Skip to main content

Evangelical Outpost on the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Here is a post from Evangelical Outpost:

You have to pity the modern atheist who attempts to present arguments for her cause. Unmoored from any respectable intellectual tradition, each generation is forced to recreate anti-theistic arguments from scratch. The result is that the claims which they believe to be clever and damning often turn out to be, to use a technical philosophical phrase, just plain silly. Take for example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. According to Wikipedia, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded in 2005 by Oregon State University physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. In an open letter sent to the education board, Henderson professes belief in a supernatural Creator called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which resembles spaghetti and meatballs. He furthermore calls for the "Pastafarian" theory of creation to be taught in science classrooms, essentially invoking a reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of intelligent design. (The FSM has been popularized by the otherwise charming and intelligent folks at BoingBoing.) What Henderson actually showed was (a) a profound ignorance of the design argument, (b) a profound ignorance of what the Kansas board was actually proposing, and (c) that OSU should require physics graduates to take courses in philosophy. But what Henderson was trying to get at, though he doesn't seem clever enough to grasp his own point, is similar to what Bertrand Russell was arguing with his "celestial teapot" analogy.... [continues here or if that doesn't work, here:]

The critic seems confused. Russell's teapot analogy is, I think, designed to show that the fact that something is possible (not disproved beyond all doubt) does not make it reasonable (or even, not unreasonable: the teapot hypothesis remains very unreasonable indeed!). It's also designed to illustrate this point (in Russell's own words):

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

The FSM analogy, on the other hand, is focussed specifically on design arguments, and is, as Wikipedia here explains, designed to bring out that, even if design arguments are good, it's a huge further leap to the conclusion that the designer is the Judeo-Christian God, rather than, say, a flying spaghetti monster.

The religion was founded in 2005 by Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. Because intelligent design implies the existence of an intelligent, but not necessarily omnipotent or omniscient designer, some, like Henderson, argued that this designer could, in fact, be anything imaginable.

The design arguments, by themselves, even if good (which they are not - certainly not the ID ones), no more support the Judeo-Christian God (JCG) hypothesis than they do the FSM hypothesis, so if the design arguments, by themselves, justify getting the JCG hypothesis taught in school science classes, then they justify getting the FSM hypothesis taught in school science classes too.

That point, it seems to me, is sound*, and the author of the EO piece seems to miss it. Or do they? I can't tell.

Henderson threatened to sue if ID was included on the Kansas curriculum but the FSG hypothesis was not.

*except that Kansas didn't actually require the the JCG hypothesis be included on the science curriculum, merely that ID etc. be discussed (via "teaching the controversy"). But ID is officially neutral between the JCG hypothesis and the FSM hypothesis. There are clearly layers of detail involved here that I should probably know more about.... What Henderson could say is - if the JCG hypothesis can be discussed in science class (and you can bet it is), then surely so can the FSM hypothesis - something many Christians would baulk at (but then some Christians might bite the bullet and say "OK the FSM can be discussed - but it's presentation cannot be obligatory: but then we are not making presentation of the JCG hypothesis obligatory either; we just want to allow it to be discussed in science class.")


Is it actually possible to be profoundly ignorant of the design argument?

That suggests a complexity (no pun intended) that the argument just doesn't have.
I couldn't read the whole article, I got an error about being forbidden when I clicked the link.
Does the author bother to enlighten us as to what the incredibly shrewd argument from design actually does say as we all appear to be mistaken about it.

I wish I was as smart as a creationist....oops, ah sorry I mean an ID scientist!
I just can't help being suckered in by mountains of empirical evidence. I mean every! single! time! I blindly go where the evidence points. I really am a lamb for the darwinian wolves. Someday I'll wise up and realise that if I can't understand something it must be magical.
Stephen Law said…
Hi CC - try here:
Anonymous said…
As a sometime designer of stuff myself I find the whole complexity argument rather amusing. The goal of much of the effort in design is simplicity,
No Joy. I even got them up and got the same error. Could be something to do with the internet setup where I work.
got them up on google that was supposed to say. I'm going to have to start previewing.

I'll check it out later from home.
Anonymous said…
The article also had a section about existence requiring something to sustain it, this being either a Flying Spaghetti Monster or Perpetual Universe Generator.

Has anyone made a (coherent and intellectually respectable) case for existence requiring some sort of sustaining mechanism when presumably non-existence does not?
jeremy said…
The critic seems confused indeed!

I especially loved his line that creationism is not on a plausibility par with the FSM because Christians find arguments supporting God to be convincing - even if atheists don't! In other words, so long as you find your own arguments reasonable, then they are. (I wonder if God grants atheists this luxury?)

And as for "Perpetual Universe Generator"...

Perpetual Universe Generator

Perpetual Universe Generator?!?!

For God's sake...
Anonymous said…
The existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is most definitely equally realistic to the existence of any deity

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o