The Flying Spaghetti Monster


Now this blog is probably going to do me no favours, but the my-space thing is all about me so, gotta stick my hand in my mouth and go for it.

I have been reading about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And whilst i don’t believe in the FSM, i cant deny the religious rights the FSM followers are asking for.

In case you don’t know about the FSM, according to his followers, He (and I’m only saying he because i don’t know what gender he is) created the universe after a night out on the booze which explains why it has so many things wrong with it.

They believe Pirates were the original pastafarians, and have made reference to the rise in global warming being directly related to the fall in pirates.

They claim all ‘evidence’ for evolution has been planted by the FSM, in an effort to test his followers faith.

According to the faith, there are the ‘8 I’d really rather you didn’ts’, a set of moral guidelines given to Mosey the pirate captain on Mount Salsa

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Whilst I cannot say how devout the ‘believers’ of this faith are or how rediculous their ‘beliefs’ are, the message they pervey is one of blind faith. Can we believe in faith blindly? And what evidence is appropriate to refute.

Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher argued…

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

The argument is simple, Russell argues if God exists, then it is down to the believer to prove it, not the non believer.

British Theologian Alister McGraph wrote in his book The Dawkin’s Delusion…

“Why is such a book still necessary?”, describing the atheist writings of Richard Dawkins.  “… for more than a century, leading sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists have declared that their children would see the dawn of a new era in which the ‘God delusion’ would be left behind for good.”.

The argument of why do we need a book telling us there is no god. If there is no god, then it’ll be obvious as time goes on. He goes on to say that Science has neither proved or disproved God.

In my opinion he is completely right, but in my opinion, Richard Dawkins argument about No God being more probable than God (and specifically a monotheistic god such as in Christianity or Islam). He argues that all science deals with probabilities, and the more probable something is the more we can rely upon it to be true.

We have no ‘conclusive’ explanation for gravity, we have strong theories, but on a micro-level gravity appears not to exist at all. It is because of this and other anomalies we cannot claim we fully understand gravity. I don’t know about you though, but just cos we don’t understand it, doesn’t mean to say I’m not going to get out of the way when i throw a rock in the air.

Maybe its because I have faith that gravity is there.

Mcgraph’s premise that because people spend so much effort trying to disprove god means it may be true, is interesting. I can only point out the huge amount of hate mail collected by the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster predominantly by the christian far right must mean there is truth in there somewhere. It also suggests that the huge protests over the cartoons in Denmark about Allah, must also have some truth behind it.

One letter in particular caught my eye…

I’m a bit confused about this website, and maybe someone would kindly enlighten me… Why take so much trouble to try and dismantle fundamental Christianity if you all sincerely disbelieve it?
I wonder why this whole movement feels like they’re so threatened by Jesus if he’s not real.

There were many retorts, but this one seemed the smartest.

Do you believe in radical Islam – the Wahabi sect that teaches hatred to nonbelievers and spawns terrorism? No? Then why would you want to dismantle it?

Oh! Maybe because you think it’s HARMFUL. Like replacing science with bullshit. This site doesn’t try to dismantle Christianity; just the fanatics who want ID taught in schools. We don’t need a second Dark Ages, thank you.
It is clear that the site and the religion is mostly followed by people unhappy with the confidence shown by believers of all faiths. Its clear that allowing religion to enter the arena of politics, education and law making, is detrimental to a pluralistic society.

In a free democratic society, certain lines should no be crossed. I don’t care what religion the president is so long as he doesn’t act according to his or her religion. I believe in religious freedom and rights, provided those rights are not considered more important than the rights of the general population and society.

I appreciate that certain zealots will argue against evolution, claiming Bush’s intelligent design as an alternative theory that should be presented in schools as fact in the same way evolution is, but the evidence presented for creationism is circumstantial and unfortunately also fits in with our friends of the church of the flying spaghetti monster. Which is the whole point of course.

At some point we have to say, this is proof and this is not proof. Our whole society relies on us having a provable standard. To Richard Dawkins, proof is defined as maximum probability. Alister McGraphs argument is that maximum probability is too stringent.

My feeling is that we should teach to that provable standard and above. The issues about creationism and the flying spaghetti monster being taught in conjunction with evolution, is as simple as evidential probability. There is far more circumstantial evidence for evolution, than there is for intelligent design. Evolution passes the evidence standard, whereas the planet being 6000 years old, and Adam and Eve being the first two people on the planet, does not.

In the meantime, the parody of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a welcome diversion that argues a point in a very very silly way. And I’m buying a pirate fish mug!

~ by eggplantinspace on October 15, 2008.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: