The Agnostic?

October 15, 2015 • 11:00 am

I think I’m suffering from Congenital Comic Blindness, as I seem unable to fully grasp the humor in religion-related cartoons (or even understand them), while readers don’t appear to have that problem.

Several readers sent me today’s Non Sequitur strip by Wiley Miller, and I’m not quite sure why it’s funny. I submit it for the readers’ consideration, knowing that most of you will get it and like it, but maybe someone could explain why it’s funny.

As far as I can see, it’s funny because the surfer, as an agnostic, doesn’t trust that the waters will remain parted for Moses et al., and so is surfing on them. But I don’t understand why that’s so riotously funny. See for yourself, and feel free to comicsplain.

nq151015

206 thoughts on “The Agnostic?”

      1. Wiley takes religious themes to have a little fun. And the Parting of the Red sea is right out of Cecil B. Demille.

        I smiled at it. Taking such a solemn scene of the fantastic and adding someone who utilizes it for fun is funny. Not knee slapping funny, but still funny. Now not everyone is going to find it funny. Both on the Christo-Judaic side and the Atheist/Agnostic but I do and I would have done that too.

    2. I wouldn’t take any issue with the cartoon, if only it were titled The Straw Man Agnostic.

    3. I think that’s the best explanation. I have to say, I don’t really ‘get it’ either and I’m actually a cartoonist! Does that make you feel any better Prof. Ceiling Cat? I do like the visual quite a lot though.

      1. I just don’t know what is there not to “get” here? You see no humor at the effrontery of someone taking and using it for some fun funny? Not even a little?

        1. It’s a humorous visual for sure. But there’s a disconnect for me between the visual and the words “the Agnostic”. As a cartoonis, it’s actually embarrassing for me to admit that, by the way. Please don’t make me feel worse! 🙂

          1. I agree with you – the visual by itself would be quite funny but by titling it ‘the agnostic’ it no longer makes much sense – there’s a dissonance, or at least a disconnect, between the image and the title. Possibly the cartoonist has a different understanding of what ‘agnostic’ means.

            Can I ask you – do you think allowing this level of ambiguity in the meaning of your cartoons would be good for them or bad for them? Do you aim to get across the meaning of the joke or do you leave it open to interpretation(I’m assuming you draw similar kinds of cartoons – apologies if you’re not 🙂 ). I’d be interested to know as I have my own ideas, but I might be completely wrong(it’s happened before once or twice).

          2. Whereas I think the title adds the perfect touch.

            But if you want to see some ambiguous cartoons, look through XKCD. There are dozens of them. Or Perry Bible Fellowship (which is not a religious site ; ) Sometimes I only get the point on the second or third viewing.

            cr

  2. I think it’s funny. The agnostic, like the atheist, sees the world for what it is, takes it as it comes, wiling to explore and experience on their own terms with no need to follow magical paradigms.

    But you can never really explain humor.

      1. Similarly I think it’s “There may be a god or there may not be a god, but Hey look! there’s a wave I’m going surfing”

        It sort of fits with the surfer dude mindset. Life’s short – let’s go surfing!

    3. I don’t fully agree with your characterisation
      of agnostics and atheists. Strictly speaking an agnostic believes that the existence of god is unknowable, and may be theistic or atheistic. A theistic agnostic certainly does not see “the world for what it is, takes it as it comes, wil[l]ing to explore and experience on their own terms with no need to follow magical paradigms.”

      Can’t explain humour? Well I can see how the cartoon is funny now it has been explained, better than I did at first.

  3. I don’t find it riotously funny, but my interpretation is that Moses et al are taking advantage of a supernatural situation, while the surfer makes the most of a natural phenomenon.

      1. I find it a large grin amusing, for the reasons above and as the surfer is clearly enjoying himself, where as Moses is clearly indifferent. One comment said it’s insulting and I tend to lean that way, my bias.
        But also, for the opportunism of the surfer, parting of the waters be buggered it’s surfs up buddy!
        I have known surfers, depending on the prevailing winds, to chase waves for hundreds of kilometres from one coast to the other in one weekend, winter or not.

        1. Insulting yes. But only to the stiff ones who think any humor in something “serious” like this is wrong.

          I can see both Atheists and Believers being looked upon as humorless. Not true since we all react differently.

        2. It probably is insulting to some, but insult (like offence) is to large extent a personal choice.

          The issue of insulting religious believers is a serious part of the problem with religion, that believers feel they have some entitlement not to be laughed at for ridiculous beliefs, that their religion has some authority or respectability.

    2. And BTW, the “phenomenon” depicted in the cartoon violates all laws of physics, so it’s not a natural one.

        1. Ha.. ha.. ha..

          The laws governing the physical forces involved in the flow of water are violated here.

  4. It’s mostly funny for its irreverence. The surfer isn’t awed by the alledged miracle. He just sees a mongo wave to ride.

    1. But is that really what agnosticism is about, i.e. discarding evidence of miracles?

      Looks like another straw man cartoon to me…

      2. Only if the surfer cares enough about not caring that he needs to give it a label. He may be completely apathetic about apatheism.

      1. If you read the comic you would agree with its title since it is both political and apolitical and covers the gamut so non sequitur fits very well.

        1. I meant the title of the specific comic, not the strip itself. I follow NS every day in my local paper. Though the printing is so small on some days that I have to break out the magnifying glass (comics have shrunk, over the years, to about 1/2 their original size).

    1. The cartoon implies that the agnostic doesn’t believe in the obvious evidence of a miracle. Or worse, he doesn’t even care about the evidence.

      1. There’s another way of looking at it, one not a strawman of agnostics but not gentle to them, either.

        All of us here can agree that Moses parting the Red Sea is a fantasy that never actually happened. And we can also agree that religious people are trapped in that fantasy, thinking it’s really real. The Agnostic in the cartoon is also partaking of the fantasy, just in a much less reverent way.

        Answering, “I don’t know,” to the question of whether or not Moses parted the Red Sea puts you much closer to the religious than it does the sane. If you really think there’s sufficient plausibility to the faery tale that you’ve got to hedge your bets with an agnostic stance about it, you’re solidly in the territory of those whose minds are so open their brains are in danger of falling out.

        Agnosticism is no more warranted with respect to the nonexistence of gods than it is with respect to heliocentricism. Yes, of course, if new evidence presents itself that you’re a brain in a vat in some weird universe with a flat Earth and so on, you’d want to consider revising your perspective. Short of thought experiments about such paranoid conspiracy theories, remaining open to the possibility of geocentricism is insane in the extreme — as is remaining open to the possibility of the reality of gods or the supernatural in general.

        Cheers,

        b&

        1. If your interpretation isn’t what Miller intended, it should be. Seen through the lense of “agnostics are people who can’t figure out what position to take on whether crazy bullshit happened”, it’s a pretty good cartoon.

          1. Looks more to the wild side of some who take it as it comes and has fun with it regardless of what people think. Never thought of it as an attack on Agnostics. I dare say Wiley would wonder why all of your are so riled over it.

          2. “…take it as it comes and ha[ve] fun with it regardless of what people think.”

            Is that behavior exclusive to agnostics? Or even just a characteristic usually associated with agnosticism? I think theists and atheists alike could fit that description.

            I don’t know what message Miller intended. That’s why I phrased my response to Ben the way I did. I don’t care at all what Miller intended. This cartoon doesn’t “rile” me at all. People who identify as “agnostic but not atheist” rile me a bit.

        2. “whose minds are so open their brains are in danger of falling out” – Admiral Grace Hopper IIRC (or something close).

          “Agnosticism is no more warranted with respect to the nonexistence of gods than it is with respect to heliocentricism.” Hmmmm but we have evidence and reason for heliocentricism that is much stronger than for the nonexistence of gods. Consider the notion for example (which I don’t hold to) that god exists in another dimension, or universe, and is undetectable in ours. Almost by definition that is a god one can only be agnostic about, in that the position of agnosticism is of not being able to know.

          For myself, that god sounds a lot like Xenu.

          1. Consider the notion for example (which I don’t hold to) that god exists in another dimension, or universe, and is undetectable in ours. […] For myself, that god sounds a lot like Xenu.

            Not even close; Xenu is the Galactic (non universal) overlord that ferries thetans around in spaceships that look like ’50s-era airliners.

            Nor does it even vaguely resemble any god ever actually worshipped. Why worship the undetectable?

            And why be agnostic about extra-dimensional non-interventionist gods when, I’m sure, you’re also not agnostic about extra-dimensional non-interventionist unicorns? Are you agnostic about the silently invisible and unsubstantial dragon who breathes heatless flame in my garage? What’s so special about the faerytale characters known as gods that you’re agnostic about them but not about everything else in the storybook?

            b&

          3. Heh…that’s what you think. In reality, that’s not a dragon in your garage. It’s just the Invisible Pink Unicorn (MPBUHHH) messin’ wit you. She told me Herself.

            b&

      2. Scientifik said:

        The cartoon implies that the agnostic doesn’t believe in the obvious evidence of a miracle. Or worse, he doesn’t even care about the evidence.

        I agree with this. Unless Miller’s actually making fun of agnostics here–claiming they are too stubborn to see the evidence for a miracle to stop being agnostic. That agnostics are merely “atheist lite”.

        I’d have a hard time remaining an atheist if I had the opportunity to surf in the wake of a miracle by a god*.

        I’d say that with the title, this is a comic fail. Without, quite funny.

        *Of course, that would be assuming that there was no natural explanation for the event.

      2. Now that one leaves me completely baffled. Obviously there’s a punchline somewhere but what it might be I have no idea. I suspect it requires familiarity with some cultural meme I have never come across.

        cr

        1. Many intersecting memes…”Where’s Waldo?” a popular children’s book series in a similar visual style where the aim is to find the title character hidden in plain sight in a variety of settings…Islam’s prohibition against depiction of Muhammad…the fact that Muhammad isn’t actually there…but any of the men in it could, perhaps, be named, “Muhammad”…and so could any stuffed toys…and Muhammad’s presumed omnipresence…and so on….

          Cheers,

          b&

          3. OK, ‘Where’s Waldo’ is the relevant bit of background knowledge which I lacked.

            Thanks

            cr

  6. I’d say it is funny because everyone else is all wrapped up in the awesome God showing what an impressive dude He is (He boasted several times beforehand that He would defeat the mighty Egyptian army, whereas the agnostic is like, hey! waves!, completely oblivious to God’s sullen masses.

      1. What is amazing is how skeptical everyone ones was even after several displays of power were done. In fact a little too skeptical. Like the writer wanted to make sure that several more “miracles” would be done first including “hardening Pharaoh’s heart” so that he could slay all the first born in Egypt. I always thought that was just gratuitousness. Overkill really.

        But then it has been pointed out that the Bible seems to have been written with small stage plays in mind.

        1. “including “hardening Pharaoh’s heart” so that he could slay all the first born in Egypt.”

          Now that brings up the internal contradiction inherent in an ‘all-powerful’ omnipresent God. If *anything* happens it must be because Goddidit. In this case, ‘hardening Pharaoh’s heart’ must by definition have been done by God, even though it was a Bad Thing and caused Pharaoh to do stuff that required God to wreak ghastly revenge on P’s luckless subjects. What an utter bastard (and I don’t mean Pharaoh).

          cr

  7. I agree with sshort above. But before that I was also thinking that it is sort of like a work of abstract art. Rather than plainly explaining itself to the viewer, like a realistic painting, it is rather ambiguous so the viewer might find their own meaning.

    It would also work (for me) if the word box said The Atheist.

    1. A person can be agnostic or undecided about one item without being an Agnostic in religion.

    2. Yes, “atheist” would be much funnier. If I would see a miracle I would probably ignore it 🙂

    1. It would be nice if you gave yourself a name. “Anonymous” is used too often. You get lost.

    1. Who ever said it was supposed to be “riotously funny” in the first place? Leading the witness and straw dogging here.

  11. I’m probably overthinking this, but would surfing work with motionless walls of water? What would be the properties of water restrained by divine will?

    1. Ah, the weak of faith. It’s a magical motionless wall of water already. So imagining a magical surfboard is not a huge step.

    2. Why wouldn’t it work? The board can still carve a diagonal down the slope, whether that slope is moving or not.

      1. Depends on where the velocity comes from in real surfing; does it derive solely from the inclination of the water surface to level, or does it steal energy from the wave itself?

        1. Surfing is like skiing or snowboarding: the velocity comes from gravity. A moving wave prolongs the ride by lifting the board up continuously as it falls, but that’s not different in principle from taking the lift back to the top of the mountain for another run.

          1. I don’t think that could be the whole story. It seems like there must be some energy transfer from the wave to the board as well. It is routine to be able to gather enough inertia on a surfboard to be able to move up the wave into the air above it, i.e. to a substantially higher elevation than the wave. I don’t think that would be possible surfing on a wall of water.

          2. Ski jumpers gather enough momentum to leave the ground. Surf jumping is the same thing, except that where the skier glides down the stationary mountain, in surfing the water rises past the stationary surfer. In the rider’s frame of reference, the relative motion of the slope is the same.

            And yes, the wave does transfer energy to the board, by lifting it against gravity (just as the ski lift transfers energy to the skier). But I don’t think the wave itself accelerates the board by pushing on it; the fact that the wave is moving toward the beach is irrelevant to the board, since it shares that motion.

          3. An interesting problem. One issue with the comparison to ski jumping, skiers start from a significantly higher elevation than the launch ramps they use and higher than the height they achieve during their jumps.

          4. But the momentum comes not so much from the starting altitude as from the duration of the fall. The total vertical height of water traversed by a surfer far exceeds the instantaneous height of the wave; it’s just that (unlike a mountain) the part already traversed has dissipated.

          6. Sure, but that doesn’t add any energy to the system, in fact changing direction causes a loss of energy.

            As an analogy, one of the most basic things pilots learn is that an airplane loses energy in a turn and that you have to compensate for that by, depending on circumstances and the duration of the turn, either pulling back on the stick or increasing throttle, or both. Or, if it doesn’t matter, just accepting a loss of altitude and or speed.

          7. I agree with Gregory there. The front of the wave is continually rising, so the surfer can ski ‘down’ the slope without losing any elevation. If he wants, he can translate his kinetic energy into height by angling up the face of the wave.

            (This would be impossible in the cartoon shown, since the wave fronts there can’t be advancing on each other or Moses et all would be about to wipeout in about one second.)

          8. But the question is how much height? If the only energy available is from gravity then the maximum elevation the surfer could achieve would be less than the elevation achievable if the surfer is able to utilize energy from the wave and convert it to kinetic energy as well.

            If gravity is the only source of energy for the surfer or the skier then, like a bouncing ball, they can not ever reach the elevation, the amount of gravitational potential energy, that they started from.

            I am not clear on the physics of surfing a wave, but purely based on my experience as a surfer I am wondering if, contra Gregory, that a surfer can leech some energy from the wave rather than merely the gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy gained by “falling down the wave.” Because it is fairly routine in surfing to be able to jump a good bit higher (relative to wave height) than the height of the wave.

          9. The wave is moving forward. That’s manifested as the water at a given location moving up and down, but the wave itself is propagating forward. The surfer has an insignificant mass compared to the wave, and thus the surfer gets the forward velocity of the wave for free, as it were. Translating that forward velocity into other directions is trivial — especially since anything the surfer does that expends kinetic energy will be instantly and perpetually (until the wave reaches the shore) replenished by the forward velocity of the wave.

            b&

          10. Yes, but that still doesn’t address the question. Any energy that can be converted to kinetic energy can be used to change the direction of motion when you have a medium to push against (air, water, friction against a surface).

            Gregory’s position, if I understand him correctly, is that the only energy available for the surfer to utilize is that from gravitational potential energy accessed by “falling” down the wave, but like a treadmill the wave is continuously moving so that you don’t actually change elevation (unless you maneuver of course).

            I’m thinking the surfer may also be able to scavenge some of the waves energy. An analogy would be a ball dropped from elevation H onto an active surface that can impart additonal energy to the ball enabling it to bounce to an elevation H+.

          11. If the surfer isn’t changing altitude, then gravity isn’t a factor. Look at a plot of altitude over the entire ride and it’s essentially a flat line.

