Different ways of knowing

The truth of science:

The truth of faith:

h/t: Otter

34 Comments

  1. NewEnglandBob
    Posted June 18, 2010 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    Obviously, these two are compatible and equivalent – almost like identical twins!

  2. Justin
    Posted June 18, 2010 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    I find the example of Penicillin for science or evolution particularly apt – a few agar plates and E. coli and you can hold an empirical example of selection and evolution in your hands.

  3. Posted June 18, 2010 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    Is that the guy’s mom or are they promoting infidelity? She has wedding ring but I can’t see one on his finger… hmmm…

    • Posted June 18, 2010 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

      Well clearly, she needs to make it clear that she is the property wife of a man. He of course does not, because we all know that Man is good and Woman caused the fall.

      • Posted June 18, 2010 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

        aww, my html strikethrough on property was lost.

  4. Posted June 18, 2010 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    So great…

  5. jdhuey
    Posted June 18, 2010 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    I guess there is more to the Bible than I thought. Does it also say to cut the tomato slices really thin and to never never use Miracle Whip?

    • Norm
      Posted June 18, 2010 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

      Sort of: “If a man maketh his sandwich with Miracle Whip, as he maketh it with mayo, he has committed an abomination: surely he shall be put to death and his sandwich tossed upon him.”

      One of the lesser know moral edicts found in Leviticus somewhere … near the back I think.

  6. Screechy Monkey
    Posted June 18, 2010 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    But one can take penicillin and make a sandwich, so faith and science are compatible! QED.

    • Shatterface
      Posted June 18, 2010 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

      If you leave your sandwich long enough god will turn the bread into penicilin.

      • Owl700
        Posted July 29, 2010 at 8:11 am | Permalink

        Excellent

  7. Posted June 18, 2010 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    Looks like appropriate public relations material for the Promise Keepers.

  8. Patrick
    Posted June 18, 2010 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Its spelled “sammich” in this context.

  9. Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    Posted June 18, 2010 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    There are also different ways of discussion.

    If sports got discussed as science:

    HOST: Food for thought, Steve. I believe Mr Ancelotti’s still on the line.. Carlo, do you have any response to that?
    ANCELOTTI: Well, the offside rule is clearly documented and the vast majority of authorities have agreed that it is being interpreted correctly as “two players” for many years now. There’s no real debate as to whether the offside rule exists or how it should be interpreted. That’s why I was so disappointed in the referee’s decision.
    HOST: Let’s take another call. Line 3.. Angela, in Newcastle. Hi, Angela!
    ANGELA IN NEWCASTLE: Yeah, I’d like to ask why this establishment figure is attacking the referee so viciously. The referee employed an interpretation of the offside rule which most so-called authorities would consider “wrong”, but I think that’s just a really arrogant view, assuming that this so-called offside rule is as set in stone as they want us to think it is. This referee is just being victimised for being a maverick who brings things out into the open that the money-driven football establishment and the sportswear manufacturers want covered up. I’m certainly going to think twice about letting my children play football now.

    [HT: Bad Astronomy.]

    • Neil
      Posted June 18, 2010 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

      “Sandwich” has several meanings.

      • Torbjörn Larsson, OM
        Posted June 19, 2010 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

        Yes; and all testable.

        • Adey
          Posted June 20, 2010 at 2:15 am | Permalink

          An ad campaign in the UK for a particular alcoholic drink runs; “The offside rule for girls— If the flag’s up it’s offside”

  10. Ryan Vilbig
    Posted June 18, 2010 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    According to the Catholic Church: “Truth cannot contradict truth” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus). So there is no contradiction between what can be known through faith and what can be known through reason.

    So tell me, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” (Jer 13:23, RSV).

    Isn’t it time you atheists evolved?

    -Ryan Vilbig
    ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

    • Chris
      Posted June 19, 2010 at 8:30 am | Permalink

      Way to take a verse out of context, slick. It’s pretty clear the author meant that just as those things can’t change, neither can these sinners change. In fact, the footnote in my New Oxford Annotated Bible (not a fundie publication, by the way) says that this verse means “In her present state, Jerusalem cannot change herself” (pp 1100, HB).

      FAIL.

      • Ryan Vilbig
        Posted June 19, 2010 at 8:53 am | Permalink

        Pope John Paul II said evolution was “more than a hypothesis.” Pope Benedict the XVI said “evolution lies behind us as something self-evident.”

        Saint Thomas Aquinas actually developed this notion of species mutability into an entire theory of the development of life:

        “Since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it was not incompatible with the first formation of things, that from the corruption of the less perfect the more perfect should be generated. Hence animals generated from the corruption of inanimate things, or of plants, may have been generated then [the sixth day]. But those generated from corruption of animals could not have been produced then otherwise than potentially.”(STh, I q.72 a.6)

        The doors of the Catholic Church are always open. Be not afraid!

        -Ryan Vilbig
        ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

        • Chris
          Posted June 19, 2010 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

          Way to ignore what I wrote above about the blunder you made in twisting the bible to support your position.

          Anyway, isn’t it obvious that the church was (finally) forced to accept evolution from the outside (the overwhelming scientific evidence) and not the inside (its “infallible” theology)?

          And what do you think Aquinas really would have done if you suggested humans evolved from lower apes? He was a defender of the Inquisition, you know, not a reasonable man. You’d be burnt at the stake my friend!

          I second Kevin’s comment.

          • Ryan Vilbig
            Posted July 5, 2011 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

            Saint Jerome commented on Jeremiah 13:23: In a letter to Oceanus, Saint Jerome wrote: “By the reading of the prophet the eunuch of Candace the queen of Ethiopia is made ready for the baptism of Christ. Though it is against nature the Ethiopian does change his skin and the leopard his spots.” (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001069.htm). In a letter to Paulinus, he wrote “[Jeremiah] speaks of a rod of an almond tree and of a seething pot with its face toward the north, and of a leopard which has changed its spots.” (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001053.htm)

    • Kevin
      Posted June 19, 2010 at 10:03 am | Permalink

      Fuck off, troll.

      • NewEnglandBob
        Posted June 19, 2010 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

        Succinct and appropriate.

  11. Posted June 18, 2010 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    “OK”
    (waves hands)
    “Poof! You’re a sandwich!”

    (My DW and I have been using that joke on each other for 30 years. Believe it or not, that’s probably one reason we’re still happily married….)

  12. Posted June 19, 2010 at 2:26 am | Permalink

    Brilliant. Many thanks for posting this and making me laugh.

  13. Posted June 19, 2010 at 3:58 am | Permalink

    I think many here are being real meanies. Science and religion are indeed (and here I must acknowledge the fine reasoning of the accommodationists) different ways of knowing.

    For example, science is a great way of knowing and finding out interesting and useful things about the real world and our place in it; religion is a great way of knowing and finding out banal cabbage layered thickly on top of ancient myths that are typically totally misrepresented, taken out of context, or relied upon to give pronouncement on things the authors, redactors and marginalists could not possibly have had the foggiest clue about.

    See? Different ways of knowing. QED.

    The correct response of the scientist is to demand religiots to “Gerroff my land! Stop overlapping my magisterium!” But then when we do that we get called strident or truculent. What’s a punter to do?

  14. Lena
    Posted June 19, 2010 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    There is no way that the ACLU et al can make a sustainable argument that it is right and proper for tax monies to be used to support the “creation scenario” of Big Bang Evolutionary “science” Model. Why? Because that “science” fulfills the creation scenario of the Religion of Pharisaic Judaism as taught in one of their holy books, namely, the Kabbala, and the ACLU is known to be the legal arm for Talmud/Kabbala-based Judaic causes in the USA, that’s why.

    And, given the demonstrable Kabbalic origins of the Relativistic Big Bang Expanding Universe Model, the ACLU certainly can no longer argue that the science which upholds the “Creation Scenario” of the Religion of Christianity as expressed in the holy book called the Bible is forbidden the access to tax-funded classrooms because it is religion and not science. Case closed.

  15. Lena
    Posted June 19, 2010 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    Nahmanides, also known as Rabbi Moses ben Nachman Girondi, Bonastruc ça Porta and by his acronym Ramban, (Gerona, 1194 – Land of Israel, 1270), was a Catalan rabbi, philosopher, physician, kabbalist, and biblical commentator.

    His commentary on the creation of the world describes the universe expanding, and matter forming.

    “ …At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed.[3]

    • Ryan Vilbig
      Posted June 19, 2010 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      The Judeo-Christian understanding of creation does not require that the universe had a beginning. U Delaware physicist Stephen Barr recently reiterated this point in his book “Modern Physics and Ancient:”

      “[I]f one thinks about it for a while, one can see that a thing can be caused without necessarily having had any beginning in time. For example, imagine that an object is illuminated by a lamp. The lamp is the cause or explanation of the object’s being illuminated. However, nothing in that fact tells us whether the lamp has been illuminating the object for a finite time or for infinite time. If the lamp has always been illuminating the object, then the illumination of the object had no beginning, but nevertheless it always had a cause” (Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, page 33)

      Hope this helps,

      -Ryan Vilbig
      ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

      • Lena
        Posted June 19, 2010 at 11:39 am | Permalink

        All descriptions and definitions of Kabbalism given by Rabbis, dictionaries, and encyclopedias acknowledge that it is a mystical religion, steeped in secrecy and hidden meanings which, allegedly, only a chosen few can decipher and understand. This clandestine approach to revealing God is in sharp contrast to that taught in the Bible of Christianity which is printed in hundreds of languages and taught openly around the world to all who will listen…and often by teachers of the most humble backgrounds. Jesus, Himself, said: “…in secret I have said nothing.” (John 18:20). “Nothing is secret that shall not be made manifest” (Luke 8:17), etc. Can any honest and intelligent Truth seeker trust and follow a handful of contradictory “adepts” who are so “illuminated” that their wisdom must be kept secret lest the “unwashed masses” spoil it? Spare us all from such crapology!

        • Kevin
          Posted June 20, 2010 at 9:11 am | Permalink

          Lena;
          Please seek psychiatric attention.

  16. Darrell E
    Posted June 19, 2010 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    This thread has become infested with some major league woooo.

    WARNING

    Reading may cause bruising or even fractures of the ribs, or in some cases rupture of the diaphragm. Some cases of upper lip malformations lasting minutes, or even hours, have also been reported. Read at your own risk.

    • Delusional
      Posted June 26, 2010 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

      Can I ask something?
      What exactly defines “woo”? Is it just religion, or can it define any unscientific belief, like Bigfoot or flying saucers?


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] In the mean time, Jerry Coyne sums my views up pretty well in two pictures and a snarky title. […]

%d bloggers like this: