Talk:Atheist professor myth/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 20 January 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Snopes

This seems more Snopes than RationalWiki--"Shut up, Brx." 01:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be a better article if it said more about the myth being used than just recounting it. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the sections after the examples do ok as RW material. ħuman 02:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The snarky analysis of the different stories makes this great RW material Beatgroover (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Stereotypes utilized

In the section Stereotypes utilized we state: "The core of every variation of the myth is the idea that atheists are obsessed with disproving the existence of God. While some people like this do exist, most scientifically-minded atheists in the modern day recognize that the existence of God is not falsifiable, and instead focus on the negative effects that organized religion has on the world." (my italics)

While many athiests, myself included, think that the influence of religion is largely negative I am not entirely convinced that this is true globally. Indeed, the "atheist focusing on the negative aspects of religion" idea may itself be a stereotype.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

God's Not Dead

We need to have an article on this movie, stat. From the reviews I read, it's a propaganda piece that anyone with two brain cells should loath. --128.113.151.84 (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.Greatnecro (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Relation to the "God is Dead" Movement

The whole "atheist professor" meme may have started when Emory professor Tom Altizer made TIME magazine in 1965 and 1966 for his publications and teachings on "the death of God." Once Altizer got in the national media the story ran like wildfire that the university and its students were being corrupted by atheism. Altizer was not working out of the seminary and his theological work was actually about the range of options other than a/theism for Christians in the modern age, but Fundamentalist reactions went off in a predictable fashion.

I'd like to know if anyone can trace out a connection between this professor meme and Altizer. 67.22.207.123 (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Countermeme?

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3tv8kp/a_byui_professor_gets_whats_coming/ Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly an "atheist" version of that same, dumb story that never happened. Good catch. It deserves mention in the article, however minor. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The professor

... is a professor after all, and will have much knowledge and have encountered the same argument many, many times. The response is more likely to be 'You have attended this course and not learned how to come up with anything better than that illogical non-argument - you fail the course.' 86.191.127.106 (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Atheist professor myth part 2

Said anonymous student of said anonymous professor decides to join the academic world and becomes a professor.

One day a student in his class on 'the meaning of evil' stands up and asks

• 'Would you accept that being personally responsible for what one does is a mark of growing up/being a fully developed human?'
• 'Yes'
• 'We can choose to do the right thing or choose to do the wrong thing.'
• 'Yes.'
• 'So - is not the concept of 'evil' a denial of personal responsibility?'

The student sits down - as does the professor, instantly converted to atheism. 31.49.137.205 (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This really happened to me

I was in the first year of my super-rationalism degree, attending a lecture in applied cleverness, when the Skub-loving professor, a smug smile on his lips, said, "Is anyone here a Skub hater?"

I stood up and said, "I am, Sir!"

"Well," he said, "perhaps you could explain how Skub has at least one use, possibly more?"

"Simple," I replied, "Skub's shit."

There was a gasp from all the students. The professor ran out of the room, his life's work in ruins, and hanged himself in his office. Some people were sad at first, but then I pointed out to them that Skub's shit and they should be glad that the professor had escaped the grip of Skub before he died, and everyone was happy.

90.210.91.96 (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If the above is not a fairy tale, what's skub? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

They're have a go at us for taking a side on what they ultimately perceive to be a pointless debate. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Me again (the author). I was really having a go at the lack of effort that went into the original tale. I know Skub is about pointless debates but my main point was how shit the story can get away with being. 90.210.91.96 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

By definition

Anybody going through the process of degree, postgrad, doctorate, postdoc, professor of (philosophical and related topics) teaching classes in which this question could arise who has not considered this question and developed at least one answer (to cover several contexts) is probably not a good professor. 31.49.51.59 (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Less ridiculous version

I read this a few years ago on someone’s website, but I can’t remember who. I thought it was the liberal evangelical who wrote a book-length takedown of Left Behind, but I can’t find it. So anyway, I’ll paraphrase from memory:

A professor of philosophy, in his intro class, always launched into the section on theology with a demonstration: He would stand on his desk and yell “O God, if you exist and don’t want me to teach this section, use your infinite power to knock me off this desk. If you don’t, we’ll know that it’s safe for my students to listen, even if some of them are fundamentalist Christians or anything else that might give them doubts on that score.” For 30 years he’d never been pushed off his desk, and often his questions had ultimately led some unprepared students to doubt their faith, whether that was his intention or not. But one year, when he tried it, a hand shot up. “Yes, what is it?” asked the professor. The student replied:

”Sir, I am a Christian. I believe that God created me, and that all purposes are ultimately God’s purposes unless chosen out of sin. So if I push you off the table, that would count as God pushing off the table, just as if a thunderbolt did it. If you really need me to push you I can do so, of course, but my religion teaches me not to be violent unnecessarily—you’ve heard the turn the other cheek I story, right?—and—“

”No, point taken. And really, every part of that makes sense. I guess you win; if you want us to skip the section on religion—“

”Oh no, sir. no true knowledge can shake my faith, and god won’t let me be fooled by falsehoods as long as I’m careful. And frankly, if all your points are this lazy, with me here, I don’t think it will be a danger for anyone else to listen, and it may in fact be instructive.”

And that year, not a single student lost his faith over the professor’s questions.

This doesn't prove that God is real, prove an atheist conspiracy against believers, prove that all atheists are assholes but fortunately they’re even bigger idiots, etc., but then neither does the original. And this one has a point it actually achieves: it shows that a well-prepared believer can defeat at least lazy sophistry, and it’s worth doing so instead of shutting your ears, because shutting your ears doesn’t help the other people you’re supposed to be evangelizing to. Of course still doesn’t address the big question, that Muslim student could say the exact same things and go on to preserve a whole class’s faith in Islam in the exact same way, or a Wiccan, etc. And, more importantly, it’s not ridiculously funny to everyone outside the in-group... —157.131.152.164 (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The more one thinks about it

… the more illogical the story is.

A few seconds on the Albert Einstein Wikipedia page shows that he was unlikely to have asked the question (wrong sort of academic study environment) - and as said above #any# 'academic level philosophy (of science) teacher' who has not been exposed to 'the concept of evil' (in the Western tradition environment) and has not come up with answers for various types of strawman-question-posers would be thoroughly incompetent. Anna Livia (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Next version

It is the last lecture at the end of term. The atheist professor who teaches a course on the underpinnings of philosophical worldviews looks at the assembled students.

'I know a number of you feel very strongly about your religious opinions - yet none of you have challenged me, as an atheist, about the problem of evil. If you wish to continue this course, prepare an essay on Atheism and the Problem of Evil.' 'Actually,' said one of the students in question, 'we were going to discuss the topic with you down the pub, The Goat and Compasses.'

Anna Livia (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Another case against

For the story to 'make sense' the class in question would have to be in 'philosophy/cultural ideas etc.'

It would probably take 10+ years to go from 'starting a degree' to 'becoming a lecturing professor', and said academic will have to publish papers etc to justify their continued employment/tenure: so either the professor will have to devise a set speech/screed 'reconciling atheism and the problem of evil. '

After the incident described the students will wonder - if the professor 'with all his research, writings, discussions with fellow academics and teaching of students has not considered the problem of evil until now, what else haven't we been taught?' and start a class action lawsuit/spouting to their followers on the various media - and the university in question would be rather narked.

And [1] might be apposite here. Anna Livia (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Davis Aurini version?~

I vote no, but added here:

One cold English morning, Karl Marx was giving a lecture at a local university on the principles of socialism and his critique of capitalism. He and his class had covered almost everything, from the LTV and the price of linen to the concept of alienation. Marx was satisfied that he had thoroughly banished classical economic theory to a footnote in world history, and that his flawless theory of history would surely awaken his students to the very real problem of class. Wrapping up his lecture, Marx made a point of asking his class "any questions, queries or concerns?". To his surprise, a young student lifted his hand high in the air in defiant enthusiasm. "But what about human nature!", the student exclaimed while clutching a copy of Fountainhead under his arm. Marx was startled by this doctrine, and he dropped his chalk and copy of Lectures on Aesthetics, the pages of which spilled over the floor with a thud. In all his years of research, he had never considered the blatant fact that humans always behave selfishly, and are inherently uncooperative beings. He left the hall in tears as all of his students laughed hysterically at the ignorance of the dirty old man. Retaking his seat, the young rational resumed his reading of Fountainhead. The students name? Davis Aruni, noted correct person, racist magician and man of science. And they all lived in eternal happiness. The End.

32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk)

So - Does evil exist?

I think the RW response to the story may be taking the premise a little too much for granted. The question, "does evil exist should probably not be glossed over so quickly. I'm not sure that the putative professor of (presumably) philosophy would not have spent some time considering what we mean by "evil" before asking the question.Hubert (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there's certainly a lot of debate about whether evil exists (other than as an absence of good), and this adds to the implausibility of the whole story. The article could mention this. --Annanoon (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

There are 'courses of action' which people generally regard as being evil or malicious etc (causing death, destruction, pain etc etc) - someone chooses to do those things (without there being other factors). Would not the atheist professor ask - is there an external influencer, and if so who or why, and if a matter of choice, why? Anna Livia (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)