The Flying Spaghetti Monster

In 2005, a 24 year old Oregon State University physics student named Bobby Henderson had a brilliant idea.  The Kansas State Board of Education [KSBE] had decided to allow the teaching of Intelligent Design which, to Mr. Henderson was ludicrous.  He decided to do something about it, and believing that a sense of humor is the best way to fight “religious nuts”, he penned a letter to the KSBE demanding equal time in the science classrooms of Kansas to teach "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism".  It was classic satire, using ridicule to mock what you perceive to be other peoples stupidity.

His letter was posted and became an internet phenomenon.  Because of it's popularity it has found its way even into the lingo of the worlds most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins who, in agreement with Bobby Henderson, equates belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster to belief in God.  It has become so popular that Bobby Henderson has written a book "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" and started a 'church' for his new religion.

His basic argument is this:  You can't prove there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster [FSM] anymore than I can prove there isn't a God, but the truth is they both don't exist.  Or, stated another way "it's just as silly to believe in God as to believe in a FSM".

This is really just a clever repackaging of an argument made for generations, most famously Agnostic Bertrand Russell's "Teapot" where he argues that you can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun, and Carl Sagan's "Invisible Dragon in my Garage" where he argues we can't prove there's not an immaterial invisible dragon breathing heatless fire in his garage.

The argument on burden of proof is often stated this way:"inability to disprove does not prove".  In other words, the fact that I can't prove there isn't a FSM doesn't prove there is one.  Applied to Christianity, it becomes "Just because we cannot prove God doesn't exist does not prove that He does".  The person who asserts that God [or the FSM] exists has the burden of proof, they are required [in logical debate] to prove God's existence.

So what do you make of that argument?  There is truth in it, isn't there?  Failure to disprove something is not the same as proving it, right?  So it's not really a good argument for God's existence to say "You can't prove he doesn't exist!" is it?    However, our question is not whether the philosophy is sound, but rather to examine the analogy.  Are the arguments for FSM and God essentially the same and therefore equally silly?  I [obviously] don't think so, and here is why.

FSM is a joke.  Really.  It is a clever joke gone viral.  Suppose that, when approached by a FSM evangelist you asked "Why do you believe in the FSM?"  Their answer is "because...why not?  You can't prove it isn't true".  Would that convince you to be a genuine follower of the FSM faith?  Of course not and, btw, that reasoning would never convince you to be a Christian either.  However, with his clever satire, Mr. Henderson [Russell, Sagan, Dawkins, et. al.] is suggesting that Christianity depends on the same type of inane, irrational, evidence-less blind-faith.

Although it is witty and attention grabbing, maybe a great twitter feed, it's just not true, and in the matter of religion as well as science, truth matters.  Christianity, unlike FSM, is not a joke, but to see that, let's consider for a moment what the FSM evangelist would sound like if FSM faith was really like Christian faith.

If his claims were really like Christianity he would show you an ancient collection of books, written over the course of thousands of years by many different authors, all testifying to the existence and trustworthiness of the FSM.  These books would not be frauds, but genuine, ancient books,  more thoroughly verified historically and archaeologically than any other ancient texts.

He would point you to hundreds of prophesies in those verified ancient texts, and he would then point to an actual person in history who fulfilled those prophesies.  Once again, with historical verification in the form of letters and written accounts by eyewitnesses.

He would show you that the faith was originally taught and written down by those eyewitnesses, virtually all of whom were tortured and/or executed for proclaiming their belief in the FSM.  [BTW, is there anyone who thinks Bobby Henderson would willingly allow himself to be executed as the apostles were when he could stop it by simply denying FSM faith is true as they could've by denying Christ's resurrection?]

He would show you how all verifiable historical and archaeological facts from these books are accurate and how time after time, supposed inaccuracies have fallen under the light of new archaeological discoveries and been found to actually be error-free.

He would also mention to you others who did not believe in the FSM but who, in their own verifiable writings unintentionally corroborated these writings of believers.

He would show you lines of argument from science [like the law of Biogenesis - life only comes from other life, or the laws of Thermodynamics.]

He would also call mathematical and philosophical arguments in the quest to provide you evidence [Ontological and Cosmological arguments for instance].

He would invite you to examine the moral teachings of the founder of the FSM faith.  Instead of heaven being a world of prostitutes and a beer volcano [FSM actual satirical doctrine], he would teach you about loving those around you, being a servant to the needy, alleviating suffering and showing kindness to everyone, even your enemies.

He would explain to you how the FSM faith was to be founded only on the condition of the founders death and verifiable resurrection.

He would offer as evidence the millions upon millions of people whose lives have been demonstrably changed [I mean a genuine change in character, not a goofball wearing a colander on his head] because of their faith in the FSM.

And that's just a small bit of the evidence he would offer.  So you see, it may be clever, it may be catchy, it may even seem daunting when you first hear it, but it's really an empty deception in the skin of clever satire.  Christianity doesn't just stand on some college kids "said so".  As satire it's clever and funny, as real intellectual reason it leaves much to be desired.