Debat Filsafat

Sumber

ALKISAH, seorang profesor filsafat menantang mahasiswanya: “Apakah Tuhan menciptakan segala yang ada?”

Seorang mahasiswa menjawab, “Betul, Dia yang menciptakan semuanya”.

“Tuhan menciptakan semuanya?”, tanya professor sekali lagi.

“Ya, Pak, semuanya”, kata mahasiswa tersebut.

Profesor itu menjawab, Jika Tuhan menciptakan segalanya, berarti Tuhan menciptakan Kejahatan. Karena kejahatan itu ada, dan menurut prinsip kita bahwa pekerjaan kita menjelaskan siapa kita, jadi kita bisa berasumsi bahwa Tuhan itu adalah kejahatan.”

Mahasiswa itu terdiam dan tidak bisa menjawab pernyataan professor tersebut.

Seorang mahasiswa lain mengangkat tangan dan berkata, “Profesor, boleh saya bertanya sesuatu?”

“Tentu saja,” jawab si professor, “itulah inti dari diskurus filsafat.”

Mahasiswa itu berdiri dan bertanya, “Profesor, apakah dingin itu ada?”

“Tentu saja,” ungkap si professor. Raut muka si professor tidak berubah karena ia sudah mendengar argumen buruk seperti ini berulang kali.

Si murid menanggapi, “Kenyataannya, Pak, dingin itu tidak ada. Menurut hukum fisika, yang kita anggap dingin itu adalah ketiadaan panas. Suhu -460F adalah ketiadaan panas sama sekali. Dan semua partikel menjadi diam dan tidak bisa bereaksi pada suhu tersebut. Kita menciptakan kata dingin untuk mendeskripsikan ketiadaan panas.”

Sang professor pun menjawab dengan tegas: “Kamu ingat bab mengenai kesesatan semantik dalam bukumu?”

Si murid tampak bingung.

“Biar saya ulangi secara singkat. “Panas” dan “dingin” adalah istilah subjektif. Menurut John Locke, keduanya merupakan contoh “kualitas sekunder”. Kualitas sekunder merujuk kepada bagaimana kita merasakan suatu fenomena yang memang ada, dan dalam kasus ini pergerakan partikel atomik. Istilah “dingin” dan “panas” merujuk kepada interaksi antara sistem saraf manusia dengan variasi kecepatan dalam partikel atomik di lingkungan. Jadi apa yang sesungguhnya ada adalah suhu… istilah “panas” dan “dingin” hanyalah istilah subjektif yang kita gunakan untuk menjelaskan pengalaman kita mengenai suhu.”

“Maka argumen Anda salah. Anda tidak membuktikan bahwa “dingin” itu tidak ada, atau bahwa “dingin” ada tanpa status ontologis, apa yang Anda lakukan adalah menunjukkan bahwa “dingin” adalah istilah subjektif. Hapuskanlah konsep subjektif tersebut, dan suhu yang kita sebut “dingin” akan tetap ada. Menghapuskan istilah yang kita gunakan untuk merujuk kepada suatu fenomena tidak menghapuskan keberadaan fenomena tersebut.”

Murid: (agak shock) “Uh… oke… em, apakah gelap itu ada?”

Professor: “Anda masih mengulangi kesesatan logika yang sama, hanya kualitas sekundernya yang diganti.”

Murid: “Jadi menurut professor kegelapan itu ada?”

Professor: “Apa yang saya katakan adalah bahwa Anda mengulangi kesesatan yang sama. “Kegelapan” adalah kualitas sekunder.”

Murid: “Professor salah lagi. Gelap itu juga tidak ada. Gelap adalah keadaan dimana tidak ada cahaya. Cahaya bisa kita pelajari, gelap tidak. “Kita bisa menggunakan prisma Newton untuk memecahkan cahaya menjadi beberapa warna dan mempelajari berbagai panjang gelombang setiap warna. Tapi Anda tidak bisa mengukur gelap. Seberapa gelap suatu ruangan diukur dengan berapa intensitas cahaya di ruangan tersebut. Kata gelap dipakai manusia untuk mendeskripsikan ketiadaan cahaya.”

