|
?:reviewBody
|
-
For those looking for a quick answer to the question of whether the above narrative is literally true, we'll state up front that it is not. Nothing remotely like the account related above appears in any biography or article about Albert Einstein, nor is the account congruent with that scientist's expressed views on the subject of religion (in which he generally described himself as an agnostic or a religious nonbeliever). Einstein's name has simply been inserted into an anecdote created long after his death in order to provide the reading audience with a recognizable figure and thus lend the tale an air of verisimilitude As to what this account says from a standpoint of faith, one of the most troubling conundrums is the question of how evil and suffering can survive in a universe created and managed by a loving supreme being. Postulated explanations of this paradox are known as theodicies, and such answers have been for centuries handed out by members of many belief systems when challenged to provide logical answers to the question of how it is possible that a just and moral God can co-exist with evil. Among these answers are: The online forward quoted above draws upon yet another possible explanation: that evil is the absence of God, in the same way that cold is the absence of heat, and dark is the absence of light. This argument has been around for a long time, as has the legend about the pious studentusing it to squelch an atheist professor. The name of Einstein gets used in legends whose plots call for a smart person, one whom the audience will immediately recognize as such (i.e., modern tellings of an ancient legend about a learned rabbi who switches places with his servant feature Albert Einstein in the role of esteemed scholar). This venerated cultural icon has, at least in the world of contemporary lore, become a stock character to be tossed into the fray wherever the script calls for a genius. Likewise, the atheist professor is a stock figure common to a number of urban legends and anecdotes of the faithful: he gets flung into the mix where there's a need for someone to play the role of Science Vanquished in Science-versus-Religion tales. But he is not inserted merely to serve as an icon of learning to be humbled in tales that aim to teach that faith is of greater value than provable knowledge; he is also woven into these sorts of stories for his lack of belief. Just as the villain inoldtime melodramas had to have a waxed moustache, a black cape, and an evil laugh, so too must the bullying professor of such stories be an atheist: it would not be enough for him to be merely an insufferable, over-educated git arrogantly attempting to stretch the minds of his students by having them question something deeply believed. No, he must instead be someone who rejects the existence of God, an assignment of role that re-positions what might otherwise have been a bloodless debate about philosophy as an epic battle between two champions of faith and denial and sets up the action to unfold as one putting the boots to the other. The atheist professor plays his expected role of getting his pants kicked in the Dropped Chalk tale, where he (once again) challenges his browbeaten students on the topic of God's existence. He is also pivotal to these following tales, which are yet other variations on the same theme: The key to understanding the allure of these tales lies in this one line from the evil is the absence of God story: The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth. Faith can't be proved (or disproved); if such validations were possible, those concepts would stop being matters of faith and start being matters of fact. Unfortunately, this leaves those who are convinced of the existence of God without an incontrovertible, irrefutable answer to those who challenge them to provide evidence of the veracity of their belief systems' tenets, or to demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that their inner direction is the right one to those who insist on independently verifiable proof of that which can't be proved. That God permits evil to exist (and some would say to thrive) is taken by non-believers as an inarguable sign that there is no supreme being. This puzzle is pointed to by them as the unanswerable fallacy that proves the negative: they reckon that a loving, all-powerful God would have stamped out evil, ergo He doesn't exist, or He is not all-powerful, or He is not all that enamored of His children. As such, this paradox can be disquieting to those who do believe: not only do they themselves have to wrestle with the seeming disconnect, they are left unable to convincingly answer their critics when this topic comes up. They find themselves similarly hamstrung when pressed to prove the existence of God. Stories about atheist professors being bested by true believers who did have answers at the ready are both ventings of this frustration and expressions of delight in finally seeming to have been armed with deft responses to fling back. These are tales of affirmation, modern-day parables of trials overcome and fierce adversaries bested by those who held fast to what they believed in, even in the face of ridicule rained down by authority figures. Like parables, they are meant to inspire similar resolve in those with whom they are shared: should those members of the flock ever find themselves in like circumstances, they should feel moved to emulate the brave students of legend who stood up to the atheist professors.
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}