Caption: The inherent difficulty of science.
Faith has always been more comforting, if not convincing, than facts.
Too bad there isn’t a visual shorthand for fundamentalists, of all sorts, rather than just the religious. Something that includes the American evangelicals.
I don’t think all religion is incompatible with all science…and since Wiley does many strips about heaven and rebirth and such, I think he has at least some tolerance for faith..But in this strip, the religious leaders, in all their trappings, are standing in front of the blackboard…so as to both obscure it, and make writing on it difficult.
So to me, the symbolism here is more about those times when one religion or another actively attempts to interfere with science…such as blocking stem cell research or the teaching of evolution…No matter what your faith…whether you believe the world was given to us by God or fell into place by accident,It’s a vast, complicated puzzle, and a gift…and I believe that examining and understanding it is our duty…
Attempting to hinder or squelch genuine scientific progress is regression…. and a vote for the dark ages.
Who’s turn is it to quote Douglas Adams….? Here are some you don’t see often….http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Douglas_Adams
Believers have their religion of God. Scientists have their religion of global cooling, warming and/or climate change. Believers have faith, scientists skews data to fit their beliefs.
@ghenley Agreed. Pure science will deal with the observation of facts. The conclusions reached, however, will always be affected by the world view (i.e. religion) of the scientist.
Party-spoiler that I am:The greatest medieval theologian, Thomas Aquinas, championed “sciencia” as knowledge based on logical deductions.Roger Bacon’s contemporary, Bishop Robert Grosseteste, introduced the Latin West to the notion of the controlled experiment.Bishop Nicole Oresme (d. 1382) with his work on acceleration, velocity and refraction of light provided mathematically based arguments against astrological beliefs. A pope sponsored the more accurate Gregorian calendar to replace the Julian in 1582.Jesuit Angelo Secchi (d. 1878) used the Vatican’s observatory to first classify stars according to their observed spectra.A humble friar with his pea plants is known as the Father of Genetics.The Belgian priest George Lemaitre (d. 1966) was one of the originators of the Big Bang theory…..
Truth is truth. There is more scientific fact and foreknowledge in the Bible than most people realize. The Bible was derided for centuries for scientific statements found therein that have been proven true by science in the last 100 years. The problem lies in people distorting the truths of the Bible to fit their own ideology. Science and the Bible are quite compatible.
Here’s how the Bible is compatible with science: If you throw it off a tall building it will fall to the ground.
I especially love the artwork on this strip today.
religion has nothing to do with faith… faith is a relationship with God, Christ and the Holy Spirit.
To make Science synoptic with Religion one must break Science to the wheel of religious “thought”.
Fixed it for you…..
To round it out, there should be a politician and a bureaucrat standing there too.
Just FYI, Wiley, that’s not what a Jewish Torah scroll looks like.
-And if you throw it off a spaceship in outer space, it’ll float.
Take a billion bibles, korans and other dogmatic texts, shred them, burn them in a big boiler and you can substitute them for a trainload of coal to generate electricity for a few hours.
Oddly enough, there are some people who don’t see faith in a creator and science as mutually exclusive.
I think the best we can hope for in trying to understand the mysterious universe and our place in it is to all meet in the arena of "reasonable doubt. I’ve never come upon any person or system of beliefs yet who I’ve found to have any reason to be absolutely sure and certain. Reasonable doubt eliminates fanaticism and self-superiority and violence and encourages humility. The answer to the universal mysteries that science has not and may never solve is: maybe. To be grown up is to live with mystery. Maybe.
Religion was invented to control people . and it´s still working !!!
a priest, a rabbi and an imam walk into a classroom…
Wow, seems like there are a bunch of intellectuals here today. I’m probably way out of my league, but for what it’s worth…..God created all that there is, including us. Science is merely us trying to understand God. I really cannot understand what the problem is.
Need to add a couple of others. A politician and a businessman. More issue with them when it comes to science these days.
According to the Bible, Jesus was born in Bethlehem when he was about ten years old: when Herod the Great was alive (he died sometime BCE) AND when Quirinius was conducting the census (6-7 AD). “Religious thought” is often an oxymoron.
You’re all assuming that faith and science don’t mix. Perhaps Wiley only means to include them in the equation.
Brother Martin’s personal view aside, it was the Lutherans that published Copernicus.
Today’s strip reveals Miller’s ignorance. For the truth about Catholicism and science. go to http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/catholic-contributions/the-church-opposes-science-the-myth-of-catholic-irrationality.html
Cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris, and Rome were designed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to function as world-class solar observatories. Nowhere in the world were there more precise instruments for the study of the sun. Each such cathedral contained holes through which sunlight could enter and time lines (or meridian lines) on the floor. It was by observing the path traced out by the sunlight on these lines that researchers could obtain accurate measurements of time and predict equinoxes. 2
In the words of J. L. Heilbron of the University of California, Berkeley, the “Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably, all other institutions.” 3 This financial and social support extended also to other branches of scientific inquiry."
Religion was invented not only to control people, but to give people an illusion of control over their own lives. (Please, God, make it rain today). That said, belief in the findings of science can induce a transcendental high even greater than that of being “born again”. How about those gravitational waves!!
Wow, rare miss for Wiley today.Organized religion was (and is) of critical importance in the development of education, science and scientific method (especially in Western Civ).Science doesn’t mean you check your morality at the door – just like religion doesn’t mean you check your mind at the door.
If one reads the Bible with an open mind rather then taking it literally interpreted word for word I find no instance where the Bible and Science contradict. It actually is amazing how closely the Bible proves scientific discoveries once both are thoroughly vetted.
What strikes me is the shortsightedness of those who believe science and Christianity are incompatible. There is more and more scientific truth for the events of the bible every day. Some of the discoveries have been profound. At the same time, science has degenerated into men who decide on an issue then skew the experiments and computer models to fit their assumption (such as global warming). Whatever happened to the open-minded scientist who experiments to FIND the truth, rather than to prove his own opinion?
I think Wiley left one out…The Politician, the major obscurer
If you’re too stupid for science, there’s always religion.
You do realize of course, that the voice or reason or truth never seems to bother “the true believer?” In the past when a Christian would try to “save me”, I could almost always make them violently angry by just quoting the bible to refute any of their programmed indoctrination.And yes, I have been physically attacked.My life has been negatively impacted by lies of “born again” christians, just because of that. Not knowing that I was atheist, but just by refuting their particular dogmatic argument of whichever “church” they were promoting.Something that has always puzzled me is how the Christian, individually and collectively, promote lies, change history and literature to fit Christian dogma.American Christians don’t know or understand that that their god and savior are just two amongst many. It has been justly said that to read the bible will make you a Christian. To read the bible with understanding will make you an atheist.The posters here are spouting quotes of famous people to support whichever side of the argument they are on. Randolph Churchhill, son of Winston, who had never read the bible until his army mates challenged him to read it in two weeks. It was reported that he would howl with laughter and say, “This god is such a shit.”I always like to end anything like this with a biblical quote. I give it in full so the Qhristians who never read the bible can read it. Here I shall quote Jesus.Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife and children, and brethren,and sisters, yea, his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.This is an exact translation of the Greek.So much for Christian family values.
And we see that in practice today so much as believers rail against science. We also saw Luther’s hatred of the Jews (The Jews and Their Lies) become the “moral” foundation for the Nazi’s mass murder. Religion so often leads to fanaticism and violence, whereas science rarely does.
Certainly explains why no major religious institutions have ever founded schools or universities.Oh … wait …
I have a fridge magnet stuck to my desk (didn’t see it often enough, on the fridge…):
“Religion: It’s like Science for Idiots!”
Always makes me smile…
“irrefutable evidence” on issues such as global warming have me worried about “settled science” Chicago was under ice 10K years ago. It will be again some day. That is called “nature”. Nature was created by God. A failure of religious belief is leading to a corrupt and dangerous world. How many kids were hurt by school prayer? How many because we don’t pray?
Re:Luke 14:26 – i think Jesus meant that if a person does not hate his family, friends and himself, he has no need of Jesus’ teachings…he already knows the way and should move over and provide space for someone who needs to learn and understand….
dot-the-IThanks for the clergy in science list. You added three more to my list. I would welcome additions, particularly of rabbis, imans, and priests other than Christian. Just provide documentation beyond what you read online. Robert Grosseteste, 1175-1253, Bishop of Lincoln, optical astronomy, geography, controlled experimention. Albert Magnus, c1193-1280, Dominican, isolated arsenic. Roger Bacon, 1214-1294, Franciscan, optics, “laws of nature”. Thodonc of Freiberg, c1250-c1310, Dominican, explanation of rainbow. Jean Bunden, 1300-1350, Catholic priest (unstated order), impetus/inertia. Nicole Oresme, 1323-1383, Bishop Lisieux, refraction of light, acceleration. Nicolauus Copernicus, 1473-1543, canon, heliocentric solar system. Jose de Acosta, 1539-1600, Jesuit, first accurate account of New World natural history. Bartholomaeus Pitiscus, 1561-1613, Breslau Calvinist, mathematician, coined “trigonometry”. Francis Bacon, 1561-1626, Anglican deacon, “scientific method”. Johanes Kepler, 1571-1630, Lutheran (considered clergy, not pastor), planetary motion. Nicolas Stano, 1638-1686, Catholic priest (unstated order), stratigraphy as geologic dating. Issac Newton, 1643-1727, Anglican deacon, white light, laws of motion, gravity. Stephen Hales, 1677-1772, Anglican priest, plant physiology, seawater distillation. Emanuel Swedenborg, 1688-1772, theologian, nebular origin of solar system. Andrew Gordon, 1712-1751, Benedictine priest, physicist, first electric motor. Placidus Fiximilner, 1721-1791, Benedictine priest, orbit of Uranus. John Mitchell, 1724-1793, Anglican priest, concept of black holes, connection of earthquakes with fault lines. Joseph Priestly, 1733-1804, Congregational, oxygen, carbon dioxide. Michael Faraday, 1791-1867, Sandemanian elder, electricity, how Ouija board operates. Edward Hitchcock, 1793-1804, Congregational, geology/ paleontology, fossil tracks. Charles Lyell, 1787-1875. Anglican deacon, geology (suggested Darwin sign on Beagle). Charles Darwin, 1809-1881, Anglican seminarian (health prevented ordination), evolution by natural selection, earthworms creating topsoil. Max Plank, 1858-1947, churchwarden, Planck constant, sub-atomic physics. Georges Lemaitre, 1894-1966, Catholic priest (unstated order), “big bang”. Robert Bakker, 1945- , Pentecoastal preacher, endothermic dinosaurs.
It is quantifiable. Look at crime rates and other statistics before and after prayer in school. Even a data scientist would say that there was a cause and effect.
If only the dinosaurs had found religion. They could have just prayed that asteroid away.
Congratulations, Wiley. You’ve awakened the faith-based crowd with a vengeance. The scientific community may never be the same with all reality in jeopardy. When we’re dominated by the dogma of the ancients, we’ll never get past the bounds of our own history.
Fundamental difference: Religion is based on believing; science is based on questioning.
Once again, Wiley has cut to the core of the situation.
God never said it was going to be easy!
The point Wiley is illustrating is that religion’s opposition to science is about protecting each One True Faith’s particular cluster of dogma, which in turn rests on the adherents’ need to control and dictate to others how their lives should be lived. No one has ever suggested that Science does that, so that for someone wanting to live a free life, it is necessary to break the ties that bind.
Religion is a system of beliefs based on faith. Science is a system of belief based on fact. To try to use one system to prove or disprove the beliefs of the other is an exercise in futility.
Ah, yes … the Truth..What is the Truth?
Strip does not make sense.
Oh Wiley, you ole’ provocateur trickster you!
There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.— Stephen Hawkinghttps://hardcoreatheism.blogspot.com
Read any esteemed scientific journal conclusions with a critical and skeptical mind, as I have been so informed through and subsequent to obtaining a degree in Physics way back in…well, way back.
I recommend the book “Faith versus Fact, Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible” by Jerry Coyne.https://hardcoreatheism.blogspot.com
The comments by ghenley and wolfhawke (#10 and #12 above) are pretty good examples of the creationists’ idea of science. Basically, they limit “pure” science to this:The scientific method is based on the collection of data through observation and experimentation.Everything else, they say, is opinion or ideology (belief or bias). This excludes everything that is not directly observable, and actively excludes gaining information from the evidence of things that have already occurred, and passively discourages drawing conclusions from the data. This is the definition of “science” that has the least conflict with religion, since is it so constrained and limited. It is intended to deny the validity of the theory of evolution, and it can also be used (just as illegitimately) against proponents of human-caused global warming. “If you can’t do a controlled experiment that duplicates the activity and scale of the system you’re trying to understand, you can’t use science to understand that system”, they try to tell us. And simulations apparently don’t count. In the terms of this cartoon, you might have a swarm of these people trying to block access to the chalkboard, except for a small opening in the corner..That creationists’ superficial definition is a long way from a complete description of scientific methods, and it doesn’t contain the core feature. A better short description would be:Science is a set of methods for empirical hypothesis testing.(I’ve taken some words from this blog by Steven Novella. Take a look at it if you’re interested in the topic of science and creationists.)
I just love people who show their ignorance of the Church’s contributions to science, contributions which continue to this day.
rpstrongIf you can’t believe what your questioning reveals, you haven’t been questioning properly..Night-Gaunt49Of course it shows, can’t you see?
I find it sad that “religion” has driven so many people away from Christ. I also find it sad that so many people think that science and faith are mutually exclusive. The Bible tells us that God created the universe, science tells us how He did it. I personally find it a lot more likely that God created us all then to believe we are all just a cosmic coincidence.
And religion has been used to enslave others, abuse family(The Father is the head, just like God. So shut up!), etc.Another good book is “The Sins of Scripture” by a retired Episcopal bishop named Spong.
Ridiculously false! Some of the best scientists and most important scientific findings were the result of the Catholic church. Don’t believe me? Try this: the primary “author” of the big bang theory was a Catholic priest. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html
This is just one example, people. Want more? Start your research here:http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/fathers-of-science
The Bible is jam packed with stuff that makes no sense in science. I can put up 1,000s but my favorite is covering the earth with 5 miles of water in 40 days and have it evaporate in a year . Huh?
February 16, 2022