# Answering the Fallacies of a college professor



## ReformedChristian (Jul 1, 2010)

Recently today I came across a discussion taking place on a college homework help site called enotes. To my interest we were discussing Religion and a belief in God when I came across this comment: 

"Mmmm, but God's a bit schizophrenic, isn't he? Cos then he says, "Thou shalt not kill", so really it's all a bit confusing. Does God know what he wants?Besides which, (and this is just a teensy-weensy little nit-picking quibble) Isn't The Justice System supposed to be separate from Religion? What has the phantom dictation of an ancient, desert-nomad's imaginary friend got to do with the modern pursuit of justice? Didn't we all agree in The Constitution that religious guidelines have squit to do with The Law?" 

To start off in addressing this college professors flawed arguement he appeals to Exodus 20:13 in which the text list the commands of the Torah one of them being thou shall not kill. The problem with this arguement is that the Hebrew word is ratsach רָצַח which comes from the word Qual meaning to slay or Murder which is done intentionaly and premeditated. 

Blue Letter Bible - Home Page 

Now to move on to the issue of the constitution: The professor espouses the arguement of seperation of Church and state. This is an arguement from silence, The idea of seperation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution instead it was defined by the supreme court in the early 1960's famous cases which address this issue are: 

Engel V. Vitale (1962)- This case banned school prayer and was decided by the supreme court 

Shempp V Abington School District (1963)- which banned Bible Reading also decided by the Supreme Court. 

The third point the professor makes is that he compares the belief of God to an imaginary friend this arguement is a false comparison. This is like comparing God to santa Clause yet Santa is a historical figure substaniated by historical documentation. 

The final point is that he compares believers in God to desert Nomads. This is a mere Ad Hominem fallacy. 
The early Christians and Jews were quite intelligent. Examples of this are Josephus an Historian in the 1st century and Philo also an Historian. Modern examples include Dr William Lane Craig a prominant Philosopher and Theologian and James White a texual critic. These are just a few examples to list. 

In all honesty the Professors arguements are without merit and full of fallacious assertions, this is an example of the secularization that the American Educational System has become. If the student has a right to have his beliefs subjected to examination through the guise of Logic and the Historical Method then the teacher is subjected to the same standard of critical analyisis. 

I was once taught in High School 2 rules regarding the teacher: 

1. The Teacher is always right 

2. If the Teacher is wrong refer to rule #1 

well the problem with this is that it is a form of political correctness that seeks to dum down students in not challenging the system. It is high time to shed off political correctness and start challenging the system there is no compromise of those in Christ.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 1, 2010)

O.K. first he has to prove there isn't a christian God, who is the imaginary friend (which he can't). Then he must prove some moral theory apart from christianity, which I have explored the historical options and there is not any. Then this moral theory must be able to adequitly judge christian teaching on moral issues, like murder. Then he must prove his case of seperation of church and state from sources other than the original framers of our constitution. I would say he has his work cut out for him. He has the burden of proof.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 1, 2010)

Ok, I see three separate issues:
1. Responding to the "arguments" of the professor
2. What, exactly, does the 5th commandment require of us in regard to college professors
3. How should Christians interact with and/or engage an education system that is ideologically attempting to produce a nanny state group think mindset?

Regarding the 1st - His arguments are stupid and I really loathe those dumb sites where pseudo-intellectual morons spout their atheistic drivel as if it is profundity and well-meaning but naive Christians try to answer them seriously but not knowing that the atheist drivel is just a ploy to lure the Christian into the open so that the Christian can be harangued and abused by them in mob fashion.

Regarding the 2nd - unless he is YOUR professor, he's just some guy using his position and degree to inherently intimidate others into thinking he's "in the know." Deal with him with the tact and graciousness you deal with any bullying fool. And if he is YOUR professor, he's just some guy using his position and degree to inherently intimidate others into thinking he's "in the know." Deal with him with the tact and graciousness you deal with any bullying fool _who has the ability to give you a bad grade if you make him angry._

Regarding the 3rd - I say point it out, attempt to set the record straight, and hopefully you'll convince someone, but even if not, when what they've got coming comes, they will be without excuse.


----------



## ReformedChristian (Jul 1, 2010)

He made mention of a Anthropologist named Pascal Boyer claiming that a belief in God is part of evolution now what’s interesting about this argument is that in a similar debate between William Lane Craig and Lewis Wolpert, Wolpert used the arguments of Boyer claiming that God is a Evolutionary bi product. The flaw of this argument is if God is just a concept of our Evolutionary DNA why has it not mutated or de evolved. Wolpert admits a belief in God is encoded into our DNA well that confirms Romans 2:15 does it not? for information on this see:

Children see the world as designed

So as one can see again the Professors argument is without merit.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Jul 2, 2010)

Be certain that you understand his argument. Ask questions to bring out his points. Ask questions to ensure that you understand the meaning to the words he is using.

Now pay attention also to how you argue. Is your argument for #3 a good one? The professor talks about an imaginary friend and that somehow gets turned around in your argument to the discussion of a historical figure. To defend this one you will have to focus on how can there be a collective imaginary friend? One who is able to part the Reed Sea, give manna from heaven, water from a rock, appear in a burning bush....etc...

For your final point the professor is spot on when he calls our ancestors nomads. Your counter of intelligence is wrong, unless your professor has made it clear that he defines "nomad" as unintelligent people. If so then to facilitate dialogue he will have to call them imbeciles because nomad has nothing to do with intelligence.

Make certain you know what the professor or anyone else you are talking to mean when they say X. We are far too quick to jump to defend Christianity from every buffoon that comes along but the Word of God is clear about how to deal with fools. We first need to know whether or not they are fools or misguided or just plain idiots. We learn this by asking questions. 

Perhaps instead of a debate or confrontation think of it more of as a diplomatic dialogue.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 2, 2010)

ReformedChristian said:


> Recently today I came across a discussion taking place on a college homework help site called enotes. To my interest we were discussing Religion and a belief in God when I came across this comment:
> 
> "Mmmm, but God's a bit schizophrenic, isn't he? Cos then he says, "Thou shalt not kill", so really it's all a bit confusing. Does God know what he wants?Besides which, (and this is just a teensy-weensy little nit-picking quibble) Isn't The Justice System supposed to be separate from Religion? What has the phantom dictation of an ancient, desert-nomad's imaginary friend got to do with the modern pursuit of justice? Didn't we all agree in The Constitution that religious guidelines have squit to do with The Law?"
> 
> ...


 
Surely at the college level you are able to express disagreement with the professor in an academic environment. Just do so winsomely and intelligently, as you seem to be ready to do. You have presented some very good arguments. And if he resorts to name-calling or imputing false motives to you, maintain a respectful tone and do not sink to his level. I think you've got the right idea!


----------



## MMasztal (Jul 2, 2010)

I'd tend to agree with the others. I'd also add that since the prof thinks God to be "schizophrenic", etc., I'd ask him what does he mean when he talks about God and how did he learn about this God. I doubt he'd be able to provide much of an answer other than his idea of God being a smattering of superficial Biblical with some of his own ideas thrown in. If that is the case, then you need not address his poorly conceptualized comments. 

In other words, you would be discussing a God that doesn't exist.

This puts the monkey on his back and surreptitiously shows him to be a fool.


----------

