Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 17

= March 17 =

The Definitive Moby Dick film/miniseries?
I'm currently 1/3rd of the way through Moby Dick and have begun looking forward to watching an excellent film or mini-series about it, if there is one. I know Patrick Stewart was Ahab in a miniseries, and he's pretty awesome, so that seems like a decent place to start... but I thought I'd ask here first. Is there one movie or mini-series (there have been many) that is exalted above all others? If they're all mediocre, I'd rather steer clear entirely and not sully my memory of the tale! The Masked Booby (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Visual representations strip Moby-Dick to its plot elements. The germ of Melville's mythic tale was the actual experience of the whaleship Essex, sunk by a sperm whale in 1820. It's recounted by Nathaniel Philbrick, In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex, 2001. --Wetman (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * John Huston's Moby Dick (1956 film) is generally well-regarded, and it involved many striking talents (in addition to Huston, who many feel had a good understanding of Ahab's personality, Ray Bradbury wrote, Orson Welles cameoed, and Gregory Peck is ok in the lead). It is well worth watching, but it's not very relevant to exploring the themes of the novel.  As Wetman suggests, the essence of the book doesn't really lie in the dramatic plot, but in Melville's encyclopedic approach and the detailed discussion of oil refining and whale pizzles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That book must hold the world record for the over-use of exclamation marks! Also useful if you want a very long-winded explanation of why a whale is actually a fish and NOT a mammmal. Alansplodge (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Got through that part 2 days ago, made me laugh. The Masked Booby (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was quite enamoured of Star Trek: The Next Generation back in the nineties, and Patrick Stewart in particular. However, I was left distinctly unimpressed by the Moby-Dick production with him in it. The source material is of course quite good mind you. Vranak (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

World's Most Attractive Man?
After viewing the question asked on Brad Pitt, I wondered who else is cited as one of the world's most attractive men on wikipedia. I know that Aishwarya Rai and Angelina Jolie are cited on the women's side but I don't see many titles similar to that on the men's side. I also wanted to know if Brad Pitt had/possesed the perfect face.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.5.121 (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember, this is the Reference Desk. Many blogs and forums are accessible on the Internet.--Wetman (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Though I've no reliabe source for this, I'm the 'most attractive man on Wikipedia'. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the entire world, I'd have to say BurtAlert. BurtAlert (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen an article named anything like List of attractive men on Wikipedia, because such a list would not be encyclopedic. People Magazine is one magazine that does make a business out of assembling such lists, though, and here is their 2010 list of the Most Beautiful People.  (I see the Old Spice guy made the list this year, and Mr. Pitt did not.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, the best looking man alive today is Antonio Banderas; however the most georgeous man of all time has to have been Montgomery Clift. George Chakiris was also pretty tasty, ditto John F. Kennedy, Jr. Brad Pitt isn't even in the running.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad's Promise to St. Catherine, is this true?
I have read this and tried to research it in google but all that pops up is blog sites and no hard evidence that this document is true or real. If anyone can find some real hard evidence that this is true please let me know.

Info: In 628 AD, a delegation from St. Catherine's Monastery came to Prophet Muhammed and requested his protection. He responded by granting them a charter of rights, which I reproduce below in its entirety. St. Catherine's Monastery is located at the foot of Mt. Sinai and is the world's oldest monastery. It possess a huge collection of Christian manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, and is a world heritage site. It also boasts the oldest collection of Christian icons. It is a treasure house of Christian history that has remained safe for 1,400 years under Muslim protection. The Promise to St. Catherine:

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)." The first and the final sentence of the charter are critical. They make the promise eternal and universal. Muhammed asserts that Muslims are with Christians near and far, straight away rejecting any future attempts to limit the promise to St. Catherine alone. By ordering Muslims to obey it until the Day of Judgment the charter again undermines any future attempts to revoke the privileges. These rights are inalienable. Muhammed declared Christians, all of them, as his allies and he equated ill treatment of Christians with violating God's covenant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabbiecat85 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's real in the sense that there is such a letter displayed in the monastery itself, but it is probably not authentic. It may have been created around 1009 when the Fatimid caliph started destroying Christian churches (including the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem). I'll find some references for this... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, we really do have an article about everything, Achtiname of Muhammad. There isn't much detail about the authenticity, but there are a bunch of links and sources you could look at. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A split Libya
If today's UN vote to authorise the use of military force against Ghaddafi is approved, this will halt the dictator's advance in Cyrenaica. Nevertheless, it appears foreign intervention would be limited to defending the rebels, without actually attacking Ghaddafi-held territory with ground troops. If this came to pass, and neither side of the conflict would be able to defeat the other completely, what are the odds that Libya could end up split in two, like North and South Korea after the Korean War?--Leptictidium (mt) 07:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me check in my most reliable cristal ball, I'll get back to you. Seriously, your guess is as good as ours. 20% ??? But what do I know? --85.119.27.27 (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Until about 100 years ago, Libya was two countries (three, actually); Tripoli and Cyreneaica were, Since roman times, seperate lands. (The lightly populated Fezzan didn't become organized until much later).  The unification of Libya didn't occur until the formation of Italian Libya in the years following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.  In that way, it is very much like Iraq in the sense that it was formed rather arbitrarily as a unification of otherwise distinct territories imposed by an outside power.  2000 years of old traditions die hard, so I would say that it is quite likely there is significant social pressure to split.  The reason Gaddafi's power base is in the west (Tripolitania) is because his clan, the Qaddadfa, are from that province.  The reason the rebels have an easier time in Bengazi is that is part of Cyrenaica, which was historically distinct from Tripolitania.  It's not random that the current uprising has split along those lines.  Now, what this means for the "odds" of a split actually happening; I don't know.  But there is an answerable historical question we CAN answer regarding why a split may happen, if it did.  -- Jayron  32  12:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good clear presentation.--Wetman (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To my surprise, military force was indeed authorized today. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And Gaddafi announced a ceasefire - again, to my surprise. here--TammyMoet (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

History of Stari Bohorodchany & Bohorodchany
I suppose that there was once only one Bohorodchany, which was renamed Stari Bohorodchany when the new Bohorodchany was founded nearby. My question: is this true, and when did the name-shift take place? (The relevant sources are in Polish, so I can't check them myself.) Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are these Polish sources online? If you could provide links, I can take a look and see, if they answer your question. — Kpalion(talk) 12:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! p. 287
 * I'm sorry, but this source doesn't say whether the village of Stari Bohorodchany is actually older than the town of Bohorodchany. I also tried looking at some Ukrainian and Russian online sources, but to no avail. Ukrainian Wikipedia (no reference) only says that the first written mention of Bohorodchany dates back to 1441. — Kpalion(talk) 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the try, though. Anyone have any other sources? Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tsunami victims
How do they so quickly identify the dead bodies in such numbers? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * An observation here: I know a UK policeman who worked in Thailand after the tsunami there, and he was there for months trying to get positive ID on the dead bodies they had in their cool storage. When he came home there were still bodies unidentified and unclaimed. I read on the BBC news site yesterday that some authorities in Japan were publishing names and addresses based on papers found on bodies, rather than any other form of positive ID such as by a relative or DNA analysis. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many bodies go unclaimed and unidentified, though if someone you know lived in the earthquake zone, and you never hear from them again, then they probably died, even if no one ever positively identified their body. I saw a documentary on the 1976 Tangshan earthquake, a disaster of such horrifying proportions even the most recent quake pales in comparison.  Even ignoring the political problems of getting an actual death toll, so many people died in that quake that even getting an accurate count may have been impossible.  It was complicated by the fact that entire social networks were killed off; there were thousands of people for whom literally everyone they know would have died, plus given the scale of death in that quake (reliably something around a quarter of a million people, though maybe more), positive identitication of each individual body wasn't a major concern.  So I am not sure that every body or even most may end up being positively identified.  Impromptu and ad hoc morgues may be set up for some number of weeks after the event to make attempts at identifying bodies, but after some time, they probably just give up.  -- Jayron  32  15:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Yen isn't making much sense. Why does it get stronger after the disaster?
I thought historically, a nation's currency gets weaker after a significant disaster happens. Isn't this true, or just a myth?

