Today’s Jesus and Mo strip is a “resurrection from 2006,” called “faith2”. It’s a clever one. But I can’t resist adding my own view on the different construals of “faith”, a piece called “No Faith in Science,” published in Slate in 2013 (free access at an archived site). The barmaid is right.
Oh, and the artist reminds us to support him/her, which you can do for only a dollar or a few dollars:
Please consider helping to keep J&M going by becoming a Patron here.
Books are still available – The latest J&M collection of J&M strips, which has a foreword by Jerry Coyne, is available here
Ha, pretty good. Reminds me of Heb. 11:1, which I always thought was the biggest load of gobbledygook I’d ever heard of: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (KJV) “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” (NIV) “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (RSV)
Sounds reasonable to me. “Confidence”, “assurance”, and “conviction” here are subjective feelings (e.g. via a William-Jamesian noetic religious experience), not objective evidence (contra the KJV’s homonym 🙂).
Ooo I particularly like this one!
Polysemy comes to mind too :
polysemy (n.)
“fact of having multiple meanings,” 1900, from French polysémie (1897), from Medieval Latin polysemus, from Greek polysemos “of many senses or meanings,” from polys “many” (from PIE root *pele- (1) “to fill”) + sēma “sign” (see semantic). Related: Polysemic.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/polysemy
Clever, dialectical tools, deployed by e.g. “postmodernist” doctrine, AKA literature.
uh-oh – did I just do a polysemy? Perhaps, but as Orwell wrote in Politics and the English Language :
the English language is in a bad way.
And Kant :
Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing ever was wrought.
… So sue me! 😁
Mo is being uncharacteristically clever!