Funny how it never occurs to the godbots that there would be no variation in people if their pet god was real – and if it was real and the whole “free will” excuse to explain variation – what kind of a jerk god would give free will and then punish you for using it?
Wow, I’ve finally finished reading all the cartoons. It took a while, as I kept getting distracted by the many interesting links posted in the comments.
Thanks, Author, for a great job, and thanks commenters too, for the links. I’ll happily buy any of you a Guinness, if we can find the Cock & Bull …
I would be interested to know if anyone has analysed religiosity by profession, especially by disciplines within science.
I would suspect that psychologists are probably the least represented, like magicians not falling for Uri Geller- because they can see how the trick is done- but would love to see this studied.
@daoloth,
I’d suppose proctologists would be high on the list of non-believers, considering that they must deal with assholes on a daily basis, though they’re not likely to find many that claim to be able to bend a fork…..
I always like your contributions to the J&M comments.
That is an interesting question regarding religious beliefs within scientific disciplines. I have never seen any research on this but would be very interested if there was any (so if anyone can point to a paper that would be much appreciated).
I do think that in asking the question you probably need to differentiate between wishy washy C.of.E type religionists and fundamentalists. My guess is that there are plenty of Protestants and Catholics (plus others) peppered throughout the general scientific community. Mainstream religion poses no real problems for most scientific disciplines (apart from maybe stem cell research and a few other contentious areas). For most religious faiths science poses no real problems.
The problems do arise when confronted with fundamentalist religious beliefs – for example new earthers and so forth.
I doubt if there are very many biblical literalists in fields such as all the different branches of physics, astronomy, geology and so forth. Fundamentalist views can distort individuals scientific views to an extreme extent. Dawkins mentions a well-known geologist who discovered happy clappy evangelicalism (to my shame his name deserts me). As his new found views were at odds with his scientific knowledge he gave up geology rather than goddism. To me that is a million times worse than religious indoctrination by parents and upbringing. How you can be a well-respected geologist and then suddenly assume the belief that the earth is 6000 years old is a complete mystery to me.
It would be impossible to reconcile things like the age of the earth, the speed of light, the fossil record etc etc if you believe the universe was created six millennia ago. However the C.of.E/Vatican have no issues with this.
There are some stats quoted in the God delusion that demonstrate that the more intelligent and educated someone is, the less likely they are to be religious. Dawkins states that there are a tiny minority of high achieving scientists who are regarded with baffled bemusement by their peers. These folk seem to be able to separate their scientific knowledge from their religious beliefs by building a kind of partition in their brain.
Nina, with all respect, that is complete twaddle. I am an engineer and the instinct for seeking to comprehend what really goes on in the world (science) and apply it creatively (engineering) fits entirely naturally with the rationalist (atheist) perspective. To put it another way, it is perfectly obvious to anyone with some perspective on the universe (viz scientists & engineers) that the very idea of a deity is almost too silly even to discuss. Partly in consequence of that, I have considerable trouble believing the oft-repeated claim that there are significant numbers of scientists who believe in a god. I just can’t imagine how any serious scientist or engineer could do, and still do his work. (I have to mention though, that in one of those three notable interviews with major religious leaders which John Humpries (R4 Today) did a few years ago, even Archbish Rowan Williams himself sounded like he didn’t believe in a god…. )
By the way – may I just share with all, a brilliant comedian I have only just discovered .. sadly a couple of years after he passed away. Mr George Carlin – on why religion is bulls**t: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
I don’t understand the rift between the two (science and God). The more we learn by science, the more we know that God was a really good designer with a great flair for beauty and aesthetics. The former does not negate the possibility of the latter. My brother, with a Masters in Theoretical Physics, Mechanical Engineering and now a P.E. has unbounded faith in God and can easily reconcile God and evolution. For myself, I am what I like to call a Heretical Christian.
Yes, the argument from pareidolia that people see intent- teleology and design when there are only teleonomy- no planned outcomes and patterns, these two note in effect. Scientists are indeed exploring this argument about agency- intent.