Either way, how did the recent triple-whammy (and the worst earthquake ever in Japan's recorded history) cause the Yen to strengthen instead of the expected opposite? What does it do differently that the other nations' currencies wouldn't when disaster strikes them? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the dollar is just getting weaker faster? Googlemeister (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A day or so after the tsunami it was mentioned there's wide expectation many Japanese companies particularly insurance companies are going to have to buy Yen to use it to rebuild and make payments. I suspect this has already happened to a great extent (and in fact was at the time). A simple search for 'yen stronger' find plenty of discussions    Nil Einne (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The main reason is that Japanese investors (including insurance companies) are liquidating foreign investments and bringing money home to address losses. Selling foreign investments means buying yen, which drives up its price.  Marco polo (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the point made by Nil Einne and Marco polo. I wonder if there's an opposite effect too. The Japanese are much less likely to invest in foreign markets. If liquidating assets means buying Yen, then not buying assets means not selling Yen. The increase in the value of Yen is caused by supply-and-demand. Liquidating assets increases the demand, not investing decreases the supply. These effect only happen because Yen is a desirable currency, of course. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  20:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How can I short the Yen and take advantage of this situation? Googlemeister (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See Foreign exchange market, but I advise against this, because it is unlikely that you have special information about "this situation" that all the other currency traders in the world lack. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't always need special information. You make the mistake of assuming the market always reacts in a rational manner, but people are not always rational.  Sometimes, the market acts as well informed as a herd of stampeding cows.  Googlemeister (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd better get on this, because apparently the wiki reference desk is miles ahead of wordwide currency markets... you can push whatever "rational theory" of the market concept you want, but if you truly believed that your wiki answer reflects instincts uniquely better than the sum of millions of people with billions of dollars riding on the line... then you'd be a billionaire by now. Market actions aren't irrational simply because they don't have 100% of the information available. And if you find somewhere where that's the case... you should invest heavily. There's something amazing about people working in their self-interest... and it's not all just based on whims. Shadowjams (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The yen is like the ultimate "safe" currency. When something happens that makes investors shy away from risk, the U.S dollar goes up and the yen goes up even more, while the euro usually goes down. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Japan will be buying a lot of Chinese resources to rebuild. Vranak (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The yen is probably overvalued at this point, but as the losses mount, there is no reason why it can't become more overvalued. I agree that in the medium to long term, the yen is likely to fall relative to the renminbi, if not the dollar and euro (though they both have their own problems), but timing is everything in foreign exchange trading, and the right timing is very hard to predict. Marco polo (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The People's Republic of China (yuan) and Japan (yen) are lenders to the world. The Japanese have high personal savings. Sleigh (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are aware the yuan is pegged to the U.S. dollar. Just checking. Shadowjams (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, an "overvalued" currency isn't always a good thing. It means exports are more expensive and it can drive currency based arbitrage. As people we hate to see our money buy less, but from a larger economic perspective, sometimes that's not a bad thing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The logical, rational thing for markets to do would be to drive down the value of the yen vis-a-vis other major currencies. However, it is important to remember that markets can remain irrational much longer than you can remain solvent. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ismailis from Uganda
Were the Ismailis from Uganda during Idi Amin Indians or Pakistanis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.129 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember, most immigration was pre-partition! Our article on Indians in Uganda notes that most immigrants were Sikhs and Gujaratis, which makes it hard to predict exactly which side of the modern border they came from. Expulsion of Asians from Uganda goes into a little more detail, and notes that some went to both Pakistan and India after expulsion. Shimgray | talk | 21:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ismailis in Africa
How many African nations have had Ismailis, both Pakistanis and Indians, working in the continent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.129 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Our article Asians in Africa may give you some limited information and further links to explore. It seems likely that all former African colonies of the British Empire (see also Evolution of the British Empire) would be included, because Indian sub-continental traders, storekeepers, etc, flourished and settled in the Empire worldwide (hence ultimately recent troubles in Fiji). The same may have been true of non-British dominated areas, since by their nature traders will always seek to extend their markets and operations. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.165 (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Causal diagram of acquiring religious faith
Is the diagram on the right correct, http://www.flickr.com/photos/gserafini/394989988/ or could anyone with a religious faith say what's wrong with it please? And maybe draw or describe a correct one? Thanks 2.97.215.199 (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The diagram is neither correct nor incorrect. It is a cartoon, a joke, something to amuse people, something to make people chuckle.  It will succeed in amusing many people, particularly people who don’t care much for organised religion.  It will also offend many people, particularly people who participate in organised religion.