            Now, plot the surfer’s velocity (relative to the shoreline), as well as the wave’s velocity — and the velocity of the surfer relative to the wave. Again within rounding, the surfer’s motion is identical to that of the wave.

            Therefore, without even pulling out a calculator, we know that, within rounding, all the surfer’s kinetic energy comes from the forward motion of the wave itself. Any other factors might be interesting, but aren’t significant.

            The surfer has a constant kinetic energy of her mass times the wave’s velocity, powered by the overwhelmingly (within rounding, infinitely) greater kinetic energy of the wave; the surfer can use as much of that kinetic energy as she likes however she likes and get it all right back again from the wave. As you note, she can easily do that by pushing against the water. She loses was would be to her a significant amount of kinetic energy by doing so…but, again, the wave has so much more kinetic energy than she does that she can steal it right back again and keep her own kinetic energy constant.

            In principle, it’s very much like an orbital slingshot maneuver. When a probe makes a close pass by a planet to both change direction and pick up speed, the increase in the probe’s speed is offset by an equal decrease in the planet’s own speed — which is manifested by the planet settling closer to the Sun (and, thus, perversely, increasing its angular and linear velocity). But the difference in masses is such that the change in the planet’s orbital velocity is a rounding error.

            The surfer also proportionally slows down (and thus disrupts) the wave, but she weighs so much less than the wave that you can’t measure the difference. The turbulence in the wake of the surfer…that’s the offset.

            Cheers,

            b&

          13. Ben, your argument is contradicted by the experience of mecwordpress (below) in surfing standing waves. The velocity of the wave with respect to shore is irrelevant to the surfer’s velocity across the wave, which comes from the motion of water through the wave lifting the surfer against gravity.

            Similarly, a skydiver can perform the same aerobatic tricks regardless of whether he’s free-falling from a plane or hovering in a wind tunnel. Altitude and motion relative to the ground are irrelevant; what matters is motion relative to the airstream. And gravity plays a crucial role in maintaining that motion in either case.

          14. Hmm…hadn’t considered standing waves. I think I’d have to see that in action in order to get a visceral grip of what’s going on.

            Seems to me that it’d only work on the upstream side of the wave, for starters. In at least some perspective, the wave is going to be equivalent to one propagating upstream at the same velocity as the rest of the flow is propagating downstream — which then reduces to the same physics as I just described.

            …but that’s a guess from not having seen it….

            b&

          15. Ben, the problem, as I understand it, is to explain the velocity of the surfer relative to the wave, i.e. in the wave’s frame of reference. And in that frame, the wave’s kinetic energy is zero; all the energy resides in the stream of water flowing through the wave.

            Recasting it in terms of some external reference frame in which the wave has nonzero kinetic energy seems counterproductive. Doing so doesn’t introduce any new sources of exploitable energy. (A passenger in a spaceship can’t extract any useful work from the ship’s forward motion, no matter what frame you choose.) All you’re doing is adding an arbitrary constant term to both the wave’s motion and the surfer’s motion. The math is simpler if you choose a frame in which that term vanishes.

          16. “Gregory’s position, if I understand him correctly…”

            Apparently I have not made myself understood. My position is that the energy available to the surfer comes from being continuously lifted by the wave (not from being propelled forward by it), just as the energy available to the skier comes from being intermittently lifted by the ski lift. Gravity converts that potential energy into velocity, which can be converted back into altitude by the surfer. The cumulative potential energy available to the surfer is much greater than the instantaneous height of the wave, and that’s why the surfer can jump higher than the wave.

            Suppose we froze the ocean and tilted it up at an angle. Then surfing and skiing become identical, and it’s clear that the board’s velocity comes from falling down the slope. Basically what the wave does is tilt the ocean up a little at a time. Since the surfer remains within the tilted zone, from his point of view it’s as if the entire ocean were tilted and he’s surfing down it. So he gets the gravitational advantage of the entire duration of his ride, just as the skier does. The only difference is that the lifting happens incrementally throughout the ride instead of just once at the start of the ride.

            To push the analogy from the other side, suppose we replace the ski lift with a wormhole portal device. Ski into the bottom portal at full speed, and you emerge from the top portal with your speed intact. (Obviously the portal mechanism, like the ski lift, must supply the energy needed to lift you against gravity.) Now you don’t need a mountain because it doesn’t matter how far apart the portals are. 10 feet is as good as 10,000; in either case what the skier sees is an infinite virtual slope on which he can build up arbitrarily high velocity. Surfing is the limiting case in which the distance between portals goes to zero and the lifting is continuous.

            I hope that makes it clearer. Sorry to drag this digression out at such length.

          17. Gregory,

            I don’t think that is accurate, going by my own knowledge & thinking, and doing a bit of searching on the web.

            One quick example that is fairly typical of explanations of the physics of surfing from a variety of sources from physicists to engineers designing boards.

            “Several forces are at play when you’re surfing the wave. (Yay! Free body diagram) There’s a downward gravitational force, an upward buoyancy force, a forward force due to the momentum of the wave, an opposing force due to drag, and another upward force due to water moving up the wave.”[What are the physics of surfing?]

            An interesting tidbit I came across on an engineering web page was the results of tests that compared “glass-on” fins to removable fins and found that though there was a negligable difference in drag there was an unexpected and significant difference in lift in favor of “glass-on” fins.

          18. How is this alleged forward force transmitted to the board, if the water beneath it is moving upward and backward? I claim that any forward force comes from gravity pulling the board downward along the slope of the wave. At best, the wave exerts a forward force in the same sense that a ramp exerts a forward force on a ball rolling down it. The forward momentum of the wave in some other reference frame is irrelevant to that.

          19. Hmm…I think you may well have pointed to the answer.

            Imagine an inclined treadmill with the tread running from the bottom of the incline to the top. Now, imagine rollerskating on it. Point your skates parallel to the treadmill and you roll straight to the bottom and off the end. Point them perpendicular and friction carries you to the top and off the en. Point them at a certain angle between and you maintain a constant hight, but you also gain a velocity component perpendicular to the treadmill.

            All your momentum comes from the upwards motion of the surface of the treadmill. The faster the treadmill runs, the more momentum you can extract from it. Ignoring drag and the width of the treadmill, you can maintain a constant lateral acceleration by keeping your skates pointed at that magic angle that maintains a constant elevation on the treadmill. What you do with all that speed you build up is up to you.

            b&

          20. @ Darrelle

            “But the question is how much height? If the only energy available is from gravity then the maximum elevation the surfer could achieve would be less than the elevation achievable if the surfer is able to utilize energy from the wave and convert it to kinetic energy as well.”

            Here’s my explanation:

            The front of the wave is continually rising as the wave travels forward through the water. The surfer is sliding ‘down’ the rising surface, but in actuality maintaining the same level (so his gravitational potential energy has not changed at all. He’s just used gravity to counteract the tendency of the rising water at the front of the wave to lift him up and over). While doing this, he acquires kinetic energy – if it weren’t for drag, his speed along the wave front could increase indefinitely. (Where does that kinetic energy come from? – from the rising water, a small part of which he has slowed down in its rise. Because he’s traversed a lot of wave front, his kinetic energy comes from hundreds of yards of wavefront, rather than just the small height of the wave itself, and therefore his KE can be much greater than just the potential energy difference between bottom and top of wave). And it’s this kinetic energy that he can draw on when he angles up the wave and jumps into the air.

            (You think this is hard, just try explaining downwind-faster-than-the-wind
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_(land_yacht)

            In general, if you have two mediums (I can’t think of a better word) moving relative to each other, then you can extract enough energy from the interaction to move faster than either on its own. In the case of the surfer, the ‘mediums’ are the rising wave front and gravity; in the case of the land yacht, it’s the air (wind) and the ground.

            cr

          23. Ben,

            One thing missing from your model, which corresponds well with a standing wave, is that the wave has a horizontal velocity component and if you manage to catch the wave so do you. It ranges from 8 to 35 mph for waves of the variety that people surf. That horizontal velocity component is in addition to the vectors involved in the standing wave model you described.

      2. You can surf on standing waves; I did it as a boy surfing on standing waves running out of tidal ponds. It can also be done on standing waves in rivers (Youtoob search will show examples). The water has to be moving, though. In the case of standing waves water is actually moving *up* the face of the wave and if you position your board correctly the resistance of the water to your board matches the downward force of gravity.

        So unless that wave has water moving up its face that surfer will have a short ride down.

        2. Yes, you make a good point. In riding a pipeline surfers go horizontally. If they were simply falling they would crash at the bottom long before they got out of the end of the tube.

          The wave makes water go up at the front, otherwise the peak of the wave would not be higher than the average water level.

  12. I think it’s funnier without the label. One guy surfing instead of walking is amusing. Agnosticism is irrelevant, from my point of view.

    1. “I think it’s funnier without the label. One guy surfing instead of walking is amusing.”

      But what point would the cartoon then make? That some faithists (for instance Catholic priests) can be really cool and funny people?

        1. But with the label we’re also taking away the specific point the cartoonist wanted to make about a specific group of people.

          1. Who said the author wants to make a statement about a specific group of people?

            Non sequitur definition: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

  14. I see it as a cynical jab at agnostics. They are really atheists, but pretend to hold out a la Pascal’s Wager, in case there are fringe benefits for doing so.

      1. I think you misunderstand what agnostic really means. It technically means a person who believes that we cannot know whether god exists or not. Technically at least there can be theistic agnostics.

        It is a philosophical position on what we can know about god, not the existence of god.

        1. It technically means a person who believes that we cannot know whether god exists or not.

          Yes — which is exactly why agnosticism is so indefensible.

          We’ve known at least since Epicurus, a third of a millennium before Mark wrote an Euhemerized biography for Jesus, that there are no powerful moral agents with humanity’s best interests at heart — or even, for that matter, a subset of humanity. That right there rules out all gods ever worshipped.

          We also now know that the mere concept of ultimate knowledge, ultimate power, ultimate anything is as incoherent as the quotient of zero; see Turing and Gödel et al. for details.

          The agnostic insistence that knowledge of the gods is, even in principle, beyond human ken is indistinguishable from the various religious arguments in favor of the existence of the gods. It is a position not only unsupported by evidence but contradicted by it, logically incoherent, and based on nothing but misunderstanding and wishful thinking.

          It’s perfectly fine to state that you don’t know enough to be comfortable with any conclusion. What’s not reasonable is therefore insisting that nobody else has any grounds for reaching a conclusion, either. Your ignorance is your problem, not mine.

          b&

  15. I’m thinking the comic is meant to portray agnostics as easy going, untroubled and carefree while theists and atheists both spend to much angst on the question of god(s).

    1. That might have been Miller’s point, but as I said in a previous comment, I think it fails. If anything it’s portraying the agnostic as one who is blind to evidence.

  16. I think the humor is in the incongruity of a surfer enjoying the cliched image of Moses leading his people. The “Agnostic” title is mostly a throw-away line, but that surfer certainly isn’t showing the reverence usually associated with the image.

