easy
October 15th, 2010
Special thanks to today’s guest script-writer, Albert Mohler, who assists us for the second time this year. Mr Mohler was provoked by this.
Latest book…
Random oldie…
February 15, 2012-
- NICE T-SHIRT (Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust). Currently unavailable.
That sure made the Scotsman smile.
oh, like!
since giving up holding two incompatible beliefs in my head at one time, I have terrible trouble understanding those who do. It looks, in this comic, as though Mo is getting there?
@maggs: most prophets/messiahs will sometimes doubt, that’s how they relate to mere mortals. in the end, of course, they fly to a sky full of blue-eyed virgins on a magical, winged horse. that’s how they impress mere mortals.
Science is a new phenomenon for mankind, just the last few centuries. Old minds cannot accept new paradigm, J’s last comment is the last defense a religionist can make on science … while science actually works on its own methods.
Sci and Reg, thou shall not meet!
@jean-francois gauthier: Heresy!!1! The Magical Horse does not need wings to fly, as it is wafted aloft on the desperate wishes of defiled choirboys. As punishment, you shall spend eternity with brown-eyed, surgically-revirginised women who are slightly older than you!
[…] Jesus and Mo artist has illustrated this week’s dust-up about science and religion (see Baptist bigwig Albert […]
I have a feeling that Mo will continue to resist
Wash.
Rinse.
Repeat.
Let’s hope the boys get out of their loop before the next strip comes out.
Q: how do I grab these and place them in some of my “atheist rants” online? some way to capture it? Thanks!
A: the image filename is http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2010-10-15.png
As was demonstrated at the Copenhagen global warming smoke and mirrors show, science, like any other commodity, is for sale. The weaker the science, the louder the argument and denunciation of non believers.
Uh-oh! Infinite Loop Error! Cue the Blue Angel of Death!!
Perhaps JC should just shut down for 3 days and then reboot?
So, the [insert name of holy book] is the true word of God because it says it is, and [insert faith]-based science is true because it agrees with the book. Two circular arguments for the price of one. A double-circle, the DNA-structure of creation-science!
@Don Wooldridge: Right click the picture, save it, upload it to your blog. It’d be polite, though, to include a link back to this page.
@Dan Wooldridge – yes, what wtws and Daz said would do it. A link back to this page is required.
Ah, the never ending circle. One of the best yet.
Interesting. Mohler seems to be able to describe the position of his opposition clearly and honestly. His worst error that I caught was to describe “the theory of evolution as an explanation for the universe and the life therein.” This seems to be extremely common amongst creationists. Their creation story covers everything and somehow they see Evolution Theory as opposing it in all its aspects.
Maybe they don’t mind upsetting biologists but they are in deep fear of astrophysicists and to avoid their wrath, they lay all the blame for scientific explanations of how the universe came to be on the biologists.
Too bad he is too caught up in his delusions to recognise the truth when it is explained so carefully for him.
Interestingly, a couple of hundred years ago it was generally believed that science would confirm the tenets of religion. A lot of the spade work that led up to the theory of evolution becoming established was done by clergymen or monks. Their belief was that studying nature would lead them to a better knowledge of God. The conflict between science and religion exists due to the evidence not leading where these people expected it to.
I’m with Coyne, and Albert Mohler is a bit of a puzzle. He seems to be able to understand what Coyne said, but then his concluding paragraph is just a statement of opinion with nothing to back it up. Reminds me of a conversation with a fundamentalist friend. In resonse to my exasperated “How can you say that?” His reply: “Because I’m thinking with my spiritual mind.” Well, duh. I didn’t know there was such a thing.
How can there be a science that isn’t naturalistic? What hypothesis would one start with, and what evidence could provide verification? “This truth was revealed to me by God.” End of discussion. How could science be compatible with that?
Oh, and thanks once again, Author, for excellent links and a wonderful endless loop of logic.
I also found the final paragraph to be the least lucid, and, at least to my reading, it seemed to be self-contradictory: “Are science and Christianity friends? The answer to that is an emphatic yes, … there really is no middle ground.”
And I’m not even clear what “But this science is not naturalistic, while modern science usually is,” actually means at all in the context of that paragraph. It seems like gibberish. Maybe I’m just reading it wrong…
@author: My apologies, I never even considered the legalistic side of things. Quoting sources just seems to me the honest thing to do. Also, the hotlinking method… Stealing bandwidth!
@jean-françois gauthier…..
You had me at “Blue-eyed virgins”, “a magical, winged horse” is just icing on the cake.
@Stonyground: yes, that’s an interesting angle. One reason for what you say, of course, is that becoming a cleric/monk was one of the main career options for educated or intelligent people (all men in those days I suppose).
@NBH: unfortunately, anthropogenic global warming is a fact (we know this because the scientific consensus says so, however unwelcome that may be). The scientific case is solid, and the uproar that this is causing in some circles bears no relation to any supposed weakness of the science.
does anyone know what mohler is on about when he suggest a “non-materialistic” or “non-naturalistic” science ? What would that even be?
oh got it … he means “Christianity” … no need for middle ground then I suppose … !
@ ST. Although I agree that anthropgenic global warming is the best explanation for the measurements– I would take issue that consensus settles the issue.
By saying this you play into the hands of people who think that science is a body of dogma (like NBH believes? but correct me if I have misunderstood) rather than a self-correcting method of continually honing our beliefs.
spot on @daoloth. The great strength of the scientific method is that it is always open to revision when a better explanation arises. However what @ST is saying (presumably) is that the CURRENT consensus of the majority of experts etc is that global warming is caused by human activity – not ruling out that this may change tomorrow when contrary evidence is found (e.g. that it’s actually happening because hell is being heated up to a more toasty temperature for we J&Mo readers)
I like the idea that Hell is being heated up specially for us.
Indeed, I did mean that AGW is the current best guess, and it’s certainly true that all scientific conclusions are provisional. My point really was that we ought (currently) to accept AGW as the cause because it’s what most of those who’ve spent years studying climate believe, and the rest of us certainly don’t know better. Also, I meant that there is far less controversy in scientific circles than the casual consumer of the mainstream media would think.
(This whole discussion is off-topic and I propose to leave it at that.)
Note the circular logic. The first and last panels are exactly the same.