The FSM
by MikeGeneThe Flying Spaghetti Monster is supposed to be a parody of Intelligent Design. But that's probably another Mireckiism. In other words, while it's really just an example of ridiculing ID [wink,wink], I suspect it's more about ridiculing religion and belief in God.
There is a way to test this hypothesis. Ken Miller is one of the most vocal critics of intelligent design and he also happens to be religious. Thus, if FSM is just a way of poking fun at ID, I'd like to see a picture of Ken Miller in a pirate's costume holding up this sign:
It's not like I expect to see a picture of Miller dressed up as the FSM while killing God. The pirate picture and sign would be enough.
Oh, while we're at it, the FSM has received many endorsements from the academic community, including the NCSE's Eugenie Scott.
Another word for these endorsers? Peer reviewers.
January 1st, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Hi Mike,
Good points. Also note the practice of "pastafarians" of saying "ra-men". That's not a parody on ID; that's a parody of Christianity.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if an atheist showed up at one of Miller's anti-ID lectures and started heckling him with the FSM. Would he criticize the FSM for being a crude caricature of Cristianity? Or would he just mumble something about the necessity of faith and get with the program?
Comment by Krauze — January 1, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
January 1st, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Sure. Notice also that it is is new "church."
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Halloween: Beer, Axe Fights, Flying Spaghetti Mons
I had a Halloween Costume Party at my house on Friday. I was Paul Bunyan and was pretty psyched about walking around with an axe all night. But after my tally got past 5 on the beer cup, I left the axe alone.
We had such guests as the Flying Spagh…
Trackback by Ramblings from Sam Jackson — January 3, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Sorry, but I wanted to post the excerpt from the endorsement by "E. Scott", if you'll allow it, for sheer humor value. If not, delete it.
Although I am sure your inference is correct, that E. = Eugenie, maybe you ought to point out that E could be Ed, Elaine, et cetera. After all, there are certainly more than a couple of paleontologists with the last name Scott, I'm sure.
As to the meat of her comment–that science cannot comment about the manipulation of the universe by noodly appendages (or divine fingers), I think it quite germane. It is in differentiating the noodle from the natural that ID resides.
Comment by skiddum — January 3, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
January 3rd, 2006 at 6:31 pm
We always appreciate Eugenie Scott's humor (didn't the NCSE used to get a laugh out of selling Darwin Fish?)! But why stop there? I'd like to see a picture of Eugenie in a pirate costume holding up the "God?" sign. Is there some reason she won't oblige us for another good laugh???
Comment by MikeGene — January 3, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
January 3rd, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Eugenie Scott - High Priestess of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Her robe would be woven of thousands of noodles, and upon entering (by faith) the Flying Spaghetti Monster's presence, her acolytes would ceremoniously douse her with the holy Tomato Paste of worship, then sprinkle her with the sacred Parmesan, just in case.
Comment by Douglas — January 3, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
January 4th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Douglas,
Sounds like oodles of noodly fun! Why won't Scott and Miller join in the noodly fun? Are they against satire??
Comment by MikeGene — January 4, 2006 @ 11:59 am
January 5th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Do you guys think the designer's identity could really be anything other than god, if you acknowledge the DI's argument of "fine-tuning" I'm being honest, not antagonistic. Do you think it is possible that anything made of matter can tune the physical constants thereof?
SciAm posted a blog on the FSM. Enjoy!
Comment by skiddum — January 5, 2006 @ 7:27 am
January 5th, 2006 at 7:35 am
skiddum,
"Do you guys think the designer's identity could really be anything other than god, if you acknowledge the DI's argument of 'fine-tuning'? I'm being honest, not antagonistic. Do you think it is possible that anything made of matter can tune the physical constants thereof?"
I think it would have to be a being (Being) who TRANSCENDS matter. Of course, we humans are limited in our ability to observe - there are apparently other dimensions of space, and thus other potential states of matter (I think I've got this correct). There is absolutely no scientific reason to think that all of reality consists only of particular forms of matter (those we have as of yet observed) - I mean, scientists are proposing something called "DARK matter", and they haven't even OBSERVED it. They propose it simply because of its seeming EFFECTS, yet they don't know what it is, nor have they seen it. Tell me the difference between this, and proposing a Being made of some other substance than matter which we have already observed.
Now, LOGICALLY, there is no need to suppose that the Designer of the Universe (assuming one agrees that there is evidence that the Universe is designed) is GOD. It could be "the Flying Spaghetti Monster". OTHER facts and evidences would speak to the issue of the identity of the Designer, though I am certain that the Universe IS designed, and that God (the God of the Bible) is the Designer.
Comment by Douglas — January 5, 2006 @ 7:35 am
January 5th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Hi Skiddum,
"Do you guys think the designer's identity could really be anything other than god, if you acknowledge the DI's argument of "fine-tuning"?"
I'll let skeptic Michael Shermer take this one:
Comment by Krauze — January 5, 2006 @ 8:42 am
January 5th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Krauze,
I think the logical flaw in Shermer's explanation is that the resultant universe from a black hole is itself still a natural result. Although a sufficiently advanced culture may (which I doubt) be able to "create" a black hole, this ignores the fact that in the universe which this civilization lives, the black hole they are using is, itself, "untunable" by that culture. This means there could be no detectable "design" in the creation of our universe from their own. So the physical parameters that led to that black hole…were those designed? And this is where we fall into the incessant cause-effect chain. If there is a prime mover here, it must have been in the construction of the first fine-tuned universe, and this universe gave birth to others, etc., which still removes the mover from the material.
Douglas,
SO does the DI, or else they wouldn't be committed to "the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies"
Actually dark matter is still in symmetry with the "non-dark" matter of the universe, inherently derived from the same process that produced the rest of the universe, and thus its own physical properties are as caused or noncaused as the rest of the universe.
Well, you kind of answered the question yourself–Ockham's razor slices away supernatural explanations from science (and in general), and while it is possible to believe that observables (the EFFECTS you mentioned above) are supernaturally "caused", you are still observing them in the natural universe, and so most people search for a natural law/explanation. A "Being" outside of natural law/explanation as an "explanation" is no explanation at all…rather, mere speculation. The idea is that one day, sufficient evidence and/or technology may provide a testable experiment for dark matter just as it did for relativity with gravity bending light. Will there ever come a day to provide a testable experiment for this "Being's" existence? No. An inherently indeterminate "Being" could be purposely avoiding our detection with Its omnipotence and omniscience…right?
We just went through this–if it isn't made of matter, what else is it?
You are not certain, you have faith that it is. "Doubt may not be a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd" — Voltaire
Comment by skiddum — January 5, 2006 @ 9:35 am
January 5th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Skiddum:
This is not a swing at Miller. Proponents of FSM say they are just ridiculing ID, but that claim reminds me of Mirecki telling us about his class being just an academic exercise. It looks much more like the FSM is an attack on Christians. Since people will deny this, I propose a test. Ken Miller is a Christian, an ID critic, and says he is a "great fan of satire." The test is simple- if FSM is just poking fun of ID, I'd like to see a picture of Miller poking fun at ID by wearing a pirate costume and holding up the "God?" sign. It doesn't have to be Miller. Maybe Wesley Elsberry can do it.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
OK, if you were not implying hypocrisy on Miller's part, and on the part of scientists in general who laugh at the FSM while claiming a theism, with your comment:
…then I recant.
Comment by skiddum — January 5, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Why would you think I was implying hypocrisy? It's a test and I picked Miller simply because he is the most well-known religious critic of ID. Can you tell me if the FSM is ridiculing ID or Miller's religion?
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 5:55 pm
January 8th, 2006 at 4:45 am
FSM is ridiculing ID. The concept is–as Bobby says–that the Unnamed Designer they talk about is (TA DA) The Flying Spaghetti Monster. A gentle mocking of ALL religions rather than the hard on assault that most athiests and agnostics prefer DOES take place. It's NOT all against Christianity (both Jews and Christians use an Amen) and the Devout wearing of Pirate Regalia would be mocking both Mormons (garments) and Jews (tallis). BUT, the largest group of Pastafarians that exists have very strict rules about denigrating others for their faith, about insulting those of faith (well, except for Pat Robertson, but–gimme a break–don't you think God's sitting there with His head in His hands, wishing Pat would shut up?)
As to being anti-Christian, you won't find it on the forums. The FSM forums, the Discussion Forums link on the Open Letter page? Yes THOSE forums. Not some guy's xanga, or some kid and his buddies on mySpace, all ripping on the "Christers" and "u r sew l33t, FSM r00lz" and whatever little things they assume FSM to be about.
I am aware of the "Join our religion or rot in Hell" poster. Bobby's too nice to turn things down when people have put work into them. But the satire, the spoof, the fun has been only a lead-in to a learning experience on the forums. Many adult agnostics and athiests have learned to divide their distaste for the things done in the name of religion from the actual faith involved. And they've learned to model it for the teens as well. Denigration of a person for their faith is not allowed. Speaking badly of a faith (without cause) is not allowed. At first, it was by Admin and Mod force. Now, the concept is so instilled in the membership that first time posters who break the rules are shown the Rules Post and asked to moderate or edit their own posts, and most do.
We have an open community, with persons of several faiths that are regular members. Our Jewish Pastafarians are talking a lot with the VegePastafarians about recipes, and our Muslim members, although not extremely active, are quite pleased at the acceptance and inclusion. Most of all, our Christians are quite active, especially the one that happens to be the Administrator. That would be me.
Don't prejudge us, please. We're as open a community as can be, and have a number of persons of various faiths that truly believe that ID isn't a fit subject for a science classroom, especially when there's so much more to cover. Just ask our kids, our middle school and high school students. They're getting a lot from the forums, and not just science. These kids are at the age where they're establishing "what I believe" and separating from the introjected values of Mom&Dad. They're learning to do it with an open mind, and with respect for the ideas of others.
Come see us before you judge us.
Comment by DD — January 8, 2006 @ 4:45 am