Professor: “Gelap dan terang” adalah istilah subjektif yang kita gunakan untuk mendeskripsikan bagaimana manusia mengukur foton atau partikel dasar cahaya secara visual. Foton itu memang ada, sementara “gelap” dan “terang” hanyalah penilaian subjektif kita… yang sekali lagi terkait dengan interaksi antara sistem saraf manusia dengan fenomena alam yang lain, yaitu foton. Jadi, sekali lagi, hapuskanlah istilah subjektif itu dan foton akan tetap ada. Jika manusia menyebut “foton sebanyak x” sebagai “gelap” sementara kucing menyebutnya “cukup terang untukku”, foton sebanyak x yang kita sebut sebagai “gelap” tetap ada, dan akan tetap akan ada walaupun kita tidak menyebutnya gelap. Sudah paham, atau masih kurang jelas?”

Sang murid tampak tercengang.  Sang professor berkata, “Tampaknya Anda masih bingung dengan kesesatan dalam argumen Anda. Tapi silakan lanjutkan, mungkin Anda akan paham.”

Sang murid berkata, “Professor mengajar dengan dualitas. Professor berargumen tentang adanya kehidupan lalu mengajar tentang adanya kematian, adanya Tuhan yang baik dan Tuhan yang jahat. Professor memandang Tuhan sebagai sesuatu yang dapat kita ukur.”

Professor langsung memotong, “Berhati-hatilah. Jika Anda menempatkan Tuhan di luar jangkauan nalar, logika dan sains dan membuatnya “tak terukur”, maka yang tersisa hanyalah misteri yang Anda buat sendiri. Jadi jika Anda menggunakan dalih bahwa Tuhan ada di luar jangkauan untuk menyelesaikan masalah, Anda juga tak bisa mengatakan bahwa Tuhan Anda bermoral. Bahkan Anda tak bisa menyebutnya sebagai apapun kecuali tak terukur. Jadi solusi Anda tidak ada bedanya dengan membersihkan ketombe dengan memangkas rambut.”

Murid tersebut tercengang, namun tetap berusaha melanjutkan, “Professor, sains bahkan tidak dapat menjelaskan sebuah pemikiran. Ilmu ini memang menggunakan listrik dan magnet, tetapi tidak pernah seorangpun yang melihat atau benar-benar memahami salah satunya..”

Professor: “Anda mengatakan bahwa sains tak bisa menjelaskan pikiran. Saya sendiri kurang paham apa yang Anda maksud. Apakah Anda mencoba mengatakan bahwa masih banyak misteri dalam neurosains?”

Murid: “Begitulah.”

“Dan bahwa pikiran, listrik dan magnetisme itu kita anggap ada walaupun tak pernah kita lihat?”

“Benar!”

Sang professor tersenyum dan menjawab, “Bukalah kembali bukumu mengenai kesesatanfalse presumption. Perhatikan bab “kesalahan kategoris.” Kalau Anda pernah membacanya, Anda akan ingat bahwa kesalahan kategoris adalah saat Anda menggunakan tolak ukur yang salah untuk suatu entitas, misalnya menanyakan warna dari suara. Meminta seseorang melihat magnetisme secara langsung merupakan kesalahan kategoris.”

“Namun, masih ada kesalahan lain dalam argumen Anda. Anda berasumsi bahwa empirisisme atau bahkan sains hanya didasarkan kepada pengamatan langsung. Ini tidak tepat. Penglihatan bukanlah satu-satunya cara untuk memahami dunia, dan sains juga bukan ilmu yang mempelajari apa yang kita lihat. Kita dapat menggunakan indera lain untuk melacak suatu fenomena. Dan kita juga dapat mempelajari pengaruh fenomena tersebut terhadap dunia.”

“Lebih lagi, Anda kembali melakukan kesalahan dengan menyatakan bahwa karena sains itu belum lengkap berarti Tuhan itu ada. Mungkin Anda perlu mempelajari kembali kesesatan “argumentum ad ignoratiam” atau argumen dari ketidaktahuan.”

