Hat tip: Greta Christina.
-
-
-
July 2009 M T W T F S S « Jun Aug » 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 -
- Vol 4 is here! Big Al is the bumper-sized fourth volume of J&M strips you've all been waiting for. 140 strips, from "added" to "moose" - an ideal present to celebrate Jesus' pretend birthday!
-
- NICE T-SHIRT (Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust). Others available, including NEW "street-safe" styles! Click the pic to see.
comix
Other places
Jesus and Mo is powered by WordPress with ComicPress.
It is licensed under a Creative Commons License:
Thank you!
rise humbly with secure knowledge? that doesn’t even sound spiritual. let’s face it, the author was just playing with words mocking people with such contradict perception. unless of course the author was trying to find a new victim for later jokes. then i say it won’t be funny anymore.
Daoloth: I concur with you that scientists pay a good deal of attention to the universe, though whether or not that activity evokes within them any deeper sense of awe or respect for nature than other observers is open to debate.
I’d contend that observers such as artists, musicians, poets, humourists (cartoonists even)? have more insightful things to say about those aspects of the human condition which don’t benefit much from scientific analysis, or at least about which the scientific method can’t say very much beyond the glaringly obvious.
Take romantic or parental love for instance. Science would conclude that these conditions are nothing more than the outcome of physiological activity, outcomes of our evolutionary biology … essentially pleasant delusions, brought about by brain chemistry and designed to foster close familial relationships and hence to promote survival of our genes. Well … duh. Thanks for that. Do these same scientists really believe that their children or life partners have no more intrinsic worth than a bacterium? Do you? Because the fact is that (using scientific analysis) there’s every reason to conclude just that.
What does science have to say about the ultimate value of a human life? Upon which premises should society build a system of ethics, a moral code? These ARE questions worth pondering – in fact the scientific insights we are gaining are forcing us to reframe and reconsider these questions all the time – and while I agree that scientific knowledge is an indispensible tool that helps us to understand the world around us, I think it is obvious that we are no better equipped with science to answer the questions of ultimate meaning than was stone-age man; in fact the only thing science adds is the ability to rule out the false answers – i.e. the universe is not a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise, Jesus is not coming back to take all his supporters to heaven, there are no 72 virgins awaiting Islamic murderers in paradise etc.
To find meaning in a universe where god has gone AWOL is going to require more than the scientific method.
Spoing:
“Science would conclude that these conditions are nothing more than the outcome of physiological activity…”
I think that saying “nothing more than” makes it a bit of a loaded statement; it presupposes that physiological activity is something mere and base. It’s in a similar vein to those who ask “how can MERE matter account for consciousness/beauty/values/the universe etc?”
Well, obviously matter isn’t “mere”, if it can account for marvels.
If all the universe turns out to be reducible to scientific description, will there not therefore be a scientific justification for intrinsic worth and other “big questions”? If not, then obviously there will remain questions outside of the purview of science, and a continuing need for philosophy (not spirituality).
I definitely agree that civilisation will need new definitions of meaning if the Giant Angry Sky Fairy stays AWOL.
Thanks Mr Gronk – I suppose if “spirituality” is a loaded term connoting G.A.S.F. beliefs I’ll have to concede that “philosophical” is an improvement
You and I seem to be on the same page inasmuch as we agree that there are mysteries currently (probably indefinitely) beyond the reach of science.
I think we should keep in mind that – even as we take the p*** out of “naively spiritual” people in this cartoon strip and commentary – some of them are utilising other modes of thought besides the scientific which can have some very positive outcomes – for example, a system of thought which motivates altruistic/philanthropic/compassionate behaviour, even if informed by religious GASF beliefs, has qualities which we should endeavour to carry over into any new morality informed by “higher” philosophical thinking divorced from such (groundless) beliefs.
Though your ideas are big and your words are bigger u still don’t get it. It’s a simple word called “faith”.
Crapola, says PR. We don’t really live by “morality”; we cannot, because the whole notion is subservient to power, and conscience is an anvil, as Mark Twain pointed out.
We live by contract, dear ones. Most of our contracts are tacit: don’t hit me; I won’t hit you. Many others, of course, are formalized, thank Goddess: “Look here on this map from the courthouse–right there is your yard, and over this line is mine. OK?” Chaos ensues when contracts break down. Break into my house with intent to harm and I’ll blow your effing haid off, right? I wouldn’t call that “moral,” though it may be “pragmatic,” but what IS clear is that our social bond has popped loose. And we all know what happens to peace treaties. It’s interesting how much in religion rests upon the notion of a covenant.
Also spaketh Poor Rick,”Always read the fine print, girls and boys.”
PR – Perhaps acting in defense of one’s family / life / liberty in said manner in that situation IS morally defensible . Certainly it’s true that our morality is socially constructed rather than absolute, nevertheless there’s enough in common between the independently constructed moralities of various societies to suggest that all of them hold certain truths to be self-evident, or at least not really worth debating, such as whether it’s right or wrong for someone to traipse into your house and molest your children. Most would agree that such actions warrant a harsh and emphatic response. I suppose we’re just fortunate (?) to live in a society which can afford to take more humane countermeasures.
But don’t lose sight of the fact that we intentionally put that more humane society together in the first place, suggesting that there is a core human nature which given the opportunity will tend to promote and express humane / altruistic / generous-spirited behaviour.
Blindedbyscience: You’ve put it far more succinctly than me, thanks.
Daoloth: Can’t agree with your initial hubristic claim, and your description of the ideal of scientific methodology has no bearing on the discussion at hand. The target of your antagonism appears to be ‘mysticism’ rather than ’spirituality’, either that or you are hanging on to an out of date interpretation of ’spiritual’. You’re right about the dogmatism of those who claim their faith is beyond reason, but that’s not cognate with spirituality, either.
Mr Gronk: I agree that maybe we need to coin a new phrase for sensitivity to the super-real, but can’t help feeling that “peak experience” is a little cold and dry.
Spoing: yeah, we probably are close to agreeing here. You suppose we do after all have a gene for altruism? It seems reasonable that nice people would be able to compete with rapists for reproduction…hmm–maybe not. Anyway, perhaps we learn contractual contact (there’s a bad pun here somewhere) at our mother’s breast. Moreover, we must have community in order to survive; loners by definition don’t reproduce very well.
Gronk and ID: “peak experience”? Phew! I prefer “orgasm” I still like “joy.” How about “amazement”? This suggests the unworldly aspect of something which is, of course, worldly but nonetheless surprising. Or as a stoned student of mine once said, “There we were on the beach, and the moon went down, and the sun came up. Wow. Emerson was right.” MY joyful moment was when he said that. Wow. Hmm: the “Wow Syndrome.” How’s that?
ID: I guess we could argue about the meaning of terms but the strip accurately targetted the way the word “spiritual” is used by actual folk. Check out the Tim Minchin ref that someone earlier cited. It hits the same spot.
“Spiritual” was explicitly contrasted with “materialist evolutionary biology and physics” which were held to be “meaningless.” I contend that this is a position held by people who should have paid more attention in class. Nothing you have said makes me want to change any of that.
Daoloth: For many, the “meaninglessness” of materialist explanations is that they ultimately have nothing (nothing encouraging at least!) to say about the value of human life or any ultimate purpose to human existence … except perhaps the purpose of continued propagation of selfish genes.
The need to apprehend something beyond/higher/transcendent – whether via religious belief, the arts, or altruistic action, is real, has persisted across cultures and throughout human history, and won’t simply be nonsensed away by naturalistic analysis. We call that need “spirituality”.
Daoloth: OK, in context, a la Minchin, agreed. As someone said in an earlier post, it’s a semantically loaded (or ‘weasel’) word. I wholly concur that that kind of ’spiritual’ sucks!
A few points:
‘I’d contend that observers such as artists, musicians, poets, humourists (cartoonists even)? have more insightful things to say about those aspects of the human condition which don’t benefit much from scientific analysis…’
Here you confuse two different meanings of ‘insightful’: a literal meaning and a metaphorical meaning. The things art, music, poetry etc have to say about the human condition are metaphorically insightful. They re-present experiences or feelings we have in an aesthetically pleasing or emotionally moving way, or at most, provide us with another person’s view of an experience we may have had ourselves. The scientific method can reveal literally insightful things about them – ie. what is happening neurologically, what purpose these processes serve and why they evolved, how their evolution affected other aspects of society, what ramifications they might have had for other processes and so on. These ‘insights’ are fundamentally different types of thing.
Moreover, how do you know exactly which ‘aspects of the human condition don’t benefit from scientific analysis’? What criteria do you use to decide? How are you qualified to decide? The truth is, you have a pre-existing affinity for certain forms of human endeavour, and arbitrarily define these as being outside the remit of ‘science’.
‘romantic or parental love… pleasant delusions…’
Who describes love in this way? Love is a real function of the brain – it’s no more a ‘delusion’ than happiness, disgust, hatred, jealousy or any other emotion. Like them, we evolved it for a reason. Why do you think that these brain states are incapable of scientific investigation? On what do you base your assertion that science cannot tell us anything useful or interesting about them?
‘…these same scientists really believe that their children or life partners have no more intrinsic worth than a bacterium…’
So you’re referring to some specific scientists – which ones? I’d be interested to read their statements you’re referring to. How do you define ‘intrinsic worth’? Obviously, to me another human being has more worth than a bacterium, but my subjective judgment has no absolute meaning. It just depends on where you stand. I don’t understand how you can imagine that some creatures have varying ‘intrinsic’ worth.
You seem to subscribe to a very tabloid-newspaper view of cartoonish, inhuman, robotic boffins with no human feelings.
‘…ultimate value of a human life…’
Same problem.
‘…we are no better equipped with science to answer the questions of ultimate meaning than was stone-age man…’
And again. You’re fooling yourself that there’s some ultimate meaning. A very religious way of thinking.
‘…there are mysteries currently (probably indefinitely) beyond the reach of science…’
Are there? Which ones? How do you know?
‘…utilising other modes of thought besides the scientific which can have some very positive outcomes – for example, a system of thought which motivates altruistic/philanthropic/compassionate behaviour… has qualities which we should endeavour to carry over…’
Why do you believe altruism is outside the remit of scientific investigation? There are many studies into how this behaviour evolved. Regardless of what you might prefer to believe, only scientific investigation will help us to understand this phenomenon.
‘…any ultimate purpose to human existence…’
Again.
‘The need to apprehend something beyond/higher/transcendent – whether via religious belief, the arts, or altruistic action, is real…’
No. The desire exists. Calling it a ‘need’ merely flatters your own sense of self-importance.
“The word “spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breathe.” What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word “spiritual” that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science.” – Carl Sagan.
I’m with Carl.
Toast in the machine, the scientific method can answer “what,” but not “why.” I’m not sure why that is not more commonly understood.
‘Why’ is what you make up to comfort yourself in the face of your absolute insignificance and mortality.
Make it whatever makes you happy, but don’t force it down anyone else’s throat.
‘How’ is actually useful.
To answer that question, Lo:
If there’s no god, then there’s no “why”.
And I’ve finally found my avatar again.
For forty years, I’ve been saying I believe in God, not religion. Now, all of a sudden, I’m some fu<king cliché.
BTW, I almost peed my pants when Mo said, “Jesus Christ.” ROFLMAO
Dear author:
please find and read a brief synopsis of spiral dynamics by clare graves. you are a level 5.
also: please look up the pre/post fallacy and study it. prerational religion resembles postrational religion to you because it’s all non-rational. turns out some spiritual beliefs are higher than rationality.
‘Level 5‘? Orange, eh? Mmm, does that apply to J&M readers? I’d prefer blue – it goes better with my eyes.
If it’s not too much trouble, perhaps you could provide a brief explanation of what ‘some spiritual beliefs are higher than rationality‘ actually means.
I won’t hold my breath.