Now the weight of science is that there is no intent as teleonomy rules. To posit teleological God rather than putting Him in charge, compatibility, contradicts natural selection and other natural causes! And furthermore , no intent applies to other arguments- no intent behind the Big Bang and thus no Primary Cause, no intent behind miracles and no intent in history to save Jewry [ the Shoa denies that intent!].
Since He thus cannot be the Primary Cause, the Grand Designer and the Master of History, He cannot have those referents, making the case for ignosticism.
Then for the sake of factual meaningfulness, He is uselessly redundant, contrary to Alister Earl McGrAth, as a Primary Explantion-Cause as the Ockham so notes. The combined ignostic-Ockham notes that either He adds nothing or else He means nothing factually, even if otherwise meaningful -like Santa, the spirit of Christmans gift -giving. And no more useful than that celestial tea cup1
He can do no more for us than a rabbit’s foot. Indeed, the supernatural and its twin superstition make what Paulo Kurtz calls ” The Transcendental Temptation,” a must read book.
Peruse the blogs Strato of Ga. here at WordPress and Carneades.aimoo.com .
No, the two aren’t compatible for science reveals no intent behind natural phenomena and thus divine intent would contradict natural selection and other natural causes- the atelic or teleonomic argument!
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
January 2, 2019
Perfect. Barmaid is so succinct:)
Love it. Keep ’em coming!
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tom Chivers and others. Tom Chivers said: RT @JandMo: New comic: prone http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/07/02/prone/ […]
I read the last 2 panels over and over and over and laughed every time. Thanks!
I knew it! Barmaid is actually Greta Christina.
Why did god create atheists?
It had to be either christians or atheists, and god got first choice, you know, RHIP or something like that…..
Ah yes, mysterious ways. Perfect answer. And nice to connect with Greta again. Clear thinker. Clear writer.
Why indeed, J&M, why indeed…..
Funny how it never occurs to the godbots that there would be no variation in people if their pet god was real – and if it was real and the whole “free will” excuse to explain variation – what kind of a jerk god would give free will and then punish you for using it?
So basicaly, Theism is just another Psychological Disfunction…
Which came first, the atheist or the egg?
Wow, I’ve finally finished reading all the cartoons. It took a while, as I kept getting distracted by the many interesting links posted in the comments.
Thanks, Author, for a great job, and thanks commenters too, for the links. I’ll happily buy any of you a Guinness, if we can find the Cock & Bull …
I would be interested to know if anyone has analysed religiosity by profession, especially by disciplines within science.
I would suspect that psychologists are probably the least represented, like magicians not falling for Uri Geller- because they can see how the trick is done- but would love to see this studied.
@daoloth,
I’d suppose proctologists would be high on the list of non-believers, considering that they must deal with assholes on a daily basis, though they’re not likely to find many that claim to be able to bend a fork…..
Is the barmaid dating anyone at the moment?
@jw: I guess proctologists might be thought to have especially good hind sight…
@NBH
The egg is an atheist
@daoloth
A pity they are always bringing in the rear
@daoloth,
If you can say a sad dentist looks “down in the mouth”, what can you say about a happy proctologist?
Daoloth
I always like your contributions to the J&M comments.
That is an interesting question regarding religious beliefs within scientific disciplines. I have never seen any research on this but would be very interested if there was any (so if anyone can point to a paper that would be much appreciated).
I do think that in asking the question you probably need to differentiate between wishy washy C.of.E type religionists and fundamentalists. My guess is that there are plenty of Protestants and Catholics (plus others) peppered throughout the general scientific community. Mainstream religion poses no real problems for most scientific disciplines (apart from maybe stem cell research and a few other contentious areas). For most religious faiths science poses no real problems.
The problems do arise when confronted with fundamentalist religious beliefs – for example new earthers and so forth.
I doubt if there are very many biblical literalists in fields such as all the different branches of physics, astronomy, geology and so forth. Fundamentalist views can distort individuals scientific views to an extreme extent. Dawkins mentions a well-known geologist who discovered happy clappy evangelicalism (to my shame his name deserts me). As his new found views were at odds with his scientific knowledge he gave up geology rather than goddism. To me that is a million times worse than religious indoctrination by parents and upbringing. How you can be a well-respected geologist and then suddenly assume the belief that the earth is 6000 years old is a complete mystery to me.
It would be impossible to reconcile things like the age of the earth, the speed of light, the fossil record etc etc if you believe the universe was created six millennia ago. However the C.of.E/Vatican have no issues with this.
I would still like to see any research though.
There are some stats quoted in the God delusion that demonstrate that the more intelligent and educated someone is, the less likely they are to be religious. Dawkins states that there are a tiny minority of high achieving scientists who are regarded with baffled bemusement by their peers. These folk seem to be able to separate their scientific knowledge from their religious beliefs by building a kind of partition in their brain.
Oh my god, (or some similar entity of appropriate divine awesomeness) , this site is a breath of fresh air! Thanks!
I read something that had engineers as more religious than scientists – and the softer the science, the more the beleif.
for engineers, it’s because they prefer an orderly and controlled world
Nina, with all respect, that is complete twaddle. I am an engineer and the instinct for seeking to comprehend what really goes on in the world (science) and apply it creatively (engineering) fits entirely naturally with the rationalist (atheist) perspective. To put it another way, it is perfectly obvious to anyone with some perspective on the universe (viz scientists & engineers) that the very idea of a deity is almost too silly even to discuss. Partly in consequence of that, I have considerable trouble believing the oft-repeated claim that there are significant numbers of scientists who believe in a god. I just can’t imagine how any serious scientist or engineer could do, and still do his work. (I have to mention though, that in one of those three notable interviews with major religious leaders which John Humpries (R4 Today) did a few years ago, even Archbish Rowan Williams himself sounded like he didn’t believe in a god…. )
By the way – may I just share with all, a brilliant comedian I have only just discovered .. sadly a couple of years after he passed away. Mr George Carlin – on why religion is bulls**t: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Nice Post! Love It
@mikeh007, nina – Not to denigrate the fine discipline of engineering, but the Salem Hypothesis states
It does not mean that engineers tend to be creationists, of course.
I don’t understand the rift between the two (science and God). The more we learn by science, the more we know that God was a really good designer with a great flair for beauty and aesthetics. The former does not negate the possibility of the latter. My brother, with a Masters in Theoretical Physics, Mechanical Engineering and now a P.E. has unbounded faith in God and can easily reconcile God and evolution. For myself, I am what I like to call a Heretical Christian.
Yes, the argument from pareidolia that people see intent- teleology and design when there are only teleonomy- no planned outcomes and patterns, these two note in effect. Scientists are indeed exploring this argument about agency- intent.
Now the weight of science is that there is no intent as teleonomy rules. To posit teleological God rather than putting Him in charge, compatibility, contradicts natural selection and other natural causes! And furthermore , no intent applies to other arguments- no intent behind the Big Bang and thus no Primary Cause, no intent behind miracles and no intent in history to save Jewry [ the Shoa denies that intent!].
Since He thus cannot be the Primary Cause, the Grand Designer and the Master of History, He cannot have those referents, making the case for ignosticism.
Then for the sake of factual meaningfulness, He is uselessly redundant, contrary to Alister Earl McGrAth, as a Primary Explantion-Cause as the Ockham so notes. The combined ignostic-Ockham notes that either He adds nothing or else He means nothing factually, even if otherwise meaningful -like Santa, the spirit of Christmans gift -giving. And no more useful than that celestial tea cup1
He can do no more for us than a rabbit’s foot. Indeed, the supernatural and its twin superstition make what Paulo Kurtz calls ” The Transcendental Temptation,” a must read book.
Peruse the blogs Strato of Ga. here at WordPress and Carneades.aimoo.com .
No, the two aren’t compatible for science reveals no intent behind natural phenomena and thus divine intent would contradict natural selection and other natural causes- the atelic or teleonomic argument!
As is written in the Book of Bokonon:
“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly
Man got to wonder: Why, why, why
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land,
Man got to tell himself that he understand”
– Kurt Vonnegut Jr.