Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Friday, November 16, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version Print | Comments

Document Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

by CNN

Thanks to Rienk Doetjes for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/11/16/flying.spaghettimonster.ap/index.html

Highlights
- American Academy of Religion to discuss Flying Spaghetti Monster
- The pseudo-deity was created to challenge intelligent design
- Supporters claim a Flying Spaghetti Monster created universe
- Followers call themselves Pastafarians

students
Graduate students Gavin Van Horn, Samuel Snyder and Lucas Johnston, (l-r), study Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

(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!"

Comments 1 - 32 of 32 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #88388 by Dax on November 16, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Funny, I almost thought it read "militant atheist" in the second last paragraph. Oh, wait, it did?!? So, his neighbor is planning to fly planes in skyscrapers? Blow subways up? Storm a tourist hotspot with an AK47? Blow up an abortion clinic? Joined the US Army because of some sinister Christian pentagon recruitment group?
No?
So, what is militant about being atheist?

Other Comments by Dax

2. Comment #88391 by JamesDB on November 16, 2007 at 12:36 pm

 avatarAgain with the semantics. Religion already has a decent definition, we don't need to be going around trying to convince everyone that nonreligious things may be religions.
This is a little like the "theory" issue and if the evangelicals get their greedy hands on it and twist it they are going to say that all of us are religious in some way, like the FSM or the celestial teapot.

Other Comments by JamesDB

3. Comment #88392 by quill on November 16, 2007 at 12:48 pm

 avatarNo kidding. "Militant atheist". I wonder if the author would care to elaborate on the way in which the accused person was "militant".

Other Comments by quill

4. Comment #88394 by JFHalsey on November 16, 2007 at 1:00 pm

A pretty good article until those last two paragraphs.

So, a tongue-in-cheek "prayer" to the FSM by a militant* athiest serves as proof that we all have a "deep human need to feel like there's something bigger than oneself out there"? Stunning journalism, that.

*Don't underestimate those pro-Darwin bumper stickers! Next time they might have a pro-Newton or pro-Einstein sticker, then what are you going to do?

Other Comments by JFHalsey

5. Comment #88398 by Blake Stacey on November 16, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Others have already made the point about the inane "militant atheist" canard, and I second JFHalsey's note about the theology student's seeming inability to get a joke. For complaints drawn out at length, see http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=393 .

Other Comments by Blake Stacey

6. Comment #88406 by arogop on November 16, 2007 at 1:44 pm

 avatarI love the Flying Spaghetti Monster! I think this analogy has a greater ability to be understood by the masses than the celestial teapot.

I was once touched by its slimy legs and it has had a profound affect on my life. ;)

Other Comments by arogop

7. Comment #88409 by DNAtheist on November 16, 2007 at 1:55 pm

 avatarPseudo-deity?!?!?

Would a newspaper refer to Vishnu or Allah as a pseudo-deity? The FSM is just as real and meaningful as any other deity, and should be treated just as respectfully.

Arrrgh! Tis' time to board the good ship CNN and make some writers and editors walk the plank!

Other Comments by DNAtheist

8. Comment #88410 by nother person on November 16, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Arrrgh!

Other Comments by nother person

9. Comment #88429 by SilentMike on November 16, 2007 at 3:31 pm

This is playing with fire you know. If there's anything crackpot religions like scientology and christianity teach us it's that people will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous, if it's repeated often enough for a sufficient amount of time and with enough conviction. If they believe in that jewish zombie who was born of a virgin how much of a problem is swallowing a little divine pasta going to be?

One has to wonder if all religions aren't just the result of jokes, fairy tales or intentional scams, rather than failed attempts at explaining the workings of the world.

Other Comments by SilentMike

10. Comment #88430 by RonnieG on November 16, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Arrrrgghh!

Other Comments by RonnieG

11. Comment #88442 by HappyPrimate on November 16, 2007 at 4:46 pm

 avatarI never considered myself *militant* but since I have a Darwin fish on the rear of my car I suppose that is the way I am perceived. Also, I must then consider all those with the *Jesus Saves* etc stickers are *Militant* Xtians?

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

12. Comment #88448 by phasmagigas on November 16, 2007 at 5:47 pm

 avatarso no need for transubstanstiation when you eat bolognaise. Im hoping my spellings of 'need' and 'eat' are correct.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

13. Comment #88467 by Edanator on November 16, 2007 at 9:26 pm

I think it's time for the pastafarians to take it up a notch. Demand equal time in the theology departments as well! I would love to hear the theologian arguments for turning down the carbohydrate creator:

1. There is no FSM! (How do you know? Can you PROVE that there is no FWM?)
2. The FSM is a man-made deity! (For all we know, so is Jahve, Vishnu, Allah and Thor. How do you know they are not?)

Just for the fun of it, why not the the theologians fight on our side of the fence for a while? Let them come up with arguments why FSM is not real, that do not apply to any other god.

Other Comments by Edanator

14. Comment #88488 by NMcC on November 17, 2007 at 4:00 am

"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."

Priceless!!

Other Comments by NMcC

15. Comment #88493 by Logicel on November 17, 2007 at 4:46 am

 avatarThese religious 'scholars' seem to understand what satirical humor directed against Religion can do, and they don't like the implications so they focus on conflating religion dogma to free thinking and associated satirical humor.

Since these 'scholars' negatively regard such atheist attempts as pulling the sacred down into the banal level, then that is what their own religion does? A little logic with these folks is dangerous; they just continually get the wrong end of the stick.

Other Comments by Logicel

16. Comment #88501 by phil rimmer on November 17, 2007 at 6:35 am

 avatarI am deeply shocked at the levity on display here. Clearly most are ignorant of the deep truth embodied in the very Durum of our Lord's body. As he offers himself, freely, to nourish our bodies at our evening worship around the Supper Table, he shows us the very fabric of the whole of Existence. Our scientists, even now, are only just beginning to untangle the ineffable mysteries of String Theory. His nourishment is total. It is as if He is saying to us, "Be at Peace. The Universe is too knotty a problem for your darling little minds. I am here, on your plate. Only eat me and you shall know all ye need."

Its true, we Pastafarians have a dirty little secret- those heretics the Brane theorists and their odious Prophet Garfield. I warn you now, have nothing to do with the "Lord" Lasagne. I, for one, believe these mere sheets to be feeble impersonations of the wafers from that other failed religion. No, cast your Parmesan on richer pastures....

Other Comments by phil rimmer

17. Comment #88519 by mrjonno on November 17, 2007 at 9:42 am

Please do not confuse serious science/theology like pastalogy with made up by roman committee joke religions like christianity

the FSM is fact, he told me down the temple after much grog.

Many many pastafarians have suffered greatly for their believes, usually involving a serious hangover

Give a man a bowl of pasta and he will eat for a day
Teach him to fish and he will have to go down the supermarket to buy another bowl

Other Comments by mrjonno

18. Comment #88531 by L.Minnik on November 17, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Interesting way in which atheists can take part in the discussion of religion at events such as the "American Academy of Religion's annual meeting."

Other Comments by L.Minnik

19. Comment #88546 by Anonymous on November 17, 2007 at 6:31 pm

This is from a previous post, but seems fitting:

Verily, I say unto you that it shall come to pass that when the Antipasto has reigned for 1,000 years, and mankind has simmered in its own juices for all that time, then will the Cheeses return to earth "trailing clouds of Glorious Sauce", adorned by Precious Raymond, and attended by a host of exceedingly heavenly condiments, and He will judge us all, finding us either al dente or not al dente.

And it shall come to pass that the most succulent of us shall drift skyward, along with one-half of every chair, each after its own kind, and they shall be guided by the two angels, Fusilli and Linguini, to gaze finally upon the noodly countenance of the FSM.

It has been said of old that "No man can serve two pastas", and yet, lo, I say unto you that side salads shall be served, with Caesar dressing rendered unto those salads that are Caesars, and Romano spears of Brochetti shall cause the tomato sauce to flow from their sides.

Those not chosen shall be simmered much longer, and must sit on the remaining half-chairs, with their Left Behinds. And there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Anyone who adds a word to this, or takes away a word, shall be in danger of the Judgement: sent off without supper.

Other Comments by Anonymous

20. Comment #88549 by Anonymous on November 17, 2007 at 6:38 pm

I seem to be called Anonymous, but I assure you I am prettygoodformonkeys.

And my avatar has been revoked.
Perhaps it is a glitch, or perhaps I have pissed someone off.

I don't even know what to hope for anymore!

Other Comments by Anonymous

22. Comment #88633 by keith on November 18, 2007 at 5:22 am

 avatarI liked this article and for 'militant atheist' I read 'strongly convinced atheist'. We are perhaps right to be aware of the power of language, especially when it is used against us by the faithful. However, not everyone is as sensitive to these nuances as we are. After all, we spend half our lives dissecting these things. I know the writer is a journalist and he should know better, but I suspect this was just a bit of lazy word use and I can't help thinking that we could cut a little slack, at least to people who appear to be on our side.

