"The Oatmeal" on Religion

[Aftrbrnr]

I honestly love the Oatmeal web comic, but recently the author has gotten a little controversial. Other than a comic about why Tesla was better than Thomas Jefferson (which got a response in Forbes), he's recently done a few articles on religion. This kind of disappoints me because the Oatmeal for the most part has been apolitical, and taking a side whether pro-religious or anti-religious kind of splits the reader base especially if they are used to the comic not taking sides.

The comic has taken an anti-religious stance, and while I agree with some aspects the author has with that, parts of it I don't agree with (not because I'm religious, which I'm not as of late but I'm not a materialist either). One comic was a defense on the "Atheism has caused wars" argument some people make. If your read the comic while I think his argument makes sense, I don't quite agree with the implication he makes that atheism can do nothing wrong or the problems associated with religion is the result of religion itself (persecution, etc.) I believe any belief or view point can be twisted with enough zealously regardless if they are religious or not with certain racist organizations as an example. I feel some of the problems associated with religion are not a result of religious belief itself, but rather people who have pushed those problematic beliefs (holding science back, anti-homosexuality, etc.) In the same sense, while I admit atheism hasn't caused major problems like wars, but minor ones such as the poor attitudes some militant atheists have towards some people. And like religion, I don't think the bullying attitudes some core atheists have against other people is the result of atheism, but rather the people involved.

A very recent comic was an even more in-depth critique on religion. There are parts of it I do appreciate, the first being where how he feels the parent should answer the a child when he asks what happens when we die. Despite the author being against religion, I like how he takes the un-biased path and presents several options and then saying "we don't know for sure". I find a lot of times with a lot of materialists being anti-religious, the usual answer is something along the lines of our extinction, which I don't have as much as a problem with as the accompanying lines that mock people who believe other wise or are weak for not accepting that hypothesis. This kind of reminds me of atheist Sam Harris' answer on the issue, which was also an "I don't know", which kind of shocked me because a lot of people in his camp are not indecisive on that issue.

The other thing I liked was the conservative vs. liberal panel, which I think mocks both religious extremists and militant atheists, again it seems the author while anti-religious hasn't put his beliefs into the comic.

It's the last panel that kind of gets to me, the one where he says your religion is okay if it inspires people or help people at first it seems great. However, the last bit unfortunately I feel is where he finally injects his beliefs into the comic, the part where he asks if your religion helps your cope with being a "bag of meat", or how insignificant we are. For me, it kind of comes off as a stealth advertisement for humanism and materialism, and it kind of contrasts with how he was agnostic with the panel of "What happens when we die?" I'm not disputing the possibility of what he says, but to me it almost kind of comes off as him passing off materialism as a proven fact.

I don't know what you guys think of his comics, maybe not so much the anti-religious views, but do you think he comes off as pro-materialist in a way?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Aftrbrnr

I honestly love the Oatmeal web comic, but recently the author has gotten a little controversial. Other than a comic about why Tesla was better than Thomas Jefferson (which got a response in Forbes), he's recently done a few articles on religion. This kind of disappoints me because the Oatmeal for the most part has been apolitical, and taking a side whether pro-religious or anti-religious kind of splits the reader base especially if they are used to the comic not taking sides.

The comic has taken an anti-religious stance, and while I agree with some aspects the author has with that, parts of it I don't agree with (not because I'm religious, which I'm not as of late but I'm not a materialist either). One comic was a defense on the "Atheism has caused wars" argument some people make. If your read the comic while I think his argument makes sense, I don't quite agree with the implication he makes that atheism can do nothing wrong or the problems associated with religion is the result of religion itself (persecution, etc.) I believe any belief or view point can be twisted with enough zealously regardless if they are religious or not with certain racist organizations as an example. I feel some of the problems associated with religion are not a result of religious belief itself, but rather people who have pushed those problematic beliefs (holding science back, anti-homosexuality, etc.) In the same sense, while I admit atheism hasn't caused major problems like wars, but minor ones such as the poor attitudes some militant atheists have towards some people. And like religion, I don't think the bullying attitudes some core atheists have against other people is the result of atheism, but rather the people involved.

A very recent comic was an even more in-depth critique on religion. There are parts of it I do appreciate, the first being where how he feels the parent should answer the a child when he asks what happens when we die. Despite the author being against religion, I like how he takes the un-biased path and presents several options and then saying "we don't know for sure". I find a lot of times with a lot of materialists being anti-religious, the usual answer is something along the lines of our extinction, which I don't have as much as a problem with as the accompanying lines that mock people who believe other wise or are weak for not accepting that hypothesis. This kind of reminds me of atheist Sam Harris' answer on the issue, which was also an "I don't know", which kind of shocked me because a lot of people in his camp are not indecisive on that issue.

The other thing I liked was the conservative vs. liberal panel, which I think mocks both religious extremists and militant atheists, again it seems the author while anti-religious hasn't put his beliefs into the comic.

It's the last panel that kind of gets to me, the one where he says your religion is okay if it inspires people or help people at first it seems great. However, the last bit unfortunately I feel is where he finally injects his beliefs into the comic, the part where he asks if your religion helps your cope with being a "bag of meat", or how insignificant we are. For me, it kind of comes off as a stealth advertisement for humanism and materialism, and it kind of contrasts with how he was agnostic with the panel of "What happens when we die?" I'm not disputing the possibility of what he says, but to me it almost kind of comes off as him passing off materialism as a proven fact.

I don't know what you guys think of his comics, maybe not so much the anti-religious views, but do you think he comes off as pro-materialist in a way?

Thanks,
I liked this site.
I kind of felt opposite of you on the second one though. I thought it was weak on the answer of 'what happens when you die?' I thought it needed a worm food response also. Though I did like where it went at the end. Kind of believe what you want, but keep it to yourself.

[NinjaKitty7]

I read it. It definitely started out well. But it descended in the religion of Dawkinism at the end. Honestly, anymore I find it humorous when someone goes out of their way to b*tch about how people are so certain in their beliefs that are wrong, and then they end by preaching their own ideology just as much. The more people I talk to, the more it seems that the whole militant atheist thing was a fad, just like most things. Just another thing for people to get tired of, like anyone preaching to them... all that is left are the zealots.

[edragone]

Speaking as an agnostic - atheism as a movement may not have reached the point where it organises people into declaring war on a religious group in a "holy" campaign to spread the word of Reason, but even a casual look at the Internet will yield plenty of examples of people who use atheism as an excuse to mock, sneer, bully, troll, etc. Someone who only knew of atheism from the Internet could be forgiven for mistaking it for, as The Daily Show once put it, the religion devoted to the worship of one's own smug sense of superiority. No outlook on life is immune to being put to bad use.

As for the second cartoon; I agree that it's best to tell your kids "no one knows" on certain questions, though the cartoon as a whole seems a bit disorganised. But that final spiel about "insignificant meat bags" is very close to comments made by certain physicists and science commentators, and I honestly wonder if some of these people are out to destroy any notion of self esteem in humanity. I cannot grasp why the answer to the arrogance of certain religions has to be promoting this bleak an outlook. No,we're not the centre of the Universe or necessarily the pinnacle of evolution; why does that automatically render us insignificant? Have these people never read "Horton Hears a Who?"

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by edragone

but even a casual look at the Internet will yield plenty of examples of people who use __________ as an excuse to mock, sneer, bully, troll, etc

Fill in the blank with pretty well every known topic on the internet. Try it!

[edragone]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Fill in the blank with pretty well every known topic on the internet. Try it!

I made the exact same point at the end of my first paragraph. Some (not all) atheists (and other groups) act as if their outlook is immune from such things.

[gabriel]

The Oatmeal isn't a comic I'm familiar with so I looked it up. It seems to be another outlet trying desperately hard to be relevant and on the money. It boils down to whether you believe people are basically good and only need the right nurture and appropriate chemicals to get them back on track so the rest of can enjoy utopia, or if you think humanity has got a screw loose. I err towards the latter.

The current fashion is to believe it's 'religion wot done it'. Well in some cases it is, but if you remove all signs of it something like 'religion', a profound contemplation on the human condition and what it means, will always be with us. Materialism is a distraction. It says don't worry about all that stuff because there'll be jam tomorrow. That approach doesn't satisfy my curiosity or explain anything interesting about my consciousness.

[Hjortron]

Originally Posted by Aftrbrnr

However, the last bit unfortunately I feel is where he finally injects his beliefs into the comic, the part where he asks if your religion helps your cope with being a "bag of meat", or how insignificant we are. For me, it kind of comes off as a stealth advertisement for humanism and materialism, and it kind of contrasts with how he was agnostic with the panel of "What happens when we die?" I'm not disputing the possibility of what he says, but to me it almost kind of comes off as him passing off materialism as a proven fact.

I don't know what you guys think of his comics, maybe not so much the anti-religious views, but do you think he comes off as pro-materialist in a way?

He most certainly comes off as a pro-materialist that way. I thought the same as you when I read it.

Originally Posted by edragone

As for the second cartoon; I agree that it's best to tell your kids "no one knows" on certain questions[...]

As a philosophical agnostic in general, I disagree, as I think that it's too strong a statement. If you claim that "no one knows", you are implicitly claiming that you know that no one knows. How could you know this?

It also hints at the notion that we can't possibly know the answer, for some reason.

A better approach, I think, would be to say that there is a variety of opinions out there, and that it's up to the child to make up its own mind.

[Johann]

Also, I think that claiming that "saying you believe in Atheism is like saying you believe in math" is a pretty arrogant attitude.

Atheism is nowhere near as obvious as math; theological arguments have made it clear that neither position is fail-safe, like an equation. The comparison is totally meaningless.

BTW, it seems like a lot of web comics follow the following formula:

Slide 1 - stupid idiot (the side you are against) comes in and says something stupid.

Slide 2 - intelligent person (your side) patiently explains why the stupid person's arguments are stupid.

Slide 3 - some random distraction

The effect is that opposing arguments are always represented as lacking the faintest semblance of thought, and yours as brilliantly insightful. It gets tiring.

- Johann

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Johann

Also, I think that claiming that "saying you believe in Atheism is like saying you believe in math" is a pretty arrogant attitude.

Atheism is nowhere near as obvious as math; theological arguments have made it clear that neither position is fail-safe, like an equation. The comparison is totally meaningless.

I think you're misreading the comparison there. He writes:

And second, saying that you believe in atheism is like saying you believe in math. Hitler and Stalin didn't go to war in the name of atheism, much like they wouldn't go to war in the name of fractions or prime numbers

It's pretty terribly worded any way you cut it, but the point being made was not that atheism is as obvious as math, I think the comparison is that like math, atheism contains no value judgments or tenets that could lead to war.

The better comparison on that would be to theism. People do go to war in the name of theism. They do sometimes go to war in the name of particular deities. You need something in addition to theism or atheism to get to advocating particular actions.