32365 Views
147 Comments

Richard Dawkins

Published October 4th, 2006 by Bobby Henderson

World-famous science author Professor Richard Dawkins, during an interview about his new book The God Delusion, mentions the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (Around 1:50).

[youtube]kfnDdMRxMHY[/youtube]

It seems that he’s saying the existence of the Christian God is as likely as the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that you can’t disprove either. Perhaps he’s not aware of the evidence we’ve gathered in support of the existence of the FSM, and all the academic endorsements, etc. Or, maybe he’s tentative about revealing his true faith, Pastafarianism.

*update* – I Just found an interesting comment:

Regarding your suspicion of Dawkins’ closet Pastafarianism. I quote from The God Delusion, p53:

“I am delighted to see that The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has now been published as a book, to great acclaim. I haven’t read it myself, but who needs to read a gospel when you just *know* it’s true?”

I’d say that’s evidence for Dawkins’ Pastafarianism at least as strong as the Global Temperature/Pirates correlation, wouldn’t you?

*update 2* – Further evidence of Richard Dawkins’ Pastafarian beliefs: On today’s NPR Science Friday radio show, Professor Dawkins again mentions the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Link to the radio show.

Here’s another good video of Richard Dawkins.

[youtube]AB2vmj8eyMk[/youtube]



147 Responses to “Richard Dawkins”

  1. Branded Cow says:

    In response to J’s “thesus” and apparently Christian’s request, English is a male dominate language and it is perfectly alright to say “he” instead of “he or she”.

  2. Werefox Alchemist says:

    To Chiristian- I seem to have come in rather late on this whole debate, but I would like to say a few things. First of all, though I am an agnostic, I have nothing but respect for the reasonable people of good faith in your religion who genuinely believe in the values and ideals of Christianity. I abdicated from your religeon because I felt it had been highjacked by people who weren’t living up to the ideals of Chirst. (Full disclosure: despite what I now beleive about God and the nature