I think religion is represented wrong. It should read :
Being in a dark room looking for a black cat, believing that it is there.
I get where the OP is coming from and many religious people have been loud, vocal and hostile recently but it’s not a core principle of religion to be that way.
You are in a pitch-black room and hear a noise. A noise you can’t describe properly, you’ve never heard or seen this creature before but it has a high pitched wail.
A man called Philosophy walks in the room. He hears the cry and takes some time to think. He names this creature the cat and deduces that it must be as big as a bear and as fierce as a lion. This creature must be dangerous. He tells you stories about strange exotic creatures, ones with black fur and long tails. These creatures have nails as sharp as swords and mean only harm. He tells you to stay back and listen to his thoughts as he contemplates more.
Then another man called Theology walks in. He too hears the creature yelling. Over some time, he begins to listen to the different tones of the noise this creature makes. He hears a shriek and thinks it’s telling you to get back. It hears a purr and tells you it’s playful. He begins to think it’s communicating and assigns meaning to the creature’s noise. He tells you to have faith in his belief and to follow the creatures demands. He tells you to offer tithes and sacrifices so you too can find meaning in this creature.
And, finally, a last man named Science walks into the room. He hears the cat and listens to the others propositions. He sets up ways to test his hypotheses. He thinks the cat must be big, so he throws some food near the creature and hears its footsteps; they aren’t stomps, they are something more elegant. He no longer thinks he and Philosophy were correct. Because he thinks it’s no longer big, he walks up to the creature and tries to get a closer look. He gets bitten and falls back to the others. Over time he tells you that Theology and Philosophy were right on some things and wrong on the others. He admits that he can be wrong himself but will correct and change his understand of this creature as he learns. He also offers little answers to the creature’s as the others. You don’t understand exactly how he works, you are merely a layman with little education.
So, which of the men do you believe?
Meh. Natural sciences and philosophy/methaphisics are quite closer/more intimately linked than you seem to think.
To quote my former physics teacher:
If you remove maths from physics you’re left with philosophy.
I’m not qualified enough to approve or contest this statement, but I know for a /phisicistsfact that there was a time when great mathematicians were also great philosophers and they couldn’t conceive doing one without the other (Leibnitz or Descartes, among many others). Why I changed and exactly how, I don’t know, but I find it interesting.
Lol, all of those are philosophies. Philosophy isn’t separate to science, or theology, of whatever. It’s the bigger group they’re all part of.
You can put an exclamation point in front of the link to get the image directly
While true, be advised that some consider it rude to hotlink images without permission
Edit: as pointed out below, Randall gives permission to hotlink/embed on each comic page.
You can embed the image, but I think you need to use the image link, rather than the comic page link:
Remember, who made the flashlight for the scientist? The philosopher.
I agree with the conclusion of your metaphor but I think that literally “the scientist” invented the flashlight.
I don’t see this as being dismissive of philosophy at all. Science has always stood on the shoulders of philosophy. In the context of the meme, it established the possibility of the black cat existing. It’s the baseline. Science then used tools to test the idea, while metaphysics and theology are off somewhere making unfalsifiable claims.
Judging by some of the responses, I’m in the minority with this interpretation.
It’s not about whether or not the meme is dismissive of philosophy. It’s that the writer clearly doesn’t understand the basics of these fields and the kinds of questions they ask/answer, including science. Heck metaphysics isn’t even a separate field, it’s a sub-field of philosophy.
If it puts us in a minority to regard scientific achievement as owing a debt of gratitude to epistemology and empiricism, not to mention ethics and countless other branches of study that cannot be taken for granted, then so be it. To take science on its own as merely a self evident and wholly objective practice solely fit for solving problems and creating better technologies is as boring as it is anti intellectual.
