Why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is probably not god
William Craig’s Reasonable Faith has a nice article on the FSM, and why this approach to dethroning the Christian concept of God is really intellectually weak, is worth reading. My summary below.
Some of Craig’s contentions:
1. Using the FSM to attack Intelligent Design is dumb because ID theorists agree that ID does not indicate any specific deity.
What’s curious about this parody is that ID theorists like William
Dembski have been insisting on this same point for years, but everyone
seems to think them disingenuous. Dembski makes it abundantly clear
that on the basis of the specified complexity in the universe one
cannot infer that the Designer is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent, and so forth. It is precisely for that reason that ID
theorists deny that ID is disguised religion. The identification of the
Designer with God is a theological conclusion that cannot itself be
warranted on the basis of the design argument alone.
2. Any reasonable description of god must include a non-corporeal entity, since material entities are, by definition, created.
Ok, this argument is not really that strong, or made well, but it is made. By this definition, the FSM can not be god because it is physical. Of course, you could then argue with the incarnation.
Moreover, it’s plausible that any ultimate explanation must involve a
personal being which is incorporeal. For any being composed of material
stuff will exhibit precisely that specified complexity that we are
trying to explain. The old “Who designed the Designer?” objection thus
presses hard against any construal of the Designer as a physical object
(see my “Richard Dawkins’ Argument for Atheism in The God Delusion” in the Question of the Week Archive). That immediately rules out the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a final explanation.
3. Argument from Contingency - the FSM, being physical, can not fulfill the requirements of a god as defined by the Contingency argument.
The contingency argument, if successful, proves the existence of a
metaphysically necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial,
personal Creator of the universe (see “Argument from Contingency”
in the Question of the Week Archive). That conclusion is also
incompatible with the Sufficient Reason of all things being the Flying
Spaghetti Monster, since as a physical object (even if invisible to our
senses) he can be neither metaphysically necessary, timeless,
spaceless, nor immaterial.
4. The Kalam cosmological argument
Again, not well described in this post, but mentioned as one more reason why the FSM fails
The kalam cosmological argument, if sound, gives us grounds
for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless,
spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal
Creator of the universe. Again, a being with such attributes cannot be
anything like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
5. Historic "natural theology" demands a god with certain attributes, most of which the FSM does not contain.
What the parody shows is that we are not justified in attributing to
our explanatory postulates arbitrary properties that are not justified
by the evidence. Natural theologians have always known this. That’s
why, for example, Thomas Aquinas, after his five brief paragraphs in
his Summa theologiae proving the existence of a being “to
which everyone gives the name ‘God’,” goes on to discuss in the next
nine questions God’s simplicity, perfection, goodness, limitlessness,
omnipresence, immutability, eternity, and unity.
As a being, the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes up drastically deficient as an explanation of those phenomena…
6. CONCLUSION: FSM proponents are not very smart, but rather, merely smart-alecs.
Those who seriously parade the FSM as an argument against the biblical god are showing their lack of intellect, reasoning ability, and understanding of classical philosophical and theological arguments surrounding the existence of God.
That people could think that belief in God is anything like the
groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they
are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host
of others, past and present. No doubt part of the fault lies with
equally ignorant Christians who have no answer when called upon to give
a reason for the hope within and who therefore give the impression of
arbitrary and groundless belief. But it must also be attributed to poor
education, intellectual laziness, and a lack of curiosity. Given the
revival of natural theology in our day over the last half century, we
have no excuse for such lame caricatures of theistic belief as belief
in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I find your lack of belief in Pastafarianism disturbing.
Which reminds me of the scene in The Life of Brian where the crowd chasing Brian and declaring him the Messiah turns on the old hermit who denies it:
“Heretic! Kill the unbeliever!” Whereupon they swarm him.
That is how fanaticism works – and why i am not a pastafarian, because xianity is a reasoned faith. If you believe nothing, you will fall for everything. Or something like that.
And the point is, those who equate pastafarianism and xianity are making a snarky point about fanatics (xian ones included), but are making an intellectually infantile, if not erroneous statement when it comes to attempting to debunk the god of xianity.
Believing nothing is not consistent with atheism. Believing nothing is nihilism, not atheism.
btw: There are plenty of fanatical xians. Whether it is a reasoned faith or not doesn’t negate this fact. Those who think they possess absolute truth are easy prey to this type of thinking. The use of reason demands a healthy dose of skepticism, not faith. How much skepticism do you have towards your faith, seeker?
I don’t “fall for everything”; neither do I believe in nothing. And yet, I’m not an xian. I have good reasons for not believing, too. One of which xians would profit from: humility.
Those who think they possess absolute truth are easy prey to this type of thinking.
Agreed. This is why the apostle Paul warned against pride, saying “truth puffs up, but love builds up.”
The use of reason demands a healthy dose of skepticism, not faith.
Agreed, but healthy reason does not exclude faith.
How much skepticism do you have towards your faith, seeker?
Plenty. I actually left it for many years and explored and learned much from psychology and Buddhism. I returned, however, due to what was lacking in those areas, and what is unique and present in Christianity.
I don’t “fall for everything”; neither do I believe in nothing.
Good. I was not referring to you, but to the anti-intellectual and snarky use of the FSM, which makes one valid point while making a hugely invalid comparison to the more reasoned, tested, and historical faith of Christianity. It’s juvenile anti-authority banter masquerading as mature reason, imo.
I have good reasons for not believing, too.
We all have our reasons. I understand why many might reject xianity based on the behavior of immature or wacky christians, and even the unbelievability of the claims of scripture. But I still think that one can claim to be logical, intelligent, and reasoned, and believe the gospel without being inconsistent with the former.
This morning, my car wouldn’t start. Then I muttered under my breath, “Come on Flying Spaghetti Monster!” Lo and behold, my car started right after I said that. After that personal experience, I could no longer deny His existence.
Cineaste, that is exactly the kind of dumbed down rhetoric that anti-religious secularists wield, and the FSM fits that same Atheist Caricature of Faith.
Answers like that won’t win any converts to your position.
It’s satire, seeker! Haven’t you heard many, many times xians utter similar idiocies? “I couldn’t find my keys, so I asked Jesus and found them right away!” Or football players making a big show of kneeling and praying after making a touchdown (as if the infinite creator of the universe had a hand in that). That’s the whole point of the FSM: satirizing the ridiculous aspects of religion.
Atheists use it as more than mere satire, but more like mockery – and those are not the same.
They use it to say that all religious claims are equally rediculous, unsupportable, and unverifiable, so therefore, all of them are worthless.
And that line of reasoning is why I and others criticize the FSM – because it is actually NOT satire, but mockery and poor logic masquerading as intelligent satire, which it fails to be.
I’m so glad you keep this blog up Seeker. Every time I feel down, I can come read something from you and feel better about myself.
Have you considered that may be your true vocation – you can improve the lives of those around you by being such a colossal failure as a human being that their minor missteps pale into insignificance?
Your sarcasm and mockery speak volumes about the strength of your arguments, intellect, and maturity. Congratulations on feeling better about yourself. Perhaps one day you will understand that real self-esteem is grounded in love, truth, and a right relationship with God.
You rock my world and make me feel so gay! ok, maybe not gay. oh well, you know what I mean ;)
This is just fantastic!
Flying spaghetti monster defeats anti-evolution FL school board
Looks like it’s time to start the Church of Darwin to play the same game.
I’m sure such “victories” appeal to the juvenile god-haters, but they are important because it shows how blowhards and fools can overcome logic with bullying.