a great mind that didn't hold all the same beliefs as you? That's a dangerous place to be. Furthermore, why does the villain always have to be the atheist professor? Why is it necessary for us to strip him of his humanity and make him the fool of our tales?

Could it be that we are afraid to face his questions and doubts, because they are so like our own?

Could it be that we're afraid of wrestling with the difficult concepts of faith and evil?

Could it be that it's less work to have everything we believe come gift-wrapped in a feel-good chain email rather than earnestly seeking the truth?

KONY2012

oh lawd, i promised myself i wouldnt do this, but desperate times call for desperate blogs.

first, some factual statements.
1. i think about some aspect of international development every day.
2. i ponder the meaning of life every day.
3. i have moral, ethical and philosophical debates with myself every day. sometimes about important things involving human rights and social justice, sometimes about if i should use left over dark chocolate from the vegan cookies as a paint medium, or just eat it (the latter won out).
4. i try to keep up with global happenings, as it is something that interests me and i feel it is important.

as i have never been anyone other than myself, im not entirely sure if other people think about these things on a daily basis. my first impulse would be no.
i am technically a trained anthropologist, so i should know how to observe social realities created by human beings.. yet im not very comfortable judging people on this matter.
i do know for a fackt, however, that there are many people i am friends/acquaintances with who are not very interested in these things, because they ask me questions like:
"What is international development?"
well ill tell you what it is. its a bunch of white people that sit around, argue nonstop with each other, and generally feel more enlightened than everyone else in the entire world.
class dismissed.


on to the matter at hand, ive known about invisible children since i was a teenager. ive been to a lot of their events in the states. i know a ton of people who have been involved with their movement. i happened to drop by their office in gulu when i was in the area and had a lovely chat with some people there. locals we talked to seemed to appreciate them working there. mind you, gulu is flooded with international organizations that showed up just about the time the conflict moved out. so IC is just kind of another organization hangin around northern Uganda hoping to empower the post-conflict society and bring some stability.
or are they?
see, in the world of international development, IC has accomplished something the arguingwhitepeople could never dream of doing. they have literally captured the world with a current, global issue (and by world i mean of course the entire western community, as well as the wannabe-western communities that are not currently engaged in some horrid conflict of their own).
yes, i was skeptical of this world-capturing as well. but as i sat through a 30 min discussion on KONY2012 in my development methods course today, i realized that it is very true.
last semester i actually wrote an essay on IC and how they use social media to communicate their message to western youth. when i explained my essay topic to my professor im pretty sure he didnt know who IC was. and today they were the case study of an entire class period.
on the other hand, i know people, dear sweet people, who couldnt point out uganda or drc on a map, yet they could tell you all about IC’s mission.
its literally everywhere. i could go on.

how very interesting indeed.

i tried to dislike IC. i really did. they are just so damn positive. (development studies really eats your soul btw). (if you didnt know). so yes we can critique their development policy and presentation and understanding. we can point out flaws in their media and information. we can sit around and argue with each other and think were more enlightened than everyone else. but im telling you, if i was in their position right now i would take the same approach. almost
because i want my friends and family who know nothing about africa to be aware of current human rights issues. i want people to get involved in a global discourse. not everyone can/will/cares to devote their life to development studies, but they should still have access to information. and that information needs to be easily understood and simplified. is this right? prob not. is it the only way information can be understood on a global level?
a resounding YES.
so. the arguingwhitepeoplewhothinktheyknoweverything are in an uproar about KONY2012 and my friends that have never traveled out of the US have become overnight social activists.
either way, people are talking about it. because..oh wait, thats actually the point.
IC empowers people.
people will actually do things if they feel compelled.
because people want to be part of something bigger than themselves.
they will mobilize if they feel they need to be heard and seen.
this is why grassroots bottom-up movements are so important. you build a collective that is personally invested and passionate about the situation.
if this is a fad, or a trend, or a distraction, is it not something worthwhile? should lay people (ie. people that do not study development/geography/politics/anthropology/etc/etc/etc/etc) be forever destined to think only about things like the jersey shore and justin beiber and groupon? do they have an equal say in global matters? or should they be excluded?
i think IC answers that question for them. they make this information accessible.
does global information come at the expense of distortion, misinterpretation and manipulation? yep. so should all the experts hoard this info for themselves?
[if i could just go out on a limb here and say, i think academia/researchers/experts are so afraid of being criticized, it seems they only speak out on issues (i mean in a broad, widely publicized context) when it directly threatens their howevermanyyears of research. they only speak out when they can slam someone for being 'wrong' or maybe 'not as educated' and throw a bunch of sources in their face. it seems to me that they are more eager to criticize everyone else than to take the initiative to bring social justice issues to light and suggest methods of positive change. because they are so cautious of being critiqued. is this something we should be ok with?]

ive always thought it was strange that all the wonderful (and not so wonderful) things i learn in social science are never written in a way that is accessible for the broader public. while i think this has something to do with academic elitism, social stratigraphy and the idea of western knowledge (which is another story entirely) (a rather really long story), i can only hope that academics and development experts actually try to engage with this audience. because right now, IC and organizations like it are trying to fill this gap between knowledge and accessibility.
and people are responding to it! and theres money! oh my!

i have supported IC for years and i still do.
but i wish a western organization didnt have to be the face of central africa to the world (the world as we have previously defined it).
i wish everyone had an equal voice.
i wish humanitarian aid didnt have to exist.
i wish everyone was equally knowledgeable about social issues.
i wish things could be different,
but theyre not.



so. to recap-

things are really complicated.

people are people, so why should it be..

i have been noticing something in class recently that is both troubling and puzzling to me.

in said class we are discussing yet again the so called ‘poverty trap’ most countries in africa seem to be associated with. and the problems with lumping african nations into one entity. neocolonialism. neoliberalism. politics. corruption. humanitarian aid. globalization.
yes. basically we read, listen and discuss for hours on end about all the wrong ways of approaching poverty and slowly but surely come to the conclusion that there is nothing we can do about it. so lets just get out there and contribute to the problem already!

and just when you thought that was troubling and puzzling..

i am noticing a recurring trend in class, where the europeans/americans/australians, mostly men (just a friendly observation), sit in a group and make fun of other people.

this is grad school, ladies and gentlemen.

in seminar the other day, we were discussing (yet again) the issues with using the term ‘Africa’ to describe all african nations and what that means, and we decided that it was quite eurocentric and it carries certain stereotypes based on western bias, blah blah blah. one of the africans in our class goes to make a point, which drags on for a bit and kind of turns into a story, and its getting near the end of class, and i hear white boy corner giggling and making comments.
wut.
today in the same seminar, lovely chinese man is making points referring to china and its success within the global market in the recent past, blah blah blah. hes going on for a while, expanding on his point. focusing on something that he feels is important, but may be lost in cultural translation. apparently going way beyond white-boy-corner’s comfort level. and there it is again. i cant believe it. more laughter and comments. quiet enough not to be heard. loud enough to be noticed by bored, observant, stealthy anthropologists.

it is very strange to me that these people can be so sincere in theory, (and they are all very smart, i assure you. we attend one of the top 20 universities in the world. yeah, thats right) but are completely unaware of how eurocentrism affects their own minds! in this seminar circle of about 20 people form all over the world, they are the standard to which everyone else must form, even though they are in the minority. sound familiar?

how can someone even think about working in development/relief aid/etc and not be able to respect the cultural/ethnic diversity within their own classroom?

im not sure if i want to know the answer to that. unconsciously or not, this group, its worldview and customs, are still perpetuated as the standard to which the world is upheld.

help!