12 thoughts on “Religion and science are compatible. . . .

  1. Wait, doesn’t Christopher Hitchens in fact make the argument based on this thinking. His argument is that there is a compatibility, that the environment for priesthood in more than conducive for pedophilia, it encourages it to the point of an inevitable outcome? They are not only compatible, but complementary with this argument.

      1. BTW, do you recognize the dilemma I proposed?

        I recognize that you are relying on the shallowness of an inappropriate analogy. When inspected in detail, you will see strong relevant differences between the two cases. Hitchens, for example, could point to the prevalence of pedophiles among clergy vs. that of the general populace. Whereas in the case of scientists who are religious, the prevalence is significantly lower than in the general populace.

  2. Not to spoil the party or anything, but isn’t this dumb little syllogism (‘X,Y are scientists; X,Y are religious; => there are religious scientists, PTL, Hallelujah!’) a dead mutton already?

    I’d rather have the Electric Monk argument: humans are the ultimate Electric Monks, being able to hold any number of logically and philosophically irreconcilable beliefs before breakfast.
    Logical consistency and rationality not seeming required in the media space, except for a few islets of sanity, like here.

    Re paedophile priests, what does it matter that your children be fucked, if their souls be saved, so the basic argument seems to go, except for a few crowd-pleasing cosmetic accommodations. No, this is a more serious thing altogether, power corrupts, absolute power over people’s minds and bodies, as arrogated by the Church, corrupts absolutely.

    This reminds me of a Soviet era anecdote, based on edifying tales we were taught at school, to illustrate Lenin’s essential goodness and humanity. A group of children passes by Lenin’s bathroom window. Lenin is shaving. The children greet him: “Good morning, Vladimir Ilyich!” To which Lenin utters an obscene curse. Which shows the great man’s essential goodness and humanity: he could easily have slit the children’s throats with his razor.

  3. I’m still bummed that the artist didn’t do something with Pat Robertson. I realize the cartoon is more worldly and philosophical whereas Pat is a specific American absurdity. But it still would have been fun to see ol’ Pat skewered in a J n’ M cartoon.

Leave a Reply