Well, the explanation of "faith" is a little wonky - it seems to ignore the, oh, thousands of years of philosophical and spiritual development that has been occuring. posted by muddgirl at 3:10 PM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
Well, the explanation of "faith" is a little wonky
Maybe so, maybe no. At the personal level, you can be said to be performing science if you follow the "science" workflow, and you can be said to be performing faith if you follow the "faith" workflow. posted by gurple at 3:24 PM on February 28, 2007
"Chase skirt" posted by beerbajay at 3:32 PM on February 28, 2007
*draws flowers and vines all over thread* posted by WolfDaddy at 3:33 PM on February 28, 2007
The Roomba one is funny because it's true. posted by infinitywaltz at 3:34 PM on February 28, 2007
Coïncidence or fate? Achewood posts a W.W.R.B.D. comic today. posted by nímwunnan at 3:37 PM on February 28, 2007
If you can point to "thousands of years of philosophical and spiritual development", then you're not really taking it on "Faith", are you? Most people's belief systems are usually a muddled mix of the two, with Science-dominated people not realizing how much they take on Faith and Faith-dominated people not realizing how much they rely on Science. But for individual beliefs, that dichotomy mostly works. But I'm sure a kinda-Science-but-partly-Faith flowchart would be extremely complex, with various dead-ends, loops and multiple paths to the same conclusion. posted by wendell at 3:42 PM on February 28, 2007
Oh my. Except for being allergic to peanut butter, I appear to be R.B. As a webcomics fan who never really got Achewood, I am shocked and awed! posted by wendell at 3:46 PM on February 28, 2007
Well, yes, I suppose, if we're going to take "science" or "faith" as strictly individual or personal endeavors. However, it's clear (even from Grey's chart), that one scientist does not work in a complete vacuum. I would argue that the community of science is more important than any one active scientist (despite what high school science class would have you believe). Similarly, a person's individual faith doesn't exist in a vacuum, either. Taking the current media darling evangelicalism or "fundamentalist christianity", as some call it. The roots of this religious phenomenon are much older than any one preacher or any family, and the reason that it is so popular has little to do with the people involved and more to do with the socio-economic framework that they are raised in/currently living in.
Sorry, this is entirely too much meta-analysis for one humorous little diagram. Even I'm starting to yawn and skim. Let's end the derail. posted by muddgirl at 3:57 PM on February 28, 2007
it seems to ignore the, oh, thousands of years of philosophical and spiritual development that has been occuring
I keep hearing about this development, but I haven't seen it in action much. Whereas I see satellites (well, radar signatures of them), medical miracles and the internet every day. posted by DU at 4:41 PM on February 28, 2007
Brilliant post. posted by frogan at 8:01 PM on February 28, 2007
My friend sent me this one a couple days ago, and disagreeing, I proved him wrong with this remix.
It's good stuff, reminds me a lot of xkcd. posted by kaytwo at 9:10 PM on February 28, 2007
These are really awesome, thanks. I especially enjoyed "Bedtime Entropy." Except reverse the genders. I never get the damned blankets. posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:36 PM on February 28, 2007
Is he known as "Welly" to his friends? posted by From Bklyn at 12:16 AM on March 1, 2007
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 2:49 PM on February 28, 2007