Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

  • Thread starter Thread starter wilberhum
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 114
  • Views Views 13K
Status
Not open for further replies.

wilberhum

Account Disabled
Messages
4,348
Reaction score
339
(AP) -- When some of the world's leading religious scholars gather in San Diego this weekend, pasta will be on the intellectual menu. They'll be talking about a satirical pseudo-deity called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose growing pop culture fame gets laughs but also raises serious questions about the essence of religion.

The appearance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the agenda of the American Academy of Religion's annual meeting gives a kind of scholarly imprimatur to a phenomenon that first emerged in 2005, during the debate in Kansas over whether intelligent design should be taught in public school sciences classes.

Supporters of intelligent design hold that the order and complexity of the universe is so great that science alone cannot explain it. The concept's critics see it as faith masquerading as science.

An Oregon State physics graduate named Bobby Henderson stepped into the debate by sending a letter to the Kansas School Board. With tongue in cheek, he purported to speak for 10 million followers of a being called the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- and demanded equal time for their views.

"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it," Henderson wrote. As for scientific evidence to the contrary, "what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."

The letter made the rounds on the Internet, prompting laughter from some and vilification from others. But it struck a chord and stuck around. In the great tradition of satire, its humor was in fact a clever and effective argument.

Between the lines, the point of the letter was this: There's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. If intelligent design supporters could demand equal time in a science class, why not anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing into sciences classes but the best available science.

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence," Henderson sarcastically concluded.

Kansas eventually repealed guidelines questioning the theory of evolution.

Meanwhile, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (FSM-ism to its "adherents") has thrived -- particularly on college campuses and in Europe. Henderson's Web site has become a kind of cyber-watercooler for opponents of intelligent design.

Henderson did not respond to a request for comment. His Web site tracks meetings of FSM clubs (members dress up as pirates) and sells trinkets and bumper stickers. "Pastafarians" -- as followers call themselves -- can also download computer screen-savers and wallpaper (one says: "WWFSMD?") and can sample photographs that show "visions" of the divinity himself. In one, the image of the carbohydrate creator is seen in a gnarl of dug-up tree roots.

It was the emergence of this community that attracted the attention of three young scholars at the University of Florida who study religion in popular culture. They got to talking, and eventually managed to get a panel on FSM-ism on the agenda at one of the field's most prestigious gatherings.

The title: "Evolutionary Controversy and a Side of Pasta: The Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Subversive Function of Religious Parody."

"For a lot of people they're just sort of fun responses to religion, or fun responses to organized religion. But I think it raises real questions about how people approach religion in their lives," said Samuel Snyder, one of the three Florida graduate students who will give talks at the meeting next Monday along with Alyssa Beall of Syracuse University.

The presenters' titles seem almost a parody themselves of academic jargon. Snyder will speak about "Holy Pasta and Authentic Sauce: The Flying Spaghetti Monster's Messy Implications for Theorizing Religion," while Gavin Van Horn's presentation is titled "Noodling around with Religion: Carnival Play, Monstrous Humor, and the Noodly Master."

Using a framework developed by literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin, Van Horn promises in his abstract to explore how, "in a carnivalesque fashion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster elevates the low (the bodily, the material, the inorganic) to bring down the high (the sacred, the religiously dogmatic, the culturally authoritative)."

The authors recognize the topic is a little light by the standards of the American Academy of Religion.

"You have to keep a sense of humor when you're studying religion, especially in graduate school," Van Horn said in a recent telephone interview. "Otherwise you'll sink into depression pretty quickly."

But they also insist it's more than a joke.

Indeed, the tale of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its followers cuts to the heart of the one of the thorniest questions in religious studies: What defines a religion? Does it require a genuine theological belief? Or simply a set of rituals and a community joining together as a way of signaling their cultural alliances to others?

In short, is an anti-religion like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism actually a religion?

Joining them on the panel will be David Chidester, a prominent and controversial academic at the University of Cape Town in South Africa who is interested in precisely such questions. He has urged scholars looking for insights into the place of religion in culture and psychology to explore a wider range of human activities. Examples include cheering for sports teams, joining Tupperware groups and the growing phenomenon of Internet-based religions. His 2005 book "Authentic Fakes: Religion and American Popular Culture," prompted wide debate about how far into popular culture religious studies scholars should venture.

Lucas Johnston, the third Florida student, argues the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism exhibits at least some of the traits of a traditional religion -- including, perhaps, that deep human need to feel like there's something bigger than oneself out there.

He recognized the point when his neighbor, a militant atheist who sports a pro-Darwin bumper sticker on her car, tried recently to start her car on a dying battery.

As she turned the key, she murmured under her breath: "Come on Spaghetti Monster!"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/11/16/flying.spaghettimonster.ap/
 
:salamext:

"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it," Henderson wrote.

No no no! It was the Jumping Bean Monster :D

No comment... :-\
 
People should read

"The Gospel of the FSM"

Its hilarious, and informative!
 
:salamext:

Hilarious I understand, but informative?! :-\
 
so does this mean that the barney song on the spaghetti moon is true :uuh:
 
:salamext:

Hilarious I understand, but informative?! :-\

It uses alot of the same fallacies of ID proponents in funny new ways. It essentially shows you how arguements with facts can be twisted via example.
 
Yes, I understand the concept behind the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", but only athiests or agnostics would get much out of it...because it is basically making jest of the concept of God, something a believer wouldn't find much humor in.
 
Yes, I understand the concept behind the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", but only athiests or agnostics would get much out of it...because it is basically making jest of the concept of God, something a believer wouldn't find much humor in.