 * On Wikipedia we always strive to present a neutral point of view. See WP:NPOV.  The diagram does not represent a neutral point of view so it won’t attract much interest.  If you are genuinely interested in matters related to religion, or matters related to irreligion, you will find a lot to interest you on Wikipedia, but please don’t imagine everyone who reads Wikipedia will have the same views as you.  Dolphin  ( t ) 01:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Faith is not exclusive from new ideas. Reversely, Science does not always welcome new ideas. Although slightly cliché, I would suggest setting aside 2 hours one Saturday and watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Although being a Christian, I myself did not completely agree with all his findings, as you too should see is possible with modern science.  Schyler!  ( one language ) 02:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not about new ideas being rejected. It's about repackaged, very old, totally unscientific ideas being rightly rejected. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to make the diagram correct (or at least funny for the right reasons), you should change the headers from 'science/faith' to 'reasoning people/ideologues'. people who use the kind of reasoning style on the left use it when they think about science or faith, and the same for people who use the reasoning style on the right.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Our article seems to differ, and quotes the following review: "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary." If you are genuinely interested in finding out how people acquire faith, and how they lose it, you could look to literature in theology, sociology, anthropology, and elsewhere. If you merely wish to acquire it yourself, it isn't our job to offer guidance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The right-hand diagram is not so true of all "faith" per se ("normal" religious faith, for example, may well be tested at times, may be acceptant of other faiths, may grow over time, etc.) -- that kind of rigidity of belief is more a defining characteristic of specifically Fundamentalist "faith" (in all its many modern varieties). WikiDao    &#9775;  03:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I know it comes up all the time, but the relevent reading here is, of course, Stephen Jay Gould's treatment of the issue Rocks of Ages, where he rightly argues that science and religion operate in different aspects of people's lives, and needn't necessarily be in conflict. I like to think of it this way: Using, say, the Bible to answer questions suited for scientific inquiry is a bit like attempting to drive a hex bolt with a hammer; both science and religion are tools for understanding how we fit into the world, just as both hammers and wrenches are tools for driving fasteners into wood.  Just because the hammer does a lousy job of driving the hex bolt into wood doesn't mean that the hammer is useless or a bad tool.  It just means that you aren't using it right.  Indeed, a person has a very incomplete toolbox if it doesn't include both hammers and hex wrenches... Likewise, I find that (for me) both science and religion work well in my life because embrace them both fully, but I don't ask the hammer to do the hex wrench's job, if you get my metaphor... -- Jayron  32  04:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As a postscript, since Gould is a scientist, I thought I should also being a religious leader's perspective on the same issue. A pithy quote from Cardinal Caesar Baronius sums it up well "The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".  -- Jayron  32  04:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Where the diagrams say "Get an idea" it should be changed to "Get a clue". Bus stop (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This comes up all the time because you mention it all the time, my dear Jayron, and then I reply by mentioning Dawkins' book where he says Gould's book isn't very good. Third time, I think. In particular, the concept that religion isn't any of science's business can be used to evade questions that might be answered by scientific experiments, such as "does prayer actually do anything". I will concede that philosophy isn't any of science's business - I reckon science is a subset of philosophy, and trying to address philosophical questions with measurements and calculations gets you Hegelism. 81.131.69.96 (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And once again I'll bring up how Dawkins book is mostly colored by anger and resentment, and doesn't actually make much of a cogent arguement against religion as much as make a cogent arguement against itself by its own dismissive attitude. It's not that Gould argues that religion isn't any of science's business, for example the prayer experiment seems to me to be a perfectly solid one.  The issue is that people like Dawkins charactize (or rather mischaracterize) the role that religion plays in the life of the faithful by ignoring that role as a real, valid, and useful thing for faithful people.  The God Delusion is nothing more than a series of strawman arguements where Dawkins makes claims about what religion is and then shoots those claims down.  Fine, if he was actually right in his premises, I might find myself agreeing with him.  Indeed, his other books of similar vein, especially those in defense of evolution, are quite good, insofar as he doesn't then occasionally use them to take shots against the religious.  But his stance on religion is only a self-serving defense of his own (and his ilk's) irrational and unsupported prejudices.  -- Jayron  32  04:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayron - Since you're attacking a living person, I feel I need to say that I think you've got that round the wrong way round. It's religion that is, by definition, irrational. To believe in any sort of spiritual being requires a suspension of rational thought. Best you learn the real meanings of such words before you go throwing them around as insults. My use of it is only an insult if you fail to understand my point. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's irrational in the sense that he starts with the premise that the personal God does not exist, then builds a case of evidence using strawman arguements and selective use of evidence to back that up. It's rather ironic that he uses the techniques he criticizes in the Creationists himself in his critique of God.  He doesn't start from his evidence as an uninterested observer and arrive at a conclusion, as scientific inquiry is supposed to work... -- Jayron  32  16:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sitting here at my computer, looking around me right now, I see absolutely no evidence of gods. Why should that not be the perfectly rational basis of a starting premise? HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dawkins isn't exactly seething with anger about religion - he comes in for a fair amount of mischaracterization himself. You may remember he doesn't object to deists (who believe in a non-intervening God), and has a nostalgic soft spot for the C of E. 81.131.69.96 (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It sometimes seems to me that the reason that Richard Dawkins is an atheist is that he can't imagine a creator more intelligent than himself. There are good reasons for doubting any 'faith' (or at least, as an atheist, I believe that there are), but Dawkins explanations for the 'causes' of religion are facile. As I suggested earlier, there are good scholarly debates on the topic (including one from anthropology which refuses to accept that 'religion' is a universal human concept anyway), and if one is interested, there is much to learn on religion as a phenomenon. There is also the possibility of personal experience. Either way, it is a path one needs to chose oneself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See, I thought anti-rational memes (assuming that's what you're talking about) were a great explanation. You get an idea, the idea says "ignore other ideas", and the consequence is that the idea entrenches itself and can only be evicted if the other ideas creep up on it ninja-style. To me this explains several forms of human weirdness - not just religion, but phobias, prejudices, superstitions, political tribalism, and unshakable positions in general. (Though of course it's rude to assume somebody is being dogmatic just because you don't like their opinion, an easy trap to fall into.) By "creep up on it ninja-style" I mean "address it with meta-theories", though I'm not sure which of these phrases is the most meaningful. 81.131.69.96 (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The main problem with 'memes' is actually closely related to the criticisms of the 'ultra-Darwinian' approach in general (also evident in evolutionary psychology) - it treats 'evolutionary units' (genes or memes) as discreet autonomous entities. In regard to genetics, this is dubious, and in regard to 'memetics' it is just plain ridiculous - everything that we have learned from the social sciences in the last hundred years or so demonstrates that 'ideas' do not exist in isolation, and cannot be understood except in relation to each other (for instance, Dawkins is only aware of being an atheist through contact with 'religion' - there is no 'atheist meme',. but that doesn't prevent him - or me - from being one). People are more complex than such simplistic models suggest... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I'd defend Dawkins against accusations of evo-psych, too (how many people read the title of The Selfish Gene and decided it was about a gene that makes you selfish?) ... but let's leave it there, since that's way off topic. 81.131.69.96 (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't you mention Hegel back there somewhere? Sounds like the Thesis, antithesis, synthesis process might be well-applied to this (apparently long-standing) debate.  How to resolve Religion and Science...?  I think Jayron's hammer and hexbolt analogy is a good one.  WikiDao    &#9775;  15:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See . 81.131.18.141 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a serious question? Some people hate religion, so they invent negative charactitures of religion in an attempt to ridicule and harm it. The author of this has no respect for religion and openly practices mocking adherents of various faiths for his own personal amusement. No doubt justified to him because someone else who was religious did something wrong themselves, or because they believe disrespecting others is a good way to solve differences.AerobicFox (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Some people hate religion", eh? As a high school teacher that reminds me of the kids who declare "All the teachers hate me." I don't hate religion. I feel sorry for a lot of the people who have been conned by all the crooks and con-men who push religion. I feel sorry for all those convinced that the religion they were born into is the right one, while in total ignorance of all the other religions and possible philosophical positions out there. I'd like to see evidence of this alleged hatred. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I interpret the question as "in what specific ways does this negative caricature diverge from the reality"? 81.131.69.96 (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The questioner may be interested in the many articles on philosophical positions which reflect the view set out in the diagram - Rationalism, Secular humanism, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Refocus on diagram
Nobody has answered the question yet. If you have religious faith, how could the diagram on the right be improved? Thanks 92.15.2.23 (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The left half of the cartoon presents a formal description of the Scientific method as an algorithm but it is misleading to suppose that encompasses all that is Science. It omits essential elements such as curiosity, inspiration, abstraction, pursuit of elegant systematisation, and serendipitous discovery. The right half is a strawman criticism of the Abrahamic religions, specifically them as the symbols for Judaism, Christianity and Islam show. The message of the whole cartoon is that ideas can only be evaluated and improved by Science and never by Faith, and by implication that Faith can only stifle discovery. The OP asks what is wrong with it.


 * Religion is not limited to Abrahamic religions (that is a typical Western view and the OP has an IP address in England). There are also the Dharmic religions and a long list of others.
 * The criticism is oblivious to the consistent internal logic of religious belief systems which also provide for evaluating new ideas, although novelty is not usually revered for itself as much as in Science.
 * An effort to understand the Universe is not the monopoly of Science.
 * A quotation ascribed to a Buddhist leader(?) is "If science finds that something in Buddhist teaching is wrong then Buddhism must change." The cartoon misses its mark dealing with that statement. To draw a new diagram, consider that religion like science looks for a transformation, but it is a transformation of a man's relationship with the Universe, not his ability to manipulate it. The diagram could be like this. I think a song expressed our relation to the Universe succinctly: Good morning starshine, the Earth says hello. You twinkle above us. We twinkle below. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind if a diagram (or description of a diagram) is limited to one particular religion or religious sect. When I was a young schoolchild at a religious school I spent a lot of time drawing religious diagrams as well as reading a lengthy religious source-text. I'm aware that the diagram on the right could be an over-simplification: I'm asking for a more realistic version.

The only snippets from the above which relate to the diagram are "Faith is not exclusive from new ideas" - I assume that means new ideas come from somewhere, source unstanted. "...Religious faith, for example, may well be tested at times, may be acceptant of other faiths, may grow over time" - would like details of what happens after this testing succeeds or fails. There is a "consistent internal logic of religious belief systems which also provide for evaluating new ideas", details not given but implies that only internal consistency is required, not any reference to reality. In summary of this paragraph, new ideas come from other religons. If (am I right?) they are consistant with the existing dogma they are accepted, but checking with reality is not required. Thanks 92.15.2.23 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We have an (unsourced) article on Crisis of faith (which could probably use some expansion and wikification, too). A box for that could be put into the right-hand "Faith" diagram somewhere.  The arrows leading from it would be towards either a renewal or strengthening of faith on the one hand, or the rejection of faith on the other (maybe a box called "Find a new faith" after that – there is always some faith required, after all, even if your belief system is "Science," insomuch at least as not all experiments can be replicated by all scientists;).  WikiDao    &#9775;  16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The serious answer is that you cannot make a realistic, true version of this diagram: the idea is malformed. The diagram on the left summarises the scientific method, not science itself, which is why a flow diagram works. There is no religious method in any meaningful sense: there are many religions, and millions of people in the world who take a variety of approaches to religion. You cannot make a single diagram of how people come to or derive a religion, because there is no single answer: different people have different experiences. You cannot make a single diagram of how people develop their faith, because there is no single answer. You cannot make a single diagram of how people are informed by religion, or inform their religion, because there is no single answer. So, if you want to be anything close to reflecting the real world, the basic idea is flawed. 86.164.66.59 (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thus spake Postmodernism. ;) WikiDao    &#9775;  16:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that the "internal logic of belief systems" is only "internal" to observers who are not similarly persuaded. A belief system IS reality to the believer. Evidence that this might not be so causes him an uncomfortable crisis of belief. Examples are a scientist seeing a saint walking on water, or a catholic discovering that the same miracle is being performed by a moslem. I think both observers would prefer to conclude that what they saw was a hallucination, which is possible within both their belief systems because it can be ascribed to a cause e.g. alcohol or Satan respectively. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Faith and rationality sounds like an appropriate article. 81.131.18.141 (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate it when it is said that something cannot be studied rationally or causaly - that is always a ploy to retain power and avoid being found-out. 92.28.241.202 (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To go back to the original question:

May I suggest:  1./ Someone I've come to respect and love / trust tells or reveals to me something. 2./ I then test this ground I may now stand on as: It is not everything I can believe or                      rely on. 3./ I may end up believing in what I don't / cannot fully understand. I can give examples of this. Do remember that a believer can also be a scientist, one does not exclude the other. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that some entrants have a very narrow view of faith. The faith of a Christian is in a Person primarly not on things/objects or material facts. Nicean Creed, Apostles Creed, for example. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)