    1. Well…then it’s confirmed my atheism, because I’m pretty sure(6.5 if I had to place it on a scale) that it’s completely and utterly unfunny.

      I appreciate that some people believe it’s funny, that it’s funny for them, and I can understand that it probably brings them comfort – and I’m certainly not saying I can objectively prove that it’s not funny – but I’m afraid I need evidence of its funniness…and there simply isn’t any.

        1. My laptop comes without comment’s-section-sound-effects unfortunately…;)

          My post was meant to be a parody of religious arguments. I wasn’t really, literally saying no-one finds it funny, or that it’s in some way objectively unfunny. Even so, the fact that people are laughing at it doesn’t make it a good comic cartoon.

          Most people seem to have different ‘interpretations’ of the meaning of the joke. I just happen to think it’s meaningless, or at least badly ‘phrased’ and that they’re giving too much credit to someone’s weak cartoon.

          Nor can I think of a single good joke, or humorous scene in a movie, programme, etc., where the joke’s meaning is open to interpretation in the same way that a work of art is. I don’t think humour works that way generally – after all, one of the(many, many) explanations for laughter is that it’s a mechanism for signalling that everyone’s on the same page. I(try to) write comedy myself and if jokes are ambiguous in the way you talk about they just don’t work, except as a kind of surrealist, meta-commentary on the conservatism of conventional comedy writing, like The Mighty Boosh did occasionally, or Stewart Lee does occasionally. And I definitely don’t think this cartoon is intended to be taken along those lines.

          This is a really interesting subject to me though so I like to hear what other people think.

          1. I think you’re wrong. About a joke not being subject to personal interpretation, that is. (By personal interpretation I DON’T mean analysis, such as many have done hear. I mean simply the way it strikes me, and whether I find it funny or not). Everyone is emphatically NOT on the same page. Maybe in an audience they may appear to be, as the ones who didn’t-find-it-very-funny are carried along by the laughter of the ones who did, or the few who found a failed joke funny are intimidated into silence by the glum ones around them, but that’s a reflection of crowd dynamics, not evidence of the universality of humour.

            I think virtually all jokes depend on context and a huge mass of cultural background. We recognise a guy in a white coat as a ‘scientist’, or a hairy guy in a cave as a ‘cave man’, and that sets the scene in a way that would kill the joke if the teller had to spend 500 words describing the scenario.

            Frequently, for their funny-ness, they depend on a risque element. The more risque the funnier, up to a point where the risque-ness becomes so vulgar that it stops being funny and is just in bad taste. But that point varies hugely with different individuals.
            As does ‘sense of humour’, the propensity of an individual to see the funny or silly side of the situation. Take the controversial last scene in Life of Brian for example, with the crucified individuals singing ‘Always Look on the Bright Side of Life’. Or – a man walks across a field, suddenly there’s a huge explosion and he’s disappeared. Why is this funny when Monty Python does it, and tragic and shocking when a war movie does it? The answer is in the context.

            Or, speaking of risque, all the innumerable jokes involving sex. One person’s hilarity is another person’s shocking bad taste. Personally I find some TV ads are just so unintentionally suggestive I want to burst out laughing, while all those around me are watching dumbly not having seen anything in it. ‘A dirty mind is a terrible thing to waste’ ( – old tagline).

            cr

          2. “many have done hear.” *what?* That physically can’t be a typo. My brain meant ‘here’ but somehow when it came to type it, it accepted the wrong homophone. Bah.

            cr

  18. It’s the road less taken.

    Whether agnostic or atheist – we are the road less taken folks.

        2. … And be one surfer, long I stood
          And looked down one as far as I could
          To where it curled o’er a bitchin’ undertow;…

          1. I’m reminded of the sea turtle “surfing” the Australian Current in “Finding Nemo”:

            “Righteous! Righteous!”

          2. Two waves parted from a reddish sea,
            Dude, bummer I could not carve them both
            Dude, with his long stick, stalled though I be
            Dude, scoped I the tube as far could see
            Tubular, bitchin’ undertoweth;

            Then saw Touché, was also gnarly,
            Dude, what righteous drop to shoot the curl,
            Listen to grass dude, smoke some Bob Marley;
            Which makes sense if you think bizarrely
            Like, Gidget’s the same as a small girl,

            Dude, that’s how dawn patrol was for us
            On sands no shoobie never left track.
            Yo, maybe there’s some magical bus!
            Maybe we’ll go on some exodus,
            Maybe we come back as a Scooby snack.

            Forget about all the doom and gloom
            After doobies, dude, doobies smoked:
            Two waves parted from the sea, dude, ‘boom’—
            I was inside the Pope’s living room,
            Dude, that’s why I’m so totally stoked.

            Dear, P.C.C.
            Perhaps?

            and:

            Dear, Paul

            Dickinson will blow the Frost out yer butt!

  20. I’m not sure I get it, either. Best I can figure, is that The Agnostic is the one taking the middle road, somehow — halfway between the religious and the sane. “Have your Kate and Edith, too.” Best of both worlds. That sort of thing.

    …of course, as the Squidly One put it, it still means The Agnostic is halfway to Crazy Town….

    b&

  21. The agnostic surfer thinks “maybe it’s a miracle, maybe it’s not, but I’m taking advantage of the situation”. I think it’s pretty clever.

    2. That’s what the straw man agnostic apparently thinks in the cartoon. But no serious agnostic would discard such an event so lightly.

