March 29th, 2023
Not you, obviously. Or me.
Not you, obviously. Or me.
Jesus & Mo is licensed under a Creative Commons License:
Feel free to copy for noncommercial purposes, under the same license.
Please provide a link back to jesusandmo.net
Hosted by the amazing NearlyFreeSpeech.NET
Protected by the mighty CloudFlare
Well, I ‘d say they both present excellent examples!
What if that’s me?
Ooh, wonderful author. I can use this for all my Brexiteer relatives ( I have no Brexiteer friends that I know of …)
Occams Razor is the best defence I reckon…
I don’t think eurationalia pays as well as its opposite.
This sentence ingeniously rationalizes its stupid opinions.
I can vouch for the premise of the cartoon. I have known some very intelligent people who had extreme right-wing opinions, including support for Donald Trump. Their rationalizations were very clever. Wrong, of course, but clever nonetheless.
I guess that dysrationalia would be at the opposite end of the intelligence spectrum to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Of course, neither term is, in any possible way, applicable to me.
Well, of course. It’s no secret that where thinking intersects with opinions on whatever matter, the thinking is mostly applied after the fact as rationalization. The wronger the opinion, the more challenge to the intellect. QED.
Opinions are like arseholes…Everybody has them…
Dysrationalia is my way to cope with my cognitive dissonance. The former cures the latter so I end up in perfect mental health. Nothing wrong with that, eh?
This quotation for Bertrand Russell seems relevant here:
Faith vs. Reason (1954)
“The important thing is not what you believe, but how you believe it. If you think that your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument, rather than by persecution, and will abandon it if the argument goes against you. But if your belief is based on faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and will therefore resort to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young in what is called “education”. This last is peculiarly dastardly, since it takes advantage of the defenselessness of immature minds. Unfortunately it is practised in a greater or less degree in the schools of every civilized country.”
— Bertrand Russell, Human Society In Ethics And Politics (1954), Part. II: The Conflict of Passions, Ch. VII, Will Religious Faith Cure Our Troubles?, p. 220
First published in 1954, Human Society in Ethics and Politics is Bertrand Russell’s last full account of his ethical and political positions relating to both politics and religion. Ethics, he argues, are necessary to humankind on account of the conflict between our intelligence and impulse – if one were without the other, there would be no place for ethics. Our impulses and desires are equally social and solitary. Politics and ethics are the means by which we as a society and as individuals become socially purposeful and moral codes inculcate our rules of action.
Aye. It’s a while since I read any of Russells works. But his assertion of “dastardly” evil religious minds polluting the virgin minds of defenceless children is particularly powerful. I would lock up such people who violate (rape) young minds…we would need a lot of new prisons…hmmm
Monks deserting, no more Trappist beer.
Wolves, chimpansees, dolphins have no place for ethics, yet they are intelligent and impulsive and social. Human ethics is about exploiting guilt and preventing to be exploited. And that has to do with remembering the past and foreseeing future – a faculty dolphins, chimpansees and wolves probably don’t suffer from. At least much less.
For Jesus and Mo, though … what ingenious strategies? I mean, do the religious among us exert any visible effort to make their beliefs appear rational?
I’d be a little surprised if they do. It seems to me that if Christian story turned out to be visible, undeniable, objective truth – it would be the most severe possible blow to the institution, the worst thing that could happen to the church.
Faith is an essential ingredient, and it must be preposterous to mean anything. Trying to make religion plausible is a sort of underhanded way to undermine it.
One of greatest ploys of religion is to claim that faith is a virtue. The sillier the stuff you believe, the more virtuous you are.
An oldie but goodie: https://www.jesusandmo.net/comic/abuse2/
Donn, see the tags: Christian apologetics and Islamic scholarship.
OK, that kind of quack fest isn’t entirely news to me, but … it’s a lot like philosophy, isn’t it? Mountains of philosophical treatises have been written in the last several millennia, and as far as I can see to no purpose whatever if you aren’t a philospher yourself. It makes sense that these people would be reluctant to acknowledge the “must be preposterous” element, but in fact I see that some kind of do — maybe the presuppositional apologists, though I can’t say for sure, and then there’s Immanuel Kant’s `famous suggestion that we must “deny knowledge in order to make room for faith”.’
I notice another place of worship has killed 37 of its congregation in the act of praying in India when the temple floor collapsed and plunged them into a filthy well. A similar thing happened in November apparently, with 136 taking the plunge.
It seems there’s also a constant danger when the Muslim hordes regularly trample each other to death worshipping the prophet en masse.
I always wonder at the rationalisation that must go on in the minds of those who keep turning up.
Well, well, well…
It’s a jackpot ending. Die at a Rama worship event, immediate moksha and release from the cycle of rebirth. Ticket punched and you’re out of here.
Humpy Trumpy wanted a wall,
he loudly exclaimed on the National Mall.
The barbed-wire walls of a prison won’t fail:
They’ll keep Trumpy’s fat wrinkled ass in a jail.
And now the benighted
believe the deceiver
who wants them to riot
and cannot deny it.
He just lies
and they buy it,
May the wheels of justice
grind exceedingly fine,
and may Donald John Trump
serve serious time.
Trump won’t go to gaol. Both sets of lawers will ride the gravy train and then he gets free with x,y or z legal loophole.
I’ll bet Trump had to strap a plank to his bum to stop himself falling in…
Apparently he’s very upset because he’s been indicated.
though the bastard’s been indicted
no amount of wrong’s been righted,
and when it has been righted, mate,
he’ll suffer what is his of fate.
or what’s been indicated, of late.
After lockdown one, I was in a pub in Whitney, and had a long conversation wirh an anti-vaxxer, he claimed to be an expert bio-chemist , but had some very strange unsupported claims that the covid scare and vaccine development was sanctioned by big-pharma just to make them lots of filthy lucre…as conspiracy theories goes his arguments were quite skilfully constructed and seemingly scientific, but I could easily cross check his main arguments on my phone…it was all bollox…
I could only watch an laugh at the pro-Trump morons. No wonder they don’t understand evolution. They would all need to remove their socks to count anything above their IQ…
And to think that these ignorant spunk-wombles are allowed to own assault rifles….
I could only observe and chuckle at the individuals who support Trump. It’s no surprise that they don’t comprehend the concept of evolution. To count anything higher than their IQ, they would have to take off their socks.
These clueless creatures with rifles in hand,
Make me wonder, where’s the law of the land?
Fookin spunk-wombles !
Neurobiology it’s still in the Dark Ages and we already know it for a fact that “reason” and “rationality” are more desiderata than cognitive realities. Emotions (i.e. the amygdala) always speak louder. The so-called “sceptics” would be surprised if they knew how much their emotions permeate and shape their oh so logical thoughts. Case in hand Christopher Hitchens, first fanatical Catholic, then fanatical Marxist, lastly fanatical sceptic (and neocon, whoops). What’s the common denominator? Fanaticism, ie emotionality.