Also, the part in the last couple of lines about wanting to believe in something bigger was clearly a joke. Apart from this, all the writer was really doing was reporting what he had been told by one of the students. We're not going to become as literal-minded as the PC fools of this world - are we?
Don't underestimate those pro-Darwin bumper stickers! Next time they might have a pro-Newton or pro-Einstein sticker, then what are you going to do?

JFHalsey,

I didn't really understand this comment. What does it mean? Who is 'you'? Is there an answer to your question?

Other Comments by keith

23. Comment #88663 by Ivan The Not So Bad on November 18, 2007 at 12:34 pm

I like the idea of "a genuine theological belief". As opposed to one based on no evidence whatsoever, I imagine.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

24. Comment #88778 by Mike O'Risal on November 19, 2007 at 1:47 am

 avatarWhy is it that someone who demands that they won't believe in something unless shown empirical evidence for existence can be labeled "militant," but someone who insists on the existence of something with no evidence at all not militant?

The label isn't particular appropriate for either condition, but it seems to me that someone who makes a forceful positive assertion that they cling to without any supporting evidence is engaging in at least the mindset that leads to militancy, whereas someone who demands proof is not.

Other Comments by Mike O'Risal

25. Comment #88793 by irate_atheist on November 19, 2007 at 2:12 am

 avatarPerhaps it's a good thing that nutjobs like these have theological colleges to go to. Think just how dangerous they could be if let out into the real world to do a real job.

I mean, imagine a country led by people who believe the shit that they do.

Oh, er...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

26. Comment #88860 by Buddha on November 19, 2007 at 4:52 am

 avatarI for one shall deal a blow to the infidels with my bolognese bomb-vest and achieve glorious to-martyrdom!!!

Peace be udon you.

Other Comments by Buddha

27. Comment #88929 by notsobad on November 19, 2007 at 7:25 am

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

The question is pointless. The main purpose of the FSM is to show that all religions are based on no evidence and are thus equally silly.

Other Comments by notsobad

28. Comment #90111 by irate_atheist on November 23, 2007 at 3:20 am

 avatarQ. "Are you the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?"

A. "Fuck off!! We're the Holy Pastafarians!"

Other Comments by irate_atheist

29. Comment #90315 by Sean on November 24, 2007 at 9:14 am

From what I've seen, the militant atheist label is based on they way you conduct yourself. It breaks down in to a few different levels.

1) Mention Jesus at any opportunity, particularly when explaining why you think someone is wrong or deserving of death. This is a good Christian.

1) Go to church at Christmas and send the kids to a christian school, but don't really pay much attention otherwise. Basically, you'd renounce all that nonsense in exchange for a new car. This makes you a fairly average Christian.

2) Keep your atheistic beliefs to yourself and keep quiet. From the Christian point of view, you're a follower of Jesus who just needs a little help.

3) Asking awkward questions about Jesus, or telling people that you're an atheist. This is the militant atheist, like spending their evenings making pipe bombs. You're heading to hell.

Other Comments by Sean

30. Comment #132726 by Kevin A Jones on February 25, 2008 at 6:59 am

 avatarI know Fox News isn't popular here, sometimes they do seem to be less than fair and balanced, but they did post this Associated Press article last November and their Scitech news section is pretty good.

Other Comments by Kevin A Jones

31. Comment #132735 by pewkatchoo on February 25, 2008 at 7:08 am

 avatarLife is just too short for nonsense like this. In such ridiculous directions does religiosity lead us. Mind you, at least it keeps the intellectually bereft morons who come up with ideas like this out of everyone elses' hair. I can get on with my life safe in the knowledge that they are suitably employed.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

32. Comment #144985 by John L on March 17, 2008 at 6:20 am

As a former faithhead, and the holder of a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Alabama, let me clarify a few terms. I can say that not everyone in a religious studies program is a "true believer". I bet that about half of the people in my major were critical of religion. "Religious Studies", as taught in a secular college, is the study of how religion effects culture, history, politics, etc. This is in contrast to the "confessional" approach employed in a seminary or Bible college. My bet is that the guys who put on this event are our allies philosophically. Sounds like a classic "reducto ad absurbium".

A serious, academically sound study of religion is as corrosive to superstition as scientific literacy, but may be easier to grasp by those people who feel intimidated by science. I'd like to see it used more, as a compliment to scientific naturalism.

Other Comments by John L
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: