Regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster
“Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.”
-Bobby Henderson, Pastafarian Prophet and Satirist Extraordinaire
I admit that I used to be rather taken with Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). I regarded it as the epitome of progress and thought it a symbol of the triumph of reason over dangerous and mindless dogmatism. In fact, the occasional titter still slips out whenever I visit the Church’s website. But all things considered, the FSM has lost its magic and drama of late. Whereas in days gone by I would feel a rush of pride and excitement when I heard the mention of His Noodly Appendage, today I feel nothing more than a vague sense of frustration with American atheism coupled with dread at the thought of being touched by something as distressingly moist and clammy as a Noodly Appendage would almost certainly have to be. The purpose of this post is for me to consider what has robbed His Noodliness of his peculiar attraction.
How might we encapsulate the idea of the FSM? In short, He is an entity with several of the properties regularly attributed to God (i.e. omnipotence, omniscience, supernaturalism) and absurd incidental properties (i.e. physical appearance). This combination of theology with farce is a potent tool for religious satire; simply by invoking the FSM, opponents of intelligent design and indeed religion in general are often able to bring discourse to a halt, leaving opponents baffled and unable to respond. In discussions of public education, the FSM thus serves as an effective (and, I am not afraid to say, appropriate) reminder of just how unconvincing appeals to personal belief and textual authority alone can be. In discussions of religion in general, however, the FSM is little more than a way to make certain parts of theology appear unreasonable without actually thinking about them.
The FSM has a place in the realm of public education discourse. If He makes a cosmology based on naïve readings of the first chapter of Genesis seem arbitrary and poorly substantiated, that is because it is. But often the purveyors of Pastafarianism go too far with their game. When the FSM is used to critique religion in general, His absurd incidental properties serve as little more than a red herring meant to distract the onlooker from serious theological arguments. For example, we might consider the issue of causal interactions between supernatural entities and the natural world. In any discussion of this topic, theists will often be heard to say that they believe that God can bring about miracles – events not in accordance with the way things usually happen. The FSM advocate is then free to say something like, “Indeed! I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster controls events through the flexion of His Noodly Appendage.” In doing so, however, he has not actually engaged the theist’s position. The theist makes a claim about what God can do; the atheist responds by presenting a ridiculous model of how God might do what God can do. Because the theist was not committed to any particular model of divine interaction, he may justifiably regard his position as not having been refuted. He may also justifiably feel indignation at the treatment he has received. The atheist will have completely evaded the real weight of the theist’s suggestion. Nothing is gained by the entire exchange.
I am not merely suggesting that using the FSM to critique religion should be avoided because it is unkind. Often when serious disputes arise there is a place for constructive unkindness. I am suggesting that it should be avoided because it is foolish. Whereas in the case of intelligent design debates it cleverly clarifies that fact that many different and absurd cosmologies may be constructed from convictions and texts absent other criteria, in the case we have just seen it clarifies nothing. Examples of such cases are not rare. To dismiss a view by inventing an absurd idea, pretending it is a consequence of the view, and then proceeding by modus tollens, is a time-tested and thoroughly unpraiseworthy technique. It was, in fact, often employed against the theory of evolution in the nineteenth century. In an 1860 review of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, notable detractor Samuel Wilberforce asks us why we should prefer to believe that “the favorite varieties of turnips are tending to become men.” That this most unfortunate literary weapon has changed hands in the evolution debate is not an occasion for celebration.
I suppose that my disenchantment with the Church of the FSM stems from my awareness that what could be a humorous and convincing farce has been deployed in such a disingenuous and counterproductive way. I hope that the purveyors of the FSM will take to heart the boundaries within which their game is productive. For them to do so would be better for their own position as well as the positions of theists of various persuasions. Perhaps most importantly, it would enable me once more to delight in the latest FSM sighting or bizarre stunt.
