Originally Posted by scott_uw
This is absolutely not a good read, every time I see it I want to punch myself in the face for being made more stupid. The 'student' makes about as good an argument for solipsism as he does for religion. Clearly the person who made this understands how to use a dictionary but not whatever logical faculties he may possess.
Well, it's interesting to see I'm not the only one who felt that way after reading that story.
I'm not here to try and make that poster feel bad for their beliefs, but to me, the story had huge gaping holes of logic in it.
After reading it, instead of leading me closer to a belief in God, (which is presumably the effect it had on the OP), it had the opposite effect; especially the stuff about the professor's brain. "Is there anyone in the class who has seen or touched the professors brain ? No, then you must take it on faith that he has one". Then trying to equate that to faith about religion. That is one of the most, um, 'interesting" attempts at establishing a logical correlation I have ever heard.
Ever heard of a CAT scan, or MRI ? You can easily prove with evidence, without a shadow of a doubt, that the professor does indeed have a brain. Sure, if you dont have such a machine, then you only observe the effects that suggest the brain is there (ie: the prof can breathe and eat and speak, etc.) That could be a matter of faith similar to believing on God, but it is very temporary. Once he dies, you can cut him open, and then hold his brain in your hand for proof. Any faith required is very short term. This is not at all similar (IMHO) to something where you still cannot produce concrete evidence even after thousands of years, using the latest technology available, and yet people still choose to very strongly believe in it.
I guess this is the perfect example of how everyone has a different threshold of how open they are to interpretation, and their comfort level in how tightly coupled the relationship of cause and effect has to be for them to embrace something.
Personally, I am a very logical, analytical thinker. When I read the whole "who has touched the profs brain" argument, so many big red flags pop up in my head that my whole thought process came to a screeching halt, as if the whole thing went so far off the rails of reason that there was no point in continuing to read.
For some others, I guess that does not happen, and stories such as that actually reinforce their beliefs, instead of challenging it further, which was the effect it had on me. Fascinating how different people can have such different take-aways from the same source material. I guess that's what makes the world interesting.