January 15th, 2007
Science vs. Faith
Click here to see the full-size version.
T-shirts and posters of this design are available at the miscellanea store.
^ 29 Comments...
) Your Reply...
-
Random Comic ★
- Get free updates from Miscellanea via any of the methods below:
Follow Miscellanea using your RSS reader:
Or get emailed when there is a new Miscellanea by entering your email address in the box below:
Or become Wellington Grey's friend on Facebook:
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
This graphic has been crawling around Fark (without credit) for a while; due to dissatisfaction with the science model, there’s a 2.0 version crawling around now…which still needs more work.
http://img389.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sciencevfaith20yp6ds3.png
November 16th, 2008 at 12:22 am
I agree with the Science chart more than the Faith one.
As a Raelian, I believe that science should not be stopped or should not be slowed down because science is what is helping mankind to progress.
Sincerely, Evelyne
From the Raelian religion.
http://www.rael.org
November 19th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
As a raelian also, I agree with evelyne. Science is understanding and using your brain where faith is believe without reasoning.
December 15th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Raelians? You guys realize you’re on the wrong side of the chart.
“We’re made by aliens and we cloned a baby!” > Does the evidence support the idea? > No > “We’re still made by aliens and we cloned another baby!!” > Does the evidence support the idea? > No > Rinse > Repeat
December 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
You may as well just get a shirt that says “wanker”
February 8th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
The real problem with this post is that it shows those that claim science are in fact the ones that can’t explore religion. If they could, then the faith model would be quite different. It’s closed set, shows the closed mind whereas the truth is, those who seek faith have the more open mind.
Further, if science is so perfect, then why is the earth not flat, and why did relativity overturn Newton…. and I wonder what will be next? Oh, so truth is, what is fact today will change with new knowledge tomorrow, and while we deny faith, we fail to seek understanding of it.
February 8th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
John, the whole point of the science loop is that science is a self-improving process — it gets more correct over time. As for your comment about the flat earth, allow me to refer you to this Issac Asimov Quotation: “When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”
February 9th, 2009 at 1:03 am
A religious person’s Faith chart:
1. Start
2. Get idea
3. Research “contradictory evidence”
4. Decide the contradiction proves religion false (return to step 2) ~or~ decide evidence supports religion
5. Live life according to Faith (continue to repeat steps 3 and 4)
That’s how the Faith chart should be. I believe it is necessary to question your faith. (though many decide not to) Blindly following a religion is stupid. To this point, I have found no evidence contradictory to Christianity.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Another Christian: You are joking me right? You haven’t found evidence contradictory to Christianity? How about Earth being 6000 years old? Oh, I guess you just believe in that. I guess that’s why you haven’t ‘found’ any evidence against Christianity.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:16 am
The problem here is that the “Faith” flow chart is a lie.
The athiests, (or “humanists” or whatever it’s PC to call them these days), want Christians to look stupid, so they oversimplify to the point of ridiculousness.
Look around you….do you really believe all the life on this planet, as well as the planet itself, clouds, mountains, oceans, air, stars, etc. , etc., happened by coincidence?
That takes a lot more ‘faith’ to believe than believing in God.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Have fun burning in hell!
March 17th, 2009 at 12:00 am
itt all the butthurt religion peeps in here need to get a life
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
“Look around you….do you really believe all the life on this planet, as well as the planet itself, clouds, mountains, oceans, air, stars, etc. , etc., happened by coincidence?”
It was bound to happen, somewhere. But we won’t believe that a magician did it, like you do.
You take 100 billion planets and (at least) one of them produces intelligent life: It’s not a coincidence but statistically mandatory: It will happen, somewhere, sometime. And those who can see only themselves have only two options: coincidence or magician and both are basically wrong.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
If you believe something in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, you have faith. If you believe something in the face of DEFINITIVE evidence against it, you are fooling yourself. There is, and CANNOT be, any definitive evidence that there is no God. There is, and CANNOT be, any direct observation of the inside of a star. But we fervently believe it is a super-dense pocket of helium and hydrogen. Is it POSSIBLE that there was a beyond-human entity that initiated the Big Bang? Yes. Why is that? Because there is no theory that has sufficiently explained why the Big Bang could have possibly occurred. I am non-denominational Christian, insofar as I believe that Jesus — AS PORTRAYED IN THE BIBLE, regardless of whether or not he even existed — represented the ideal human being, and that a good person exhibits those same qualities the Jesus is portrayed to have had. I do not believe that gays are sinners, I do not believe that the Ten Commandments are absolute, I do not believe that Genesis is a literal interpretation of the creation of the universe. (Genesis is a collective of ancient Hebrew fireside stories, children’s tales, and mythology.) I believe it is absolutely IRRATIONAL to believe that evolution is not FACT. If it weren’t fact… why are there antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria? HURR. What I’m trying to say is, “faith” and “Christianity” are not synonymous with “irrational, dogmatic insistence upon the factuality of one’s own opinions”.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
@ AnotherChristian
You cant find any evidence contradictory to Christianity??? Are you serious? Try the Qu’ran? Maybe the Talmud? Or just possibly, “The origin of the species”?
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Quoth Charismatic Enigma: “There is, and CANNOT be, any definitive evidence that there is no God. ”
Atheists don’t need definitive evidence that there is NO God, in order to disbelieve. All they need to point to is the lack of definitive evidence that there IS a God. And it’s not our job to provide that. Anyone making a positive claim that a being of that magnitude exists, must back that up with proof or be prepared for either ridicule or at least a few skeptically raised eyebrows.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
God can’t exist… Never… Theory of creation is for fools… Science always war with faith… But science will win.
June 7th, 2009 at 3:04 am
Both diagrams representing science and faith are totally off the mark. I have been a working scientist for 60 years and a Christian for 30 years. I know both sides of the fence and love them both. If this is puzzling to you read my book A MATTER OF FAITH. You can find copies on Amazon.com or the Barnes and Noble website among other places. Read and learn.
BenProf
June 7th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
@A Devil’s Chaplain: Believe it or not, not all Christians believe the world is 6,000 years old.
@MsMisery: A. Qu’ran, Talmud? You’re drying to disprove one religion with two different, also unproven religions? B. The Origin of Species disproves Creationism, NOT Christianity.
AnotherChristian has a point, that’s the way faith should be set up. I’d be lying to say everybody thinks that way, that’s why we end up with things like Creationism and the 6,000 years old thing, but those do not represent the entirety of Christianity.
June 7th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Oops, that should be trying, not drying in my response to MsMisery.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:16 am
Not a bad comparison Enigma, and I agree with your general idea, but there are large amounts of evidence supporting the “super-dense pocket of helium and hydrogen” theory. There is a complete lack of evidence supporting Godly intervention.
I believe in God, but not actively. As in, if I can’t figure something out, I don’t say “it is holy”, and if I can’t do something, I don’t say “it is forbidden by God”. There is no reason NOT to believe in God, as long as you continue to pursue knowledge of all kinds. Unfortunately, though, I must say that FAITH- not religion- is directly equivalent to ignorance. You should not believe anything faithfully, as that is literally ignoring evidence against it.
On Jesus, I believe he was a philosopher. A good philosopher (although with a case of large self-importance)- but just a philosopher. I also don’t follow any tenants of Christianity beyond hoping for the existence of heaven.
There are ignorant religious freaks, and ignorant pursuers of science; but everyone has such a hard time finding a balance. ^^
June 19th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Stating that you can’t disprove god does not turn his/hers/its existence into a 50/50 proposition. The idea of a God is so improbable i find it hard to understand those of faith. But to me faith is not a virtue it’s an intellectual ball and chain.
And if you must have faith why not try gods creator
Has to be more powerful, wise and homophobic?
Love the chart
June 26th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Raelians? You guys realize you’re on the wrong side of the chart.
“We’re made by aliens and we cloned a baby!” > Does the evidence support the idea? > No > “We’re still made by aliens and we cloned another baby!!” > Does the evidence support the idea? > No > Rinse > Repeat > Keep idea forever > End”
I believe that’s the faith chart…
September 20th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
belief.
faith is a belief of something without evidence of it,
or a continued belief of something despite contradictory evidence.
if the belief ever changes at all or disappears, faith has stopped
faith cannot be open minded.
if evidence appears and the belief becomes explainable, then faith stops and is replaced by understanding.
faith cannot be rational.
given this, faith can only be understood as delusion;
one that creates a non-adaptiveness that is detrimental to all.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
The science chart is idealized and overly optimistic (e.g. doesn’t reflect the static tendency of theory, pradigm, model in all thought systems or the incomplete nature human perception and abstraction). The faith chart is purposely over-simplified (as will be whatever I can put in this short comment) and only accurate for a small percentage of those who hold to a faith system. I wouldn’t get too happy or too angry about it. It makes a point for some.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:06 am
‘It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.’ – Carl Sagan
November 20th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Awww… you cared enough to make a graph… who can debate that? It’s like a lolcat in how it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside with awesomeness of reason!
December 14th, 2009 at 6:28 am
I can understand why we cut back to one god – once we figured out what makes crops fail or why the sun rises every day, who needs the sun god and all its co-gods? And I can understand why a lot of us still need the one remaining god – the idea of the Big Bang (and what there was before the BB) isn’t very comforting to me either. As long as we have fear of death we will have religion (life after death – sign me up!). But neither am I comforted by thinking of all the times large armies have faced each other across battlefields and both prayed to god to help them kill their enemies. And just once I’d like to see an athlete blame god for not helping them win. Seems reasonable to me.
December 26th, 2009 at 3:00 am
while living in the religion we will not be free,
and science today is a modern way of faith…we remain prisoners
we must understand a reality and a world,
where they are not necessary (at least not a science and and technology
we dominate us) but where our full freedom
(self-determination and self-consciousness)
producing a reconciled community and fearlessly whether….