Science vs Faith Flowchart

So Long, And Thanks For All The Memories (From Dan)
All Cycles Come to an End
Being Agent Scully
Romance at Mars Hill
  • Patrick

    “Hey guys, did you hear about that new internet thing?”

  • vasaroti

    An observation: There are a lot of people born before 1965 who do not understand flow charts, or even venn diagrams.

    • Elemenope

      But most of the funniest jokes on the Internet come in flowchart and/or Venn diagram form! How do such people get any joy out of life?

  • This love

    A common justification for the materialistic understanding of science is that the introduction of intelligent causes is a “science stopper”. When dealing with a hard scientific issue, people would simply say “God did it” and quit. Thereby, scientific explanations are eliminated and previous scientific achievements are disparaged. “The Science stopper” arguments fails for at least four reasons. First Western science proceeded very well without methodological or philosophical materialism. Sir Isaan Newton was a theist who explained his laws of physics according to design. The metaphysic of Western culture was generally theistic, not naturalistic. Second, Intelligent Design(God as a Creator) is not advocating the direct intervention of intelligent causes in the orderly operations of chemistry or biology or physics. Mind was offered as the best explanation for the original constitution of our finely tuned universe. Science is not imperiled by a God who monkeys with regularities. Christian theism affirms a God who insures the rational and regular patterns of nature, not randomness based on divine caprice. The search for intelligent causes is alive and well in many areas of science outside of biology, such as archaeology, cryptography and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Intelligent design extends this design inference into biology.

    • Laurelle Walsh


  • Nick

    This was far too verbose for an individual as intoxicated as myself to understand the exact nature of your point presently.

  • Simon

    As a joke, the flow charts are about as funny as porridge. As a contribution towards philosophy and science, the charts are just dumb.

    • Nzo

      As a joke, your post is about as funny as porridge. As a contribution towards philosophy and science, your post is just dumb.

      • Custador

        Beat me to it.

  • Mike Gantt

    Whoever drew the chart does not understand much about biblical faith.

    • Yoav

      Actually your site fit perfectly to the chart since all you do there is block your ears close your eyes and shout at the top of your voice , Jeebus exist, jeebus exist, fu*k evidance jeebus exists.

    • Theory_of_I

      “…That’s All We Need”

      There is one huge omission in your list:

      You do not have a shred of evidence to support your biblical faith. The chart describes you precisely.

    • Kodie

      That’s right. Some people don’t ignore contradicting evidence to the bible. Those are called cherry-pickers. Others are gathered back by convincing pseudo-science. It’s a strange policy of the biblical scholars to realize in order to convince some people, they will have to appear to have scientific contradictions to what science supposes is true. There are people who would feel completely stupid to ignore science altogether in favor of the bible, and the biblical scholars have instated a plethora of arguments in order to convince people who like to believe they are too smart to be fooled by some dumb old book. They’re actually convinced the public school education of evolution is a conspiracy meant to seduce them away from the bible, and then when they think they are so smart, they use these arguments to try and tear down facts of science. It’s terrible to see how stupid they’ve convinced themselves to be when they believe they are skeptical enough to be discerning of information. I mean, they don’t seem to be totally convinced that the bible is true and could get away if they tried to know something actual, but what they find more convincing is a scientific-looking way to believe the bible is true.

      Um, we don’t understand biblical faith? The property of believing something that’s obviously horseshit? The ideal of convincing yourself that it’s true by any system available? The tragedy of being appealed to as someone who isn’t gullible enough to swallow anything they teach you at school? The conspiracy? The secular atheist conspiracy of forcing children to learn that the bible isn’t true? I don’t know, let up a bit. It’s a secular honest realization and sharing with malleable minds that the bible could not possibly be true. Be a fucking grown-up.

  • John Golden

    THis kind of stuff bums me out. I love a good joke, but good jokes aren’t mean or discussion ending. Did prompt me to make my own flowchart. Life without reason and reflection is the problem, and there’s plenty of that to go around. Faith is one of the strongest prompts to reflection that I’ve ever known.
    My chart:

    • UrsaMinor

      Your flow chart clearly presupposes the existence of a loving god, and a particular one at that. It doesn’t seem to provide any way to break out of the loop if you have picked the wrong religion, or if no god exists. There may be plenty of reflection involved in your process, but the interior of a sealed bubble from which there is no exit is like that. Suppose, for the sake of a thought experiment, that Buddhism and only Buddhism were true. How could you ever arrive at that conclusion using the process described in your flowchart?

      • Mogg

        Fabulous. That flowchart is exactly how I practised Christianity, and it led me out of it. When I listened for the answers from a loving God there were none, the “wise teachers” taught things that were inconsistent with reality and the answers I was getting from the loving god, and I acted on it by reading further, broadening and deepening my understanding, and eventually walking away altogether. Very accurate!

    • Sunny Day

      A shorter form of your chart: Garbage in Garbage out.

    • Kodie

      You are still making up shit, and instead of clinging to it first off, you mingle it around your brain until you feel that you’ve done the act of “reflection” and then you continue to cling to it. “Faith is one of the strongest prompts to reflection I’ve known.” Well, la-di-da. Your flow chart doesn’t actually portray what is reflected, except what you decided is true in the first place. Nothing in that flow chart suggests that the act of reflecting on something you want to be true is discarded after you reflect upon it. It is more of a flow chart of how one convinces their god to agree with what they expect to be true. Your idea of whatever “reflection” is, is actually the process of deceiving oneself that what one wants is in agreement with whatever god advises. You are prompted to go through a diversionary tactic of requesting counsel from a figment of your imagination until you are convinced that what you want to do is the right thing to do as advised by go.

      Plus your drawing looks like a toilet, suggesting you pooped an idea and then your toilet overflowed with the same idea, which you have come to accept as how faith processes your ideas and your reflection of those ideas and how god eventually gives you the thumbs-up on the idea.

      What the fuck is wrong that you can’t just admit you just do whatever you like?

  • John Golden

    I love Anne Lamott’s quote about that you know you’ve made a god in your own image when he hates all the same people you do. The arrows back to form your beliefs are supposed to indicate when you modify or adjust what you believe.
    For example, I did spend a lot of time reading Buddhist literature (love the writing of Chongyam Trungpa Rinpoche) and learned a lot about prayer and practice. I read Dawkins and Ehrlman, and, were I to find them at all convincing, could come to believe that there is no God. Karen Armstrong is a good model of this reflection process, whether you agree with her conclusions or not.
    Believing there is no higher power is also a belief that benefits from reflection and study. That is something I wish for everyone, regardless of beliefs. It takes an amazing level of arrogance to allow no possibility that you are wrong.

    • Kodie

      Is there any logic here or just warm fuzzies?

    • UrsaMinor

      I, for one, do not “believe there is no higher power”. I do not believe there is a higher power, which is a very different thing. I do not believe there is a higher power because there is no evidence for one. When evidence surfaces, I will examine it and reconsider my position on the matter.

      And yes, it would take an amazing level of arrogance to allow no possibility that you are wrong, which is why I do not maintain that I could not possibly be wrong. I do, on the other hand, see a lot of theists displaying that level of arrogance.

    • Mogg

      Most of the people here would not claim absolute infallibility, so your comment has no relevance here. Over in the forums we’re trying to have a conversation with a particularly convinced believer just to see if he has any reasoning that could convince anyone to change their minds on a particular topic, in this case the concept that a fertilised human ovum is of the same moral worth as a born human being. It’s like pulling teeth as he doesn’t seem to understand what we’re asking; nevertheless he has the opportunity to put some arguments forward to convince us.

      Believing there is no higher power is exactly where I got to after many years of reflection and study. Argument from personal experience, I know, but it goes against your claim and therefore breaks your model. If you want another example, check out Dan Flinke’s story over at Camels With Hammers, one of the other blogs on the Patheos atheist channel.

      • Mogg

        And perhaps I should be as careful with my phrasing as Ursa is :)

    • Sunny Day

      I still don’t see anywhere on your chart where you test your beliefs against the real world.
      Marinated garbage is still just garbage.