“Dan juga, seperti yang dikatakan oleh Neil deGrasse Tyson, gunakanlah contoh yang lebih baik karena sains sudah mampu menjelaskan bagaimana pikiran terbentuk dan bahkan Maxwell sudah lama menggabungkan elektrisme dan magnetisme menjadi elektromagnetisme. Contoh yang lebih baik itu misalnya materi gelap yang membuat perluasan alam semesta menjadi begitu cepat. Fisikawan tak bisa menjawab itu, dan mungkin Anda akan mengatakan jawabannya Tuhan. Namun dengan begitu, Anda justru sedang menyusutkan Tuhan. Anda melakukan kesesatan ad ignoratiam bahwa yang belum dijelaskan sains itu adalah keajaiban Tuhan, dan itu berarti Anda menempatkan Tuhan untuk mengisi gap dalam sains. Nah, dahulu manusia juga tak mampu menjawab mengapa hujan terbentuk atau mengapa gunung meletus, dan orang-orang dulu menyebutnya karena Tuhan. Kini kita sudah memahami hujan dan gunung meletus, begitu pula pikiran, listrik dan magnetisme, dan ke depannya materi gelap juga mungkin akan kita pahami. Dengan begitu Tuhan yang mengisi gap pun terus menciut.”

“Masih ada yang mau ditambahkan? Apakah penjelasan saya sudah cukup jelas?”

Sang murid tampak bingung dan mencoba melakukan ad nauseam, “Em…  kembali ke diskusi awal kita. Untuk menilai kematian sebagai kondisi yang berlawanan dengan kehidupan sama saja dengan melupakan fakta bahwa kematian tidak bisa muncul sebagai suatu hal yang substantif. Kematian bukanlah kontradiksi dari hidup, hanya ketiadaan kehidupan saja.”

Professor pun berkata, “Apakah Anda jatuh cinta dengan kesesatan kualitas sekunder? Lagi-lagi Anda melakukan kesalahan yang sama.” “Kematian” dan “kehidupan” adalah istilah subjektif yang kita gunakan untuk menjelaskan fenomena keadaan-keadaan biologis. Menghapuskan istilah subjektif kematian tidak menghapuskan keberadaan kematian.

Si murid pun mencoba mengalihkan pembicaraan, “Apakah imoralitas itu ada?”

Si professor menggelengkan kepalanya dan berkata, “Keledai pun tidak akan jatuh ke dalam lubang yang sama. Ada yang masih kurang jelas, atau perlu saya ulangi lagi?”

Sang murid yang terus berusaha menjustifikasi kepercayaannya berkata, “Begini.. imoralitas itu adalah ketiadaan moralitas. Apakah ketidakadilan itu ada? Tidak. Ketidakadilan adalah ketiadaan keadilan. Apakah kejahatan itu ada? Bukankah kejahatan itu ketiadaan kebaikan?”

Sang professor menanggapi, “Jadi, jika seseorang membunuh ibumu malam ini, tidak terjadi apa-apa? Hanya ada ketiadaan moralitas di rumah Anda? Tunggu… dia tidak mati… cuma ketiadaan hidup kan?”

Si murid berkata, “eh…”

“Sekarang sudah mengerti di mana salahnya?”, ujar sang professor, “Anda mencampur kualitas sekunder dengan fenomena. “Imoralitas” adalah istilah deskriptif untuk perilaku. Istilah tersebut bersifat sekunder, namun perilaku tetaplah ada. Jadi jika Anda menghapuskan kualitas sekunder itu, Anda tidak menghapuskan perilaku yang sesungguhnya terjadi. Dengan mengatakan imoralitas sebagai ketiadaan moralitas, Anda tidak menghapuskan keinginan atau perilaku imoral, tetapi hanya istilah subjektifnya. Begitu lho.”

Si murid masih kukuh, “Apakah professor pernah mengamati evolusi itu dengan mata professor sendiri?”

Sang professor sudah bosan mendengar argumen “pernah lihat angin tidak”.

