Frazz by Jef Mallett for September 20, 2015

Science teaches us to fly to the moon; religion teaches us to fly into buildings.

Religion involves a lot of myth and emotion. Emotion tends to distort science. We humans have a hard time with the concept of negative capability (Keats’ idea). It is possible to hold two polar opposites in mind and still arrive at a satisfactory understanding of both. You don’t normally see this illustrated in a comic strip. Interesting, Mallett.

The stupidity of people who believe science is a religion never ceases to demonstrate the levels people will sink to based on their willful lack of understanding.

If you are unable to grasp the differences between the layman’s use of the word theory vs the scientific use of the word theory then that is a sad commentary on your education.

To help those lacking the comprehension, remember that gravity is “just” a scientific theory, too. So, to test this theory, and demonstrate its legitimacy, try walking off a building. You will find out very quickly the true meaning.

Just drop it.

Both sides of this discussion have incorrect ideas. Some claim that CC is a proven theory others say it isn’t.Some say a baby is just a “fetus” (note the term fetus is a word for unborn baby). SCIENCE says you are both wrong the world IS warming AND that IS a live baby. When you can hear heartbeat, detect brain waves and look at sonograms it is PROVEN!

I must say the PUNch line was Conley worthy.

Its easy to look back a say “what a moron” for not believing a theory that has since proved true. what of all the science that turned out false, should it have been blindly followed at its time because it came from “scientists”?

It is so interesting to sit back and watch this kind of debate. On one side we have the science fanatics who believe that anything someone calling himself a scientist says must be true. On the other hand, we have the religious fanatics who insist that science is just another belief system. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, where there is positive proof, either way.

Religion and science are fundamentally different: religion is based on believing; science is based on questioning.

The problem is not that the person is “religious;” It is that he is closed-minded. The rational and irrational alike can be closed-minded - unreceptive to new ideas or arguments.

The real irony is that Newton was devoutly religious. Seems, though, that didn’t get in the way of his observations of the natural world. It did, however, motivate him to fruitlessly investigate alchemy.

Religion requires total and unquestionable faith. Science is always asking question and is self correcting. If evidence is found that contradicts a current theory, it is investigated further. The theory is either revamped or completely replaced.

Wow. Amusing how insecure people are in their “facts” that they have to attack religion to make themselves feel better…

I like it a lot better when Mallet does what he does best: intelligent humor. I hate it the most when he does what he does worst: effete snobbery. Usually, the latter occurs only once every other week or so. This time, twice in one week.

And as has already been noted, Sir Isaac had no problem with religion. He saw the harmony, just as most others do, including myself.

Why do so many try to pit science against religion. The Christian religion is why we even have science. Consider that the pagans worshiped nature, and you don’t study and bi-sect what you worship. Christianity freed man to study nature on the base level, and much of the scientific advances were put forth by Catholic priests, like Copernicus, the big bang theory was thought of by a Catholic Priest, the scientific method, and much more. Yeah, Galileo, but even much of his theories were bunk. He taught that comets were light echos. The Church could not just advance every single thought a person had, it required proof before teaching, which Galileo refused to do. Religion and the Church is a proponent of science and not its opponent. It just requires more proof then that average person does because it has a larger reputation to protect than the average person.

First of all, I feel like this comic is more of a commentary on debate than on science vs religion. Especially considering the “also, thine hair is stupid” line.

I still marvel that someone can believe in a patent absurdity as the square root of -1 and actually use it productively, yet cannot comprehend symbolic language in poetry or religion.

I see it as religion (in a pure form, not the political herd controlling affair it often is) as trying to explain “why”, in the “for what purpose” sense. To many, the answer seems to involve some sort of supernatural being of one form or another.

Science explains “how”. In the “how does it work” sense.

It’s probably why some superlative scientists can also be quite religious – because they don’t confuse “why” with “how”. Sadly, it’s probably also why some otherwise seemingly bright people shouldn’t be allowed outside without a keeper.

The Catholic Churches dispute wasn’t about helio centrism, per se. Many intellectuals of the time had problems with heliocentrism based on lack of physical evidence (which could not be proven until more accurate measurements in the 1800’s). In fact the Pope originally supported Galileo and the issue was crouched strictly in a scientific debate. It is when Galileo published a rebuttal that appeared to insult the pope that we was censured, and then only for the previewed insult.

Shouldn’t it be “mine opinion”, “my religion” and “thy hair”?

I wonder how Caulfield would react if Mrs. Olsen simply burst out laughing at one of his observations.