Where is the Black Cat?

     While anyone can go to Wikipedia to see why this analogy is wrong (*cough*), let’s delve into it just a little bit shall we? I saw this for the first time a few days ago and honestly I’m a little appalled by it. Philosophy is. Theology is. Science is. (I’m ignoring metaphysics.) Theology is more about the study of a religion. This does not preclude that the theologist believes in a god, or the god that they’re currently studying.

     So my first question would be: If belief isn't required to be a Theologist, but theology is like finding a cat in a dark room, then does this not work against the extremists that created this picture? The theologist found the cat, which could then therefore say that they found a god. I haven’t seen it used this way, but if you’re going to knock it, you should word it better. No one needs to study religion to believe in something greater. Just as no one needs to study science in order for a watch to tell time.

     A belief is simply that: a belief. I would have sooner expected this picture to say “religion”. It’s not entirely accurate as it does not encompass all believers, but it gets used generically enough that it still would be a better use than Theology. I've only seen this (example/picture) used to knock (down) believers, so I again think that this is what was intended. But where am I going exactly? There seems to be this “common” notion by atheist extremists that atheism and science go hand in hand. Furthermore, they will say that one cannot believe in god and science at the same time. Beliefs and Sciences are separate things. I can believe in something beyond this life and also believe in evolution. If you disagree with me, then we have an issue… because I do believe the earth is billions of years old, that homo-sapiens and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor that was neither monkey nor humans as we see them today. I also accept that we can date the earth to the last Ice Age via Dendrochronology. So all this talk about Science being an atheist’s proof? I don’t buy it. Not everyone believes as Christians do and that “what’s out there” is specifically an omni-potent god. There are other ideas out there, other ideas that fully accept science. Fully. Completely. Atheism and Science. Theism and Science. Both work. Neither disproves the other.

     So my second question would be: Why do people think Science is specific to a belief style? Just because a religious zealot says “Science is a religion!” doesn't mean the rest of us agree with that notion. There’s no reason to take an extremist’s point of view and declare it upon everyone else. We’re not them. You’re not them. Don’t be them. And no, not seeing god isn't your scientific proof to be an atheist. Prove to the rest of us that the wind doesn't exist. You can’t see that. You say it affects you, that you can feel it. If you cannot give the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you can’t witness things as others can… then you’re not doing science justly. Science accepts the fact that perhaps they’re doing it wrong, perhaps more knowledge is needed to see the next truth, and that one cannot go into an experiment with an expectation of the result. You can think you might know… that’s a hypothesis, but expecting to know and then stopping pursuit once you find “proof”? That’s not following the Method. Also, a “lack of proof” from theists (not that theists state they’re lacking any) isn't a justified answer. For one, it isn't a scientific approach. Secondly, what is a belief if you’re just taking what others say or don’t say? Not much, I’ll tell you that.

     So this leads me to my final question. This is the one I find interesting. Everyone is in a room looking for a cat. The scientist is using a flashlight, and I assume this means that they will find it. So here’s my (third and original) question: What is Science’s reaction when they spot the black cat… being held by Theology? After all, Theology did find the cat when Science was still looking.

Extra thoughts to think on:

1.  It states that the cat isn't there for Metaphysics and Theology. This is an unfair analogy because either the cat IS there for all, or is NOT there for all.  So we have options. 2 – No Cat, 3 - Cat
2. It depicts science as the smartest of the four choices, yet science also got duped into searching for a black cat in a dark room. Assuming the cat isn't there since again it only states when the cat isn't there, but never states that there IS actually a cat present.
3. There is a cat, but it simply is not in the room. So Philosophy, Metaphysics, and Science are looking in a room where there is no cat.  Yet Theology found the cat that isn't in the room. How? Well maybe the door is open, or maybe it’s on the other side of the window. We might live in a box, but the extra spice to life is being able to both Think and See outside of it.