thomps1d
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 193
I've been thinking about this for a while, and although I'm sure it's been discussed on these forums before, I figured it's time to see where everyone stands these days.
I'm sure everyone is familiar with the Flying Spaghetti Monster by now. If not, a quick search with Google will give you all the information you need to know.
At any rate, I've heard some skeptics weigh in saying that they believe the FSM detracts from the skeptical cause by making it seem as if all non-believers are mocking the beliefs of the faithful. This causes them, or so the argument goes, to begin to ignore everything that a skeptic says.
I disagree fairly vehemently with this point of view. I'm of the opinion that the FSM is actually a strong tool in favour of skepticism. To be sure, there will be those who feel alienated by His Noodly Appendagehood, but most of those will be the through-and-through fundamentalist crowd whose beliefs cannot be swayed no matter what argument you use.
I think the biggest strength of the FSM is that he allows us to demonstrate to religious people that the arguments that they use to further their own faith fall flat when applied to another hypothetical entity.
To take an example, we can use Anselm's Ontological Argument. I've had many Christians, including a very outspoken Lutheran philosophy professor, use this argument to attempt to prove that God exists. For those who aren't familiar with the argument, the gist is this: I understand that perfections exist in this world. I define God as a creature who possesses all perfections. Existence is a perfection. Since God possesses all perfections, God exists.
It's a terrible argument, of course, but many people are so clouded by years of faith that they are unable to see exactly where it goes wrong. Now, if you rephrase the argument:
I understand that perfections exist in this world. Existence is a perfection. I can envision a creature which I define as the Flying Spaghetti monster, which possesses all perfections. Since existence is a perfection, the FSM exists.
When confronted with this alternate wording of the argument, most Christians will leap forward and shout: Ah-ha! The fact that you can imagine such a creature possessing such perfections doesn't prove that it exists, only that you can imagine it existing!
(By the way, for any fellow philosophy students out there...I know that this is a vast oversimplification of Anselm's argument, but the general gist is sufficient for this post, I think.)
And yet, what is the difference between the two arguments? The principle player in both is an ominpresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being which allegedly possesses all imaginable (and unimaginable) perfections. One just happens to have noodly appendages - and that subtle absurdity is enough to bring clarity to most people.
This same technique can be used for any other argument which a person could conceivably employ to attempt to prove the existence of the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God. Try replacing "God" with "FSM" in Pascal's Wager and see how many Christians you can get to become Pastafarians. I'm guessing that you'll suddenly notice an upswing in the number of people who recognize Pascal's Wager for being as flawed as it is.
To end this post before it gets needlessly long, I'll end off with this: my fellow skeptics, don't reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster out of hand. Use him as a necessary absurdity, as he was originally intended, to aid in bringing clarity to those who need it most - those people who want to be skeptical about their faith, but are so conditioned by their upbringing that they cannot do so without a little intellectual nudge. Don't use him as a tool of mockery, but rather of gentle humour, and soon many more people will be Touched By His Noodly Appendage.
RAmen.
I'm sure everyone is familiar with the Flying Spaghetti Monster by now. If not, a quick search with Google will give you all the information you need to know.
At any rate, I've heard some skeptics weigh in saying that they believe the FSM detracts from the skeptical cause by making it seem as if all non-believers are mocking the beliefs of the faithful. This causes them, or so the argument goes, to begin to ignore everything that a skeptic says.
I disagree fairly vehemently with this point of view. I'm of the opinion that the FSM is actually a strong tool in favour of skepticism. To be sure, there will be those who feel alienated by His Noodly Appendagehood, but most of those will be the through-and-through fundamentalist crowd whose beliefs cannot be swayed no matter what argument you use.
I think the biggest strength of the FSM is that he allows us to demonstrate to religious people that the arguments that they use to further their own faith fall flat when applied to another hypothetical entity.
To take an example, we can use Anselm's Ontological Argument. I've had many Christians, including a very outspoken Lutheran philosophy professor, use this argument to attempt to prove that God exists. For those who aren't familiar with the argument, the gist is this: I understand that perfections exist in this world. I define God as a creature who possesses all perfections. Existence is a perfection. Since God possesses all perfections, God exists.
It's a terrible argument, of course, but many people are so clouded by years of faith that they are unable to see exactly where it goes wrong. Now, if you rephrase the argument:
I understand that perfections exist in this world. Existence is a perfection. I can envision a creature which I define as the Flying Spaghetti monster, which possesses all perfections. Since existence is a perfection, the FSM exists.
When confronted with this alternate wording of the argument, most Christians will leap forward and shout: Ah-ha! The fact that you can imagine such a creature possessing such perfections doesn't prove that it exists, only that you can imagine it existing!
(By the way, for any fellow philosophy students out there...I know that this is a vast oversimplification of Anselm's argument, but the general gist is sufficient for this post, I think.)
And yet, what is the difference between the two arguments? The principle player in both is an ominpresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being which allegedly possesses all imaginable (and unimaginable) perfections. One just happens to have noodly appendages - and that subtle absurdity is enough to bring clarity to most people.
This same technique can be used for any other argument which a person could conceivably employ to attempt to prove the existence of the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God. Try replacing "God" with "FSM" in Pascal's Wager and see how many Christians you can get to become Pastafarians. I'm guessing that you'll suddenly notice an upswing in the number of people who recognize Pascal's Wager for being as flawed as it is.
To end this post before it gets needlessly long, I'll end off with this: my fellow skeptics, don't reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster out of hand. Use him as a necessary absurdity, as he was originally intended, to aid in bringing clarity to those who need it most - those people who want to be skeptical about their faith, but are so conditioned by their upbringing that they cannot do so without a little intellectual nudge. Don't use him as a tool of mockery, but rather of gentle humour, and soon many more people will be Touched By His Noodly Appendage.
RAmen.
