Non Sequitur day 3: science versus faith

January 29, 2013 • 4:52 am

Today’s Non Sequitur, by Wiley Miller, continues the trope of the deification of Eddie, the Sailor Who Walks on Water (note, though, that Ceiling Cat, accurately depicted as an orange tabby) is actually the boss here).

Like a true religionist, Eddie rejects the facts when they conflict with his faith, as do 64% of his countrymen.


21 thoughts on “Non Sequitur day 3: science versus faith

      1. The comic strip is set in Whatchacallit, Maine; ‘r’ gets added (pronunciation-wise) to some words ending in ‘a’. Look also at how Flo pronounces ‘your’ and ‘chart’. Folks outside New England often refer to it as a ‘Boston’ accent.

        1. I find that accent oddly endearing, and amusing. much like the British tendency to add ‘r’ to the end of words which end in an ‘a’, such as China (pronounced Chinar) Jamaica (as in the old joke that Led Zep used, D’yer maker) and so on. I also find it hilarious that some in the south (the US, not England) pronounce the words ‘ice’ and ‘ass’ in much the same way, or that my step father says ‘tire’ and ‘tar’, as in “Chris, care if I have one of your bottles of Fat Tar?” I cannot stand, however, the way some Brits pronounce ‘chardonnay’ or the way Gordon Ramsay says ‘pee-kins’ when he means pecans (and not pee-cans either!)

          1. I had friends from Massachusetts I used to tease about things like this – there’s also the word ‘idea’ or ‘idear’ (pronounced i.d.-er), but my favorite is the pronunciation of the word ‘saw’ as ‘soar’…. “I soar it” – I always want to ask, “what, as in ‘you threw in over the bushes?'”

            1. Only when the word is followed by a word starting with a vowel, Australians do it too. “I saw it” will be pronounced “I sore it”, but “I saw the car” will not have an ‘r’ at the end of ‘saw’.

        2. To be honest, the way it’s written reminded me of the accent of the Newfoundlanders I spent some time working with a couple of years ago.
          Which is probably saying much the same thing.

    1. Not to dispute starskeptic’s explanation. But, I was wondering if the author put the third panel blocked in red as a flag to the reader that the author intended more than a casual reading of the second panel. Like Eddie’s agender, gender and, his disparaging remarks about scientists and even the pronouncement of the scientist, Eddie through his faith in his agender and christians through their faith in theirs are entirely missing the underlying reality of reality AND it matters, there are consequences. Eddie is lucky that it is just his boat getting stuck this time and christians are lucky that they haven’t destroyed the whole planet’s ability to sustain life yet.

      I don’t know it the author intended anything like that, maybe though.

      1. That’s an interesting take but I think you’re reading too much into it. The ‘reaction shot’ is a common device in comic strips – often indicated with an absence of dialogue; the cartoonist in this case is simply putting more emphasis on it with the red border.

        1. That certainly could be the case but you would need to talk to the author otherwise my speculation is equally as good as yours. 🙂

          But, there is likely some reason why the artist wanted more emphasis, the why is what I was speculating about. At any rate, whether the cartoonist intended it or not, I’ll stand by my speculations as valid statements none the less.

  1. That second panel was last seen in “The Revisionaries” on PBS – starring the lovely and talented Don McLeroy.

  2. Not related to your post but have you seen the CNN article dated 1-18-13 titled ‘Godless Mom Strikes a chord with parents’? She blogged about raising her young children without religion and CNN published her essay, which drew the second highest number of responses yet for a personal essay.
    The results were predictable.

  3. I’ve just been killing brain-cells by trying to read a “biography” of Jacques Derrida by Geoffrey Bennington with long autobiographical footnotes in chapter-long sentences by the man himself.

    Insofar as I can understand it at all, I think they may be saying that postmodernism teaches that the fact that there is only an infinite regress of signifiers – the words “this thing” are not this thing, but nor are the words “this thing” without quotation marks – means that reality is subjective, and therefore (oscillates finger on lips, makes “wibbble-wibble” noise).

    1. I think the “wibble-wibble” starts bach at “infinite regress of signifiers.” There can’t possibly be an infinite number of steps between an actual object and our linguistic representation of it. We’d never be able to communicate if that we’re so.

      We could certainly spin our linguistic wheels manufacturing various ways to insert steps ad libitum, but that’s not necessarily the way communication works at bottom.

      I like what Chomsky has to say about Derrida et al.

  4. He’s still going on day 4…. the last dialogue bubble is very pointed.

    (One of the few advantages of posting from NZ is, I get to see the next day’s Non Seq before you lot do…. 🙂

Leave a Reply