Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 69

Thread: Existential comics punches scientism in the face, writes articulate blog post why.

  1. #21
    tWebber Carrikature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Faith
    Non-Theist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,578
    Amen (Given)
    2084
    Amen (Received)
    1074
    Quote Originally Posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
    I attended a Richard Dawkins lecture where he maintained that we shouldn't ask the question of 'Why?' in science.
    He said it was a loaded question.
    I found it odd that a 'free thinker' would define questions that should not be asked.
    The key part is 'in science'. Why is a loaded question. It brings with it the concept of purpose and reasons. Purpose isn't a thing science can speak on, even were it determinable.
    I'm not here anymore.

  2. Amen stfoskey15 amen'd this post.
  3. #22
    tWebber Carrikature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Faith
    Non-Theist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,578
    Amen (Given)
    2084
    Amen (Received)
    1074
    Quote Originally Posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
    I've now read that and it was good for a laugh.

    So the new atheists are promoting anti-feminist views which are labeled here as 'conservative'?
    That is pretty funny - I suspect the new atheists are tired of watching government via victimology.
    It has nothing to do with conservatism.
    It's not really an apologia for feminism. Dawkins and others push for their own visions of societal change. The irony, as pointed out in the comic, is that they can't push for these changes based on their proclaimed stance. Science and technology don't do that. Philosophy does.
    I'm not here anymore.

  4. #23
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,664
    Amen (Given)
    6213
    Amen (Received)
    5995
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrikature View Post
    Not all of the comics are intended to be humorous. This is one of those.

    Even those which are intended to be humorous tend to be very oblique about it, imo.
    Sure, not all comics are intended to be humorous, but how most of the panels are drawn in this one I don't think it's a leap to think the author intended it to be humorous. The humor here may have been intended to be oblique, but it's still not funny.

  5. #24
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,918
    Amen (Given)
    1699
    Amen (Received)
    2604
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrikature View Post
    It's not really an apologia for feminism. Dawkins and others push for their own visions of societal change. The irony, as pointed out in the comic, is that they can't push for these changes based on their proclaimed stance. Science and technology don't do that. Philosophy does.
    No, this is false, the author is annoyed because the author can't push his vision of societal change (and goes on an extended diatribe about it after the comic).
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

  6. #25
    tWebber Jin-roh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Glendale, CA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    185
    Amen (Given)
    33
    Amen (Received)
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    I saw that this was posted in the Screwball thread as an anti-Screwball. I like that the author is targeting scientism, but the comic itself is not at all funny or witty or anything that would make it "comic". It just comes off forced and preachy, which is precisely what you wouldn't want in this sort of format. When a comic has a paragraph long speech bubble in every panel, you know you're going to run into trouble. The artwork wasn't the absolute worse I've ever seen, so I suppose it's got that going for it.
    If I were to rate comics as comic, I wouldn't put Existential Comics at the top of my list. The art-work is not as great as others for sure.

    I enjoy them though, because its intrinsically funny to see people discuss serious ideas while calling on Captain Metaphysics, or watching Neitzsche literally announce the death of God as a news caster, or see Marx get upset at thoroughly classist board game.
    Last edited by Jin-roh; 06-23-2017 at 10:17 PM.

  7. Amen Carrikature amen'd this post.
  8. #26
    tWebber Jin-roh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Glendale, CA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    185
    Amen (Given)
    33
    Amen (Received)
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrikature View Post
    It's not really an apologia for feminism. Dawkins and others push for their own visions of societal change. The irony, as pointed out in the comic, is that they can't push for these changes based on their proclaimed stance. Science and technology don't do that. Philosophy does.
    I think it's both as an apologia for feminism and a middle finger to scientism. The former is the subplot. I sometimes wonder if it's possible to be a woman in philosophy and not be or at least not be perceived to be a feminist. I personally have never met a woman who is into philosophy and not also a feminist, with only one exception because she drank some religious-right kool-aid at some point after she got married.

    Scientism is 'conservative' in the sense that it's fundamentalist, modernist, and unapologetically euro-centric. Now that I think about it, I'm curious what the racial make-up of the new atheist fan club is. Dawkins and Harris do have a reputation for sexism, and that quote from Harris really does sound like the exact same idea I would hear from someone like Thomas Jefferson in the 1700s.

  9. #27
    tWebber Meh Gerbil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    circular balloonist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,164
    Amen (Given)
    1438
    Amen (Received)
    2349
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrikature View Post
    The key part is 'in science'. Why is a loaded question. It brings with it the concept of purpose and reasons. Purpose isn't a thing science can speak on, even were it determinable.
    This isn't true.
    The question of 'why' is asked all of the time.

    Most of those 'why' questions have answers on the physical realm (why do birds build nests?) but even if a question doesn't have an answer it should be asked anyways and a small 'unknown' put in as the answer. The blanket declaration of no 'why' is science seems heavy handed - just because that question irritates Dawkins doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked. He has no problem asking 'why' when attacking religion. He's just a really bad philosopher.
    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

  10. Amen Jin-roh, stfoskey15 amen'd this post.
  11. #28
    tWebber Meh Gerbil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    circular balloonist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,164
    Amen (Given)
    1438
    Amen (Received)
    2349
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrikature View Post
    It's not really an apologia for feminism. Dawkins and others push for their own visions of societal change. The irony, as pointed out in the comic, is that they can't push for these changes based on their proclaimed stance. Science and technology don't do that. Philosophy does.
    Did Dawkins push for a change in society based on something other than naturalistic reasons?
    I think you could oppose feminism from a purely scientific standpoint with no philosophy involved.
    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

  12. #29
    tWebber Jin-roh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Glendale, CA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    185
    Amen (Given)
    33
    Amen (Received)
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    I saw that this was posted in the Screwball thread as an anti-Screwball.
    Wait... I vaguely remember the screwball thread, but I don't know what "anti-screwball" is.

  13. #30
    tWebber Jin-roh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Glendale, CA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    185
    Amen (Given)
    33
    Amen (Received)
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
    Did Dawkins push for a change in society based on something other than naturalistic reasons?
    I think you could oppose feminism from a purely scientific standpoint with no philosophy involved.
    Opposing feminism usually means denying or affirm some set of values, and since that is itself an evaluation of some kind...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •