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

[Adrift]

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.

That's cool. I get the appeal of a comic for philosophy geeks. Probably what rubs me the wrong way is that, stylistically, it seems very similar to the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic strip. I don't find SMBC that funny either (not that I've read a whole lot of it), but compared to this comic, I'd say that it looks like SMBC gets the job done with less effort, and it's wittier. Looking over the last three Existential Comics submissions, the jokes are there, but it all comes across so heavy-handed, and the timing is all off. It feels like someone explaining a joke to me rather than telling a joke.

Eh, but if people like it, it doesn't really matter what I think.

[Jin-roh]

There is no answer to this question. There's no explanation to be had.

Questions of ultimate purpose are still asked, and I think it's bit anti-humanist (in the best sense of the word, not in the popularly appropriated sense of the word), to ignore them or pretend like they don't matter.

[Adrift]

Wait... I vaguely remember the screwball thread, but I don't know what "anti-screwball" is.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451770

[rogue06]

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.

In a sense I agree with Dawkins here. Science, while it does pretty good at answering questions of how, where and when, is incredibly ill equipped at addressing questions dealing with "why" which is the bailiwick of religion and philosophy. Of course being beholden to ontological naturalism, Dawkins doesn't want folks asking why because that reveals for all to see that science does not and will never have all the answers.

[Meh Gerbil]

In a sense I agree with Dawkins here. Science, while it does pretty good at answering questions of how, where and when, is incredibly ill equipped at addressing questions dealing with "why" which is the bailiwick of religion and philosophy. Of course being beholden to ontological naturalism, Dawkins doesn't want folks asking why because that reveals for all to see that science does not and will never have all the answers.

If all the question 'why' does is reveal a gap in science then it has done more for science than all of the other questions combined.

[Cerebrum123]

Wait... I vaguely remember the screwball thread, but I don't know what "anti-screwball" is.

Basically the opposite of a screwball award, sometimes they call it a "Sanity Award".

[tabibito]

Basically the opposite of a screwball award, sometimes they call it a "Sanity Award".

OI. Monitors -

Should I report Cerebrum's post?

The second to last word on the cited post ... is that word even permitted for use here?

[JonathanL]

OI. Monitors -

Should I report Cerebrum's post?

The second to last word on the cited post ... is that word even permitted for use here?

The S word?

[tabibito]

That's the one.

[Jedidiah]

Yep, why does something exist instead of absolutely nothing. Never seen a scientist - or a philosopher for that matter - answer that question.

I have asked this question a few times. The only answer anyone has offered was "Why not?" Not sure who wrote it I think either Tass or JimL.

[Starlight]

I have asked this question a few times. The only answer anyone has offered was "Why not?"

It's of course one of the great mysteries.

I like the 'why not' answer in the sense if, in the beginning, nothing existed, then that nothing included no rules or limitations or laws preventing things from existing. And thus anything and everything that was possible to exist, began to do so, because nothing prevented it from doing so. And thus all possible universes and all possible worlds came into being.

[Starlight]

I didn't like the OP comic and, having qualifications in science and philosophy myself, generally would side with the scientists.

Yes, there can always be some philosophy behind everything. However, science has been very good at producing new answers, and has also been very good at answering questions previously thought of as philosophical questions. Philosophy on the other hand has not been particularly good at giving us new answers, and armchair philosophers can bicker all day without really getting anywhere. Thousands of years in the future, when science has finished giving us all the answers that it can, there might be about 5 questions that it's possible to do philosophy-of-the-gaps on, and wildly speculate with no way to ever prove yourself right or wrong on those things.

In sum, philosophy as a modern subject isn't really going anywhere (historically, of course, philosophy was a major subject at universities and as new areas of research were discovered they were split off from the philosophy department to become their own departments), whereas science is. I would say the New Atheists on the whole have the right approach, and the OP comic on the whole is wrong.

[Adrift]

Atheist philosopher, and critic of scientism, Massimo Pigliucci does a fantastic job (in my opinion), of tearing down the ridiculous claim that philosophy does not progress in his open letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson,

[Charles]

In sum, philosophy as a modern subject isn't really going anywhere (historically, of course, philosophy was a major subject at universities and as new areas of research were discovered they were split off from the philosophy department to become their own departments), whereas science is. I would say the New Atheists on the whole have the right approach, and the OP comic on the whole is wrong.

I would not go this far, but I sure think there is a point to be taken in what you wrote. I can agree that perhaps philosophy in its current form has become rather narrow because of the historical development you describe. I also think it is absolutely fair to say that philosophers could do a lot more to take part and scientific and political debate. There is a tendency that they stick to themselves too much.

[Jin-roh]

I didn't like the OP comic and, having qualifications in science and philosophy myself, generally would side with the scientists.

Yes, there can always be some philosophy behind everything. However, science has been very good at producing new answers, and has also been very good at answering questions previously thought of as philosophical questions. Philosophy on the other hand has not been particularly good at giving us new answers, and armchair philosophers can bicker all day without really getting anywhere. Thousands of years in the future, when science has finished giving us all the answers that it can, there might be about 5 questions that it's possible to do philosophy-of-the-gaps on, and wildly speculate with no way to ever prove yourself right or wrong on those things.

In sum, philosophy as a modern subject isn't really going anywhere (historically, of course, philosophy was a major subject at universities and as new areas of research were discovered they were split off from the philosophy department to become their own departments), whereas science is. I would say the New Atheists on the whole have the right approach, and the OP comic on the whole is wrong.

What do think of Karl Popper?