  24. Since the server is agnostic, he doesn’t “know” this is a reverent occasion. Why that might be funny escapes me.

  25. Or maybe Moses is looking at the agnostic wondering why he doesn’t know whatever. That’s not funny either.

  26. The theists clearly see a miracle meant for their benefit and assume they have all the time in the world to “walk” across the sea. They are interpreting the phenomenon through the lens of their belief. The agnostic makes no assumption of divine cause or intent and only perceives a tasty wave.

  27. That doesn’t make much sense at all. And if there are nine or ten different interpretations of the cartoon just in this comments section then it hasn’t done its job. Subtlety is not a virtue in cartoons like this – not that they can’t be clever, just that the intent needs to be pretty clear.

    1. I don’t see why a cartoon should not be as ambiguous and subtle – or as open to multiple interpretations – as any other art form. Judging from the grin on the surfer’s face, another might be, to paraphrase Mary Chapin Carpenter, “why walk when you can surf?”.

  28. Well, I would say that it is as much clever as funny. I might want to call it “the sceptic”. And I think that it is a two-way joke. The people of faith accept the miracle without questioning, and get across with no effort. The sceptic (agnostic) thinks that it is too good to be true, and takes no chances. So the religious are – potentially – suckers. And the sceptic “looks a gift horse in the mouth”.

  29. I see this comic as poking fun at Agnostics. Clearly, there is a supernatural phenomenon occurring. The surfer is having it both ways, refusing to be reverent about the situation, but willing to take advantage of the opportunity. I think the illustrator wants to say Agnostics like having it both ways.

    Is that funny? Not so much. But maybe it is clever.

    (Disclaimer: All the other interpretations above are totally valid.)

  31. I do not find the cartoon even mildly entertaining. Looking at it only makes me wonder what the cartoonist was trying to say.

    1. Probably to not be so serious to the point of not finding humor. Do your read him every day? Do it then come back.

  32. It’s silly and not really funny. The metaphor is stretched for agnosticism. The sea is real? It is parted? Isn’t that good enough evidence? If the sea falls does it fall with faith? The comic appears to endorse faith in light of those who would rather disbelieve.

    1. Not sure if it would make the cartoon any funnier, but certainly more confusing and difficult to interpret…

        1. With the title The Agnostic the author gave a rather big hint as to whom he wanted to portray in the cartoon…

  34. It seems that Mark Perew above gets it right. It’s a mongo wave and such things are not to be wasted. No doubt our surfer is oblivious to everything else. It’s his lucky day, a day tailor made to shoot the curl. Given the choice of walking through on dry land or walking the nose, I hang ten also.

  35. The same joke has been done before many times, and in fact by Wiley himself just over a year ago. Maybe he forgot he’d done it before?

    But this is the first time it’s been connected to agnosticism, and I don’t actually understand the connection.

    1. I agree too. Then I think it would fall more in the interpretation of the surfer ‘defiling’ one of G*d’s miracles. I don’t understand why an agnostic is significant here.

  37. Reblogged this on Nina's Soap Bubble Box and commented:
    Normally I enjoy Non-sequiter and this cartoon really doesn’t work on any level – but it certainly reveals what average people find funny is because they don;t understand and it is probably a simple laugh at being in denial of the “reality” of religion even when it’s before your eyes.

    never mind that there were never Jewish slaves in Egypt. it’s funny if you are a believer and nonsensical if you are not. comedy is about who gets it, who is in on it and who it is about.

    1. I’m an unbeliever and I find it hilariously funny. Just as I do the start of ‘Life of Brian’ where the wise men go to the wrong manger.

      You don’t have to believe, you just need to be aware of the cultural meme that is the background to the joke. Just like ‘cave man’ jokes, you don’t need to worry whether Neaderthals really lived in caves to ‘get’ the context of such jokes.

      cr

      1. There were so many mangers back then and babies with lights over them etc. Common as the name Jesus/Joshuah.

      2. Actually I am a pretty pedantic person and I do not find humour arising from misinformation funny. My take away from those jokes is about the people who laugh, and the teller. I resist the dumbing down that religion does and in particular the religious debate because they are too limited to understand what is incorrect and actually funny – which includes being able to laugh at a range of things. Religion is a mental illness in that it reduces humour.

        1. “Religion is a mental illness in that it reduces humour.”
          Good point. Religion tries to sanctify as many aspects of life as it can get away with. It takes life away from it’s human context into it’s protection and control.

  38. I take it (along with some above) to mean that the agnostic is so caught up in surfing that he ignores the miracle.

    If that’s what it means, then the cartoon works technically, but is stupid. If it means something else, then for me it fails technically.

  39. I’m truly apologetic. All my collaborators ranging in age from 20 to 70 thought it was hysterical and most are still rolling around on the floor laughing so hard that tears ran down their legs. Admitting there may be some gratuitous slap and tickle going on, still….

  40. It might be funny from a religious perspective. Funny as in point, and laugh at the stupid agnostic ignoring the obvious evidence for God’s existence.

  41. I skimmed through the comments and don’t think anyone has hit on this point yet:

    The agnostic doesn’t know whether it is God parting the sea. Unlike the people faithfully walking between the two walls of water, which will almost certainly send them to their deaths should it come crashing down, the agnostic is much less impressed. Assuming it might not be God, rather a natural coincidence, he chooses to ride the wave. As a good surfer, if and when it comes crashing down, he will ride the wave out staying safely afloat while the foolish people assuming divine intervention drown. That, and as others have pointed out, “Hey surf’s up dude! Let’s take advantage!”

  42. I laughed out loud. When’s the last time you heard of “The Bible” and “surfing” in the same thought? Exactly: it does not follow.

  43. I had no idea there were so many ways to not be amused by this funny little comic! Of course, a title like “The Agnostic” makes it really easy to overthink the picture.

    1. Yes with the idea that only Agnostics as in with relgion or just Christianity is the only way of looking at it.

  44. I don’t know if anyone has said this because I haven’t read all the comments. Sorry if I’m repeating.

    It’s religious people who believe in Moses etc who will find this funny. Those stupid agnostics, who even with the obvious evidence of Yahweh performing miracles, still just go surfing.

  47. I interpreted as the agnostic trying to maintain balance in the middle, somewhere between the believers on the bottom and the atheist surfing on the top (out of view!)

  48. If I wasn’t surrounded by the most obnoxious God Slobbers on a daily basis I might be able to buy into those who take issue with what I think is going on here.

    The agnostic is being made the brunt of the joke because in the eyes of the faithful everything is a miracle and if only the agnostics would take the time to notice they’d be religious nutjobs too!
    The setting of the parting of the Red Sea (taken as absolute PROOF of divine intervention by those who favor such dipshittery)is used because “only a fool” could overlook something so OBVIOUSLY divine.
    I don’t think it matters whether the surfer is titled as Agnostic, Atheist or Anti-Theist. It’s just an easier catch-all for “nonbeliever” To the religiously insane.
    My non belief is shocking because they see God EVERYWHERE. As an outspoken atheist in the Bible Belt I am constantly questioned “How can you not believe given the overwhelming ‘evidence’…… For the record, the overwhelming ‘evidence’, when not in the form of self serving scripture, always comes down to anecdotal feelings or personal experiences better explained by psychosis, mass hypnosis or misinterpretation. Enjoy.

    1. “…always comes down to anecdotal feelings or personal experiences better explained by psychosis, mass hypnosis or misinterpretation.”

      Or the fact that suddenly a parking space opened up just when they needed one.

  49. The agnostic (surfer) doubts the sanity of all the others following the old religious man who leads them through the parted sea. That is why he has taken a surf board ride instead. The word atheist would work as well.

  50. The surfer is not taking any chances (testing his faith). He is hedging his bets, hence Agnostic.

  51. Humor is in the mind of the beholder. As in these comments, some don’t find it humorous at all, others find it humorous for a variety of reasons. There is no necessity that humor should have to translate precisely the same to everyone, nor to have been intended to do so by the cartoonist. Different experiences, cultures and sets of knowledge are bound to affect individual perceptions.

    1. Plus what the reader may already know of the cartoonist’s politics. In this case, Miller’s usually very anti-woo.

      1. Being that he’s anti-woo, I think that lends credence to my interpretation that the agnostic is simply riding the wave because he finds the sea being parted not to be a miracle but a natural occurrence and the whole thing may collapse again at any moment.

  53. I immediately burst out laughing. I think it’s because Moses parting the waters yadda yadda is so iconic, and here’s the irreverent surfie who doesn’t give a stuff about that, just surfing. He isn’t buying into all that stuff, but he’ll take advantage of it if the opportunity offers.

    I think the title just adds the perfect final touch.

    I love it.

    cr

    1. Oh, and I think most of those who don’t find it funny are taking it way too seriously. 😉
      (That was a mild joke)

      “If you have to explain it, it wasn’t funny”. In other words, if it doesn’t strike you as funny immediately, explaining it won’t help. Though here of course, we have zillions of explanations of why it _wasn’t_ funny, in fact I have never seen a joke that wasn’t funny to so many people for so many reasons [/sarcasm].

      cr

    1. But, short of an earthquake (during which, Moses probably wouldn’t be so calm), what natural explanation would be likely for an actual parting of the Red Sea?

      1. I have heard it theorised (decades ago) that, the Red Sea being very shallow, extreme strong winds (combined, I’m guessing, with a very low spring tide – does the Red sea have tides, the Mediterranean famously doesn’t**) could have exposed an area of sea bed. And when the Egyptian army arrived the tide was coming in again. There are parts of the world where this could happen, I don’t know if any part of the Red Sea qualifies.

        On the whole, I don’t think it sounds very credible.

        (** As famously recounted by Spike Milligan in his definitive history of World War 2, “Monty: His Part in My Victory”
        ‘I wonder why we’re waiting?’…
        ‘We’re waiting for the tide,’ says Kidgell.
        ‘That’s the best news I’ve had.’
        ‘Why?’
        ‘The Med’s tideless.’

        cr

  55. Perhaps the author just has a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term agnostic means. Maybe he thinks it’s someone who doesn’t take religion seriously. If that’ s the case it makes perfect sense.

  57. I think we are looking at it backwards. A cartoonist imagines a classic image of Moses parting the Red Sea. He thinks “definitely a surfable wave!” Then he draws it with a surfer. But it needs a caption. “Atheist” doesn’t work. Nor does “Skeptic”. How about something more middling? “Agnostic” works best. The key to the humour is the irreverence, and the act of seeing a meme-level image in a novel way. I find it funny.

  58. Doesn’t work for me. After thinking about it (probably too hard) I came to the conclusion that it would have worked had the agnostic been portrayed as trudging dutifully along wearing swim fins and a life vest, or scuba gear.

  59. What the surfer is doing is sort of the aquatic version of straddling the fence, and I think the cartoonist is saying that’s what agnosticism is all about. Definitely grin-worthy.

Comments are closed.