“Evolusi itu bisa diamati karena hingga sekarang masih berlangsung. Misalnya, pada tahun 1971, beberapa kadal dari pulau Pod Kopiste di Kroasia dipindah ke pulau pod Mrcaru. Pulau Pod Kopiste tidak banyak tumbuhan sehingga memakan serangga, sementara di pulau Pod Mrcaru ada banyak tumbuhan. Setelah ditinggal selama beberapa dekade, ketika ditemukan kembali, kadal di pulau Pod Mrcaru mengalami proses evolusi. Kadal tersebut mengembangkan caecal valve, yaitu organ yang penting untuk mengolah selulosa dalam tumbuhan, yang sebelumnya tidak ada. Atau, jika Anda pergi ke laboratorium Richard Lenski di Amerika Serikat, Anda bisa saksikan sendiri bagaimana bakteri e coli yang sebelumnya tak bisa mengolah asam sitrat, karena evolusi dengan seleksi alam muncul e coli yang bisa mengolah asam sitrat.”

“Lagipula, Anda lagi-lagi terjeblos dalam kesesatan ad ignoratiam. Jika ingin konsisten dengan logika Anda, Anda akan mengatakan bahwa pohon tidak pernah tumbuh karena Anda tak pernah melihat langsung bagaimana pohon tumbuh. Lebih lagi, Anda kembali melakukan kesalahan dengan mengasumsikan bahwa sains itu hanya terdiri dari pengamatan langsung…. “

Si murid memotong, “Apakah ada dari kelas ini yang pernah melihat otak Profesor? Apakah ada orang yang pernah mendengar otak Profesor, merasakannya, menyentuhnya atau menciumnya? Tampaknya tak seorang pun pernah melakukannya. Jadi, menurut prosedur pengamatan, pengujian dan pembuktian yang disahkan, ilmu pengetahuan mengatakan bahwa professor tidak memiliki otak. Dengan segala hormat, bagaimana kami dapat mempercayai pengajaran professor?”

Si professor tertawa dan menjawab, “Terima kasih sudah hadir di kelas ini sehingga saya bisa membenarkan kesalahan Anda walaupun Anda terus menerus mengulanginya. Sekali lagi, sains itu tidak terbatas kepada “melihat” sesuatu. Sains itu juga rasional. Kita dapat menyimpulkan berdasarkan bukti yang ada. Dan salah satu simpulan yang dapat saya tarik dengan mengamati perilaku Anda  hari ini adalah bahwa Anda telah membuang-buang uang karena tidak membaca buku logika yang sudah Anda beli. Jadi saya sarankan bacalah buku itu kembali dari halaman satu agar tidak terus menerus mengulangi kesalahan yang sama.”

- Dan murid itu adalah orang yang tidak banyak membaca.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Sumber


A philosophy professor challenged his students with a form of the Euthyphro dilema: Did 'God' create everything that exists?" A student replied, "Yes, he did!" (The 'bravely' part is removed: civil disagreement is the very point of philosophy courses, no bravery is required for dissent! Civil dissent is rewarded! Agreement is the death of philosophy, disagreement is its life's blood.)

"God created everything?" the professor asked. "Yes," the student replied. (The 'sir' part is removed: no college student in the 21st century addresses a college professor as 'sir' - which demonstrates that whoever it was that made up the original story never went to college. In addition, the use of 'sir' is just a pretense of 'respect' - it comes off as passive aggressive anger more than anything else.)

The professor answered, "Well then, here's a logical puzzle for you: If God created everything, then God created evil; Therefore, according to the principal that 'our works define who we are', 'God' is evil."

The student became silently enraged over his worldview being 'attacked'. He began to project out his feelings of inadequecy as smugness coming from the professor.

The student then said: "Can I ask you a question professor?"

"Of course," replied the professor. That's the point of philosophical discourse. (The writer of the original story clearly has little experience with a real college classroom. The whole point of a philosophy or theology course is to foster discussion.)

Student: Is there such thing as heat?" 
Professor: Yes, the professor replies. 
Student: "Is there such a thing as cold?" 
Professor: "Yes, there's cold too." 
Student: "No, there isn't"

The professor doesn't grin or frown or react with any emotion other than curiosity. After all, he's heard bad arguments like this for more years than the student has been alive. (The desire to see the professors 'smug smile wiped off his face' is just another projection of the feelings of inadequecy found in theists who aren't able to argue their own points well...)

The student continues. You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, 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, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, just the absence of it"

Professor: (Nodding his head in dismay, and working out how many times he's heard this bad logic by now. 100 times?). Do you remember the section in your workbook on semantic fallacies?

Student: ( gives a confused look a dog might make)

Professor: Let me give you a quick review. Both 'heat' and 'cold' are subjective terms... They are what the philosopher John Locke properly called "secondary qualities". The secondary qualities refer to how we humans experience a very real phenomena: the movement of atomic particles. The terms 'heat' and 'cold' refer to an interaction between human nervous systems and various speeds of atomic particles in their environment. So what we 'really' have is temperature.... the terms 'heat' and "cold' are merely subjective terms we use to denote our relative experience of temperature.

So your entire argument is specious. You have not 'proven' that 'cold' does not exist, or that 'cold' somehow exists without any ontological status, what you have done is shown that 'cold' is a subjective term. Take away the subjective concept, and the 'thing in itself', the temperature we are denoting as 'cold', still exists. Removing the term we use to reference the phenomena does not eradicate the phenomena.

Student: (a bit stunned) "Uh... Ok.... Well, is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

Professor: You are still employing the same logical fallacy. Just with a different set of of secondary qualities.

Student: "So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

Professor: "What I am telling you is that you are repeating the very same error. "Darkness" exists as a secondary quality.

Student: "You're wrong again. Darkness is not something, it 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 it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you give me a jar of darkness, professor?

Professor: Sure, right after you give me a jar of light. Seriously, "light and dark' are subjective terms we use to describe how we humans measure measure photons visually. The photons actually exist, the terms 'light' and 'dark' are just subjective evaluations, relative terms... having to do, again, with an interaction between our nervous systems and another phenomenon of nature - this time, photons. So again, doing away with a subjective term does not eradicate the actual phenomena itself - the photons. Nothing actually changes. If we humans tend to call 'x number of photons' 'dark' (while cats refer to it as 'bright enough for me&quotEye-wink those number of photons we denote as 'dark' exist, and they continue to exist even if we do away with the term 'dark.'

Do you get it now?

Student: (gives a look not unlike a 3 year old trying to work out quantum physics)

Professor: I see your still struggling with the fallacy hidden in your argument. But let's continue, perhaps you'll see it.

Student: Well, you are working on the premise of duality, the christian explains.

Professor: Actually, I've debunked that claim two times now. But carry on.

Student: "Well, you assume, for example, that there is a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.

Professor: Be careful. If you want to place your god beyond the grasps of reason, logic, and science and make him 'unmeasurable', then you are left with nothing but a mystery of your own devising. So if you use this special plead your god beyond reason to solve the problem, you can't call your god moral either. You can't call 'him' anything. You can't say anything else about something that you yourself have defined as beyond reason other than that the term you've created is incoherent. So your solution is akin to treating dandruf by decapitation.

Student: (Gulps. Continues on, oblivious to what was just said) Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them.

Professor: You just said that science cannot explain a thought. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I think what you mean to say is this: there remains many mysteries in neuroscience. Would you agree?

Student: Yes.

Professor: And, along the same line of thought, we accept that there are things like thoughts, or electricity or magnetism even though we have never seen them?

Student: Yes!

Professor: Recall the section in your textbook concerning fallacies of false presumption. Turn to the entry on 'Category error'. You'll recall that a category error occurs when an inappropriate measure is used in regards to an entity, such as asking someone what the color of a sound is... Asking someone to 'see' magnetism directly (and not just its effects) commits such an error. However, there is yet another error in your argument: your assumption that empircism or even science is based on 'real time observation' alone. This is false. Sight is not the sole means of knowing the world, nor is science merely the study of whatever we are currently looking at. We can use other senses to detect phenomena. And we can also examine their effects upon the world.

Furthermore, you are importing yet another erroneous presumption into the discussion: you are conflating the fact that science is incomplete with the implication that a lack of an answer from naturalism automatically means that your theistic assertion is correct. So you'll also want to review the section on 'arguing form ignorance.'

Do you have more to say?

Student: (The student, continues, mainly unfazed, due to the protection his shield of ignorance affords him.) .... Um....... 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, merely the absence of it"

Professor: You are really in love with this secondary quality fallacy, aren't you? You are again confusing a secondary quality with the phenomena in of itself. "Death" and "life" are subjective terms we use to describe a more fundamental phenomena - biology. The phenomena in question, however, does exist. Biological forms in various states exist. Doing away with the subjective term does not eradicate the existence of death.

Nonplussed, the young man continues: "Is there such a thing as immorality?"

Professor: (Reaches for an asprin in his desk) You're not going to again confuse a secondary quality for an atttribute, are you? Please... what can I do to help you see this problem?

Student: (Continues on, fueled by ideology and oblivious to reality) You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The christian pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?"

Professor: So, if someone murders your mother tonight, nothing happened? There was just an absence of morality in your house? Wait, I forgot... she's not dead... she's just experiencing an absence of life, right?

Student: Uh.....

Professor: You're beginning to see that something is missing in your argument, aren't you? Here's what you're missing. You are confusing a secondary quality... a subjective term that we can use to describe a phenomena, for the phenomena itself. Perhaps you heard me mention this before? (The class erupts in laughter, the professor motions for them to stop laughing.) 'Immorality' is a descrptive term for a behavior. The terms are secondary, but the behaviors exist. So if you remove the secondary qualities, you do nothing to eradicate the real behavior that the terms only exist to describe in the first place. So by saying that 'immorality' is a lack of morality, you are not removing immoral intentions and behaviors, or the problem of immoral intentions and behaviors from existence, you are just removing the secondary attribute, the subjective term.

And notice how dishonest your argument is on yet another level... in that it speaks of morality and immorality devoid of behavior, but 'evil' exists as a behavior, evil is an intent to do harm and an act commited with such an intent.

By the way, are you really trying to imply that immorality or evil are merely subjective qualities?

Student: Gulp! (Reeling from the psychological blows to his corrupt worldview....) Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, professor?"

The professor soothes his aching forehead, and prepares for the 1 millionth time that he will be subjected to the 'can you see the wind' argument.

Professor: What an interesting turn this conversation has taken. Can I advise you to read Brofenbrenner's suggestion against arguing over subjects over which you are uninformed? It's in your textbook. Page 1.

Student: "Professor, 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 now not a scientist, but a priest?

Professor: Interesting indirect comment on the priesthood. But let's leave that aside... We do observe the process of evolution at work, for the process works at this very moment. As for the implication in your argument that one must 'be there' to observe a process at it occurs, surely you realize that we can infer the process through examining the evidence that these processes leave behind? In a sense, we are there when we observe artifacts.

Consider for example the science of astronomy. How do we know about super novas? Because we can observe diferrent supernovas in different stages of super nova, by observing their 'artifacts' in the night sky. The same stands for any historical science. Your mistake here is that you think science is merely 'real-time-observation'. This is a strawman of science. By your logic trees can't grow - after all, who's actually witnessed a tree growing?

Science is both direct and indirect observation... it also allows for inference. If, for the sake of consistency you were asked to follow your own rule, you'd have to concede that we have no evidence tree growth, or mountain formation - after all, I've never actually seen a seed grow into a tree, I've only seen it in stages.

Student: "But professor! You stated that science is the study of observed phenomena.

Professor: No, this is a strawman of what science is... Science is more than just real time observation, we also observe artifacts and make inferences. But continue....

Student: (Responds to this as a goat might respond to a book on calculus) May I give you an example of what I mean?"

Professor: Certainly.

Student: "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen air, oxygen, molecules, atoms, the professor's brain?"

The class breaks out in laughter. The christian points towards professor, "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?" "No one appears to have done so", The christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I declare that the professor has no brain!"

(So much for the student's pretense of respect, clearly his goal is to ridicule).

Professor: You mean, according to your strawman view of science. I am glad that you are here in my class so that I can help you better understand what you criticize. Science is not merely 'looking' at things. Science is empirical, but also rational. We can make inferences from evidence of things that we do see, back to phenonema that we might not be able to directly see. Such as a functioning brain.

And one inference I can make from observing your behaviors here today is that you've wasted the money you've spent on your logic textbook so far this year. I strongly advise, for your own sake, that you crack open that book today, and start reading. From page 1.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates