--Publilius Syrus

I discovered something interesting today. The doors at Queens College are very well made.

They can, in fact, withstand the force of a very frustrated student forcefully slamming them back into the wall. The outer doors can also survive being opened by a student who takes them at a running jump, high-kicking the horizontal metal bar pushed to open them. Quite impressive, really.

I hate my philosophy class because the professor has all the brains and integrity as, oh, a bottle of "Cheese Whiz."

No, no, sorry; uncalled for personal attack, there. And, besides, it's probably insulting to the makers of "Cheese Whiz," which is, no doubt, a fine product, although I don't think it's kosher, so I wouldn't know firsthand.

But... well, let me put it this way:

I don't mind having my arguments rebutted, or even refuted. Frankly, I'm capable of convincingly refuting most of my arguments myself.

I don't mind being informed that something I have to say is beyond the scope of a given class.

On the other hand, I do mind it when a professor doesn't really listen to what I have to say, grabbing one phrase I've used, and claiming that I'm making some classical argument that's different from mine.

(It doesn't help when, in trying to correct that situation, I reiterate my position, to be told that I'm wandering off topic, because what I'm saying has nothing to do with said classical argument, which is precisely my point.)

I do mind it when my arguments are dismissed simply because they sound absurd to the professor. No further discussion required.

I do mind it when the professor plays to the class and, in a flurry of sophistry, makes it look as if he's refuted me without actually addressing what I had to say at all.

And I do mind it when the professor refuses to address a given argument because it would involve getting into and defining too many other issues -- which is fine -- but then claims to have refuted all the arguments presented.

Needless to say, none of this is theoretical.

The end of class this week. We're finally wrapping up the God question. The professor once again lists three possible positions:

Theists, who claim that God exists, and that there is sufficient evidence of that,

Atheists, who claim that God does not exist, and there is sufficient evidence of that,

...and, the third possibility, the possibility between these two, and, what is strongly implied to be -- if not stated outright as -- the only other option, is...

Agnostics, who claim that God might exist, even though there isn't sufficient evidence to support that belief.

He pointed out that the third of these doesn't really have a leg to stand on. Absence of evidence is evidence of non-existence, provided that you've searched thoroughly enough. In other words, if you spend decades searching for the Loch Ness Monster, using all sorts of equipment, and fail to find a scrap of evidence supporting claims of its existence, you can damn well state that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist. And, logically, you have to do so.

Now, as he'd disproven every theistic claim for evidence of God's existence (he said, ignoring the fact that he hadn't, exactly), he strongly implied at this point that atheism was the only rational viewpoint available.

Anyway, I'd feel the same way if he were on the theistic side. The position taken isn't the point here; how it was arrived at, and what he's doing about it, is another story.

(I had a few other possibilities up my sleeve, plus some support for this one, but I never actually got to use them.)

Well. First he claimed that I was misunderstanding the term "agnostic," and proceeded to explain it all over again. After which I pointed out that that wasn't what I was saying, and proceeded to explain my example again. At which he reiterated that that's not what agnosticism is. At which I countered that I knew that, but was suggesting another possibility.

To which he countered that my example was ridiculous, because there is no evidence whatsoever that God exists, as he'd debunked it all over the past few weeks. To which I said that, in that case, he ought to wipe the term "theist" off the board also.

He claimed not to understand what that had to do with anything; the theists did claim to have such evidence. So, in that case, I said, what about somebody who claimed to have evidence -- just like the theists -- but who also claimed to have evidence against God's existence? He reiterated that that was ridiculous, because there was no evidence for God's existence, missing the bloody point. Again.

(Somewhere during all of this, the class was adjourned, and we continued the discussion while walking to his office.)

This was repeated another time or two, after which he ducked into the bathroom. It was at that point that I kicked the wall and then discovered just how well-made our doors are.

Is it just me?

I'm also not going to get into how he distorted what I had to say on the "problem of evil," then promised to take my questions after the break, and then didn't do so. Why bother?

"Oh... at the end of this footnote, there's a dash, and then it says 'Ed.' Who's Ed?"

"I've been wondering the same thing!"

I broke in at this point, and said that it was short for "Editor."

"Oh, really? Thanks!"

Ladies and gentlemen, these were not -- as far as I can tell -- people who were new to the English language. These were twentysomething American students. Now, with all due respect, HOW BLOODY CLUELESS ARE THESE PEOPLE?!

(Deep breath)

Thanks. I just needed to get that out.

Sigh.

Our midterm is next week, on the 29th. The sad part is, I can still ace this course. Easily. But I want out.

I'll have to check with the financial aid people to see if I can afford to lose my full-time status. But this isn't education. This is just needless frustration.

She has a point. Damn it.