I agree with that. I am currently struggling with deciding if this serves a legitimate purpose in comparative religion.

Yet at the same time I can see it as a form of satirical humor, although the concept of its humor value may not be seen by some.
 
Yes, I understand the concept behind the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", but only athiests or agnostics would get much out of it...because it is basically making jest of the concept of God, something a believer wouldn't find much humor in.

It mocks ID and creationism.
 
They'll be talking about a satirical pseudo-deity called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose growing pop culture fame gets laughs but also raises serious questions about the essence of religion.
the point of the letter was this: There's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. If intelligent design supporters could demand equal time in a science class, why not anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing into sciences classes but the best available science.
I think it raises real questions about how people approach religion in their lives
"You have to keep a sense of humor when you're studying religion, especially in graduate school," Van Horn said in a recent telephone interview. "Otherwise you'll sink into depression pretty quickly."
one of the thorniest questions in religious studies: What defines a religion? Does it require a genuine theological belief? Or simply a set of rituals and a community joining together as a way of signaling their cultural alliances to others?
He has urged scholars looking for insights into the place of religion in culture and psychology to explore a wider range of human activities.
Lucas Johnston, the third Florida student, argues the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism exhibits at least some of the traits of a traditional religion -- including, perhaps, that deep human need to feel like there's something bigger than oneself out there.
I think the above quotes validate this thread.

If you looking at this objectively, instead of looking at it for insults,
It brings up some interesting thoughts.
 
because it is basically making jest of the concept of God, something a believer wouldn't find much humor in.

Yet at the same time I can see it as a form of satirical humor, although the concept of its humor value may not be seen by some.

It mocks ID and creationism.

Actually, gents, it does none of those things, or at least none are the principal reason behind it.

The purpose of the FSM is to expose hypocrisy, particularly in relation to the claim that creationism should be taught as science alongside scientific theories. It points out that if the logic used to justify teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution in science class is accepted then that same logic dictates that the FSM (or pastafarianism, or whatever the wags may call it) and indeed lots of other things could be taught in science class as an 'alternative' as well.

I agree with that. I am currently struggling with deciding if this serves a legitimate purpose in comparative religion.

It has more legitimate and meaningful purpose in the context of comparative religion than much that is posted here. Leave it alone.
 
FSM – My attitude.
I think the great thing about the FSM is the great humorous way that it showed that ID was nothing but Creationism dressed up as science.

Now I think ID as a theist’s theory is quite good and the theist part of me likes it, but it ain’t science.
In Science classes they should teach science and in religious classes should teach religion. Mixings the two is as logical as teaching the quadratic equation in a French class.

Also I think that the FSM is a valid argument against those that don’t have the ability to distinguish between faith and fact or think there opinion about something is proof.

I myself have used the FSM on a number of occasions and I think it provides validity to my argument.

If nothing else, I think the FSM is “Good Fun” and I think god understands that.

la_factoropinion_s.gif

The two are different.
 
A legitimate and meaningful purpose? Perhaps I could see this topic in a science or world affairs thread, but not comparative religion...unless you believe a Jew, Christian, or Muslim is going to make the mental leap to equating their own God to a spaghetti monster. Where is the comparative religion aspect to this topic?, other than to equate God with a ludicrous analogy. If it is about evolution vs. creationism, I believe we already have such a thread.
 
A legitimate and meaningful purpose?
Ya, why not. If nothing else it is a good way to define a position.
Perhaps I could see this topic in a science or world affairs thread, but not comparative religion...
Creationism and ID belong in World Affares? But not religion? Crationism and ID are "Religious theories".
unless you believe a Jew, Christian, or Muslim is going to make the mental leap to equating their own God to a spaghetti monster.
So Jews, Christions and Muyslims are the only religions?
Where is the comparative religion aspect to this topic?, other than to equate God with a ludicrous analogy.
Or equate one ludicrous analogy to another ludicrous analogy.
If it is about evolution vs. creationism, I believe we already have such a thread.
Right, many times and there will be many more. Did you ever notice that they occure in the Comparitive Religion forum?
Besides that, I think god has a sence of humor, don't you?
 
In short, is an anti-religion like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism actually a religion?

The satirical "cult" was stated by Boby Henderson as not an attack on religion, but on intelligent design, so I think the word "anti-creationist" rather than "anti-religion" would be more fitting.
 
The satirical "cult" was stated by Boby Henderson as not an attack on religion, but on intelligent design, so I think the word "anti-creationist" rather than "anti-religion" would be more fitting.
You are spot on but I would like to add a little more.
It was an attack on intelligent design as a "Scientific Theory".
 
wilberhum said:
the Flying Spaghetti Monster,

The flying spaghetti monster (pbuh) doesn't fly. He drifts through space.

If he could fly, he could fly through the earth's atmosphere and form a religious following on the earth.

-
 
I think I prefer the IPU and the celestial tea pot (which predates both the FSM and IPU by decades).
 
The flying spaghetti monster (pbuh) doesn't fly. He drifts through space.

If he could fly, he could fly through the earth's atmosphere and form a religious following on the earth.

-

Well of course it can fly, as a matter of fact the GFSM has its origins in egypt and asia. In egypt its known as Ra a shortened form of Ramen. This also happens to be the same name for some of the clergy.
The Ra-men. This is actually a gender neutral term.

Also Ra is pretty laid back and doesnt really neeed to have a following. (pretty secure in its self.) It also has its own lists of Id rather you really didnt... But no real commandments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top