Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ WEIT

September 8, 2021 • 8:45 am

I was chuffed to read on the Jesus and Mo page today this note accompanying the cartoon, which is titled “kind”:

This is an actual argument quoted in the comments of Jerry Coyne’s website, – but it’s from a few weeks ago, and I can’t find it now. Will credit if it turns up.

I’m honored that the creator not only reads this website, but also the comments! If you know the comment the artist is referring to, put it in below. It must be a quote from some muddled theologian (or are those two words redundant?).

In the meantime, this week’s cartoon again begs the question of God’s existence in the proper sense.

13 thoughts on “Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ WEIT

  1. Less amusing but:

    anti-J: God is all powerful, isn’t she?
    M: Of course.
    anti-J: So surely, if she did exist, she would not be so weak as to be unable to stifle non-believers.

  2. Language often messes with the way we think of things because it can blur distinctions between objects and concepts. “If God exists, then He would be infinitely loving and kind” morphs into “God is infinitely loving and kind.” People who skim ideas off the top proceed from there.

    Control the language, win the argument.

    1. Russell’s example for the singular ‘the’ translated to formal logic as a definite description was

      “The present king of France is bald.”

      Seems like half the philosophers of language say that’s false, the other half, true.

      But, your suggested conditional would be ‘If there is a present king of France, then he is bald’, and that is definitely true.

      Much they write puzzles the hell out of me, the only consolation being that the worst of that writing is by people who simply know vastly less logic than they seem to believe themselves to know, IMHO, with the joke being the ‘H’. And Russell himself is one who did a great deal to advance logic, in everybody’s opinion.

      1. Seems like half the philosophers of language say that’s false, the other half, true.

        Really? I thought they had abandoned logical positivism in the 1920s-40s.
        I think the more common response would be “in English and other human languages, we can construct proper sentences that don’t have a real referent. Purple unicorns fly gracefully. Trump’s conscience tells him to be nice. This is one of them.”

        1. My half-and-half is just off the top of my head, and depends on what I happen to have read.

          But I cannot see this has much to do with logical positivism or its popularity. Maybe you could explain, if it is more than just Russell being regarded as an inspiration to the Vienna Circle.

          To me, the serious thing, though not right on that topic, is the use of ‘true/false’ in utterly (and perhaps necessarily) vague ways, and the continual confusion of this with ‘derivable/non-derivable’ (or formally provable, or ….), this never ending confusion even a near century after Godel’s fundamental results. It is certainly nowhere near all philosophers I am criticizing. But I still shudder to think of what is happening in a lot of courses called logic in our North American universities’ philosophy departments.

          It is true that mathematical logic courses simply avoid much of the matters connected to philosophy of language. But can anybody tell me even a single non-controversial advance, a real contribution to the human species’ reliable knowledge which that discipline has achieved?

          A much better example of difficulty with “referent” is surely the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. And though others independently discovered that, surely history should give Russell huge credit for its influence, his so-called paradox. Mathematicians have made far more out of that than have philosophers. Russell did however regard his 1905 essay on definite descriptions as his finest essay. But the paradox and its ramifications produced more like a 25-year project by Russell than ‘merely’ a few essays.

  3. It also does not make sense that people believe such ridiculous things like the existence of an all-powerful creator so that is proof that the creator exists.

  4. This cartoon reminds me of Stephen Colbert (in character, on the Colbert Report) saying that atheists must be brave, because they know they’re going to hell for it.

  5. I was sure even many years ago that he regufollowed you, Dr C. You would put up a post about “hermeneutics” or about theb Templetons and he would have a cartoon about that 2 days later? What are the chances of that?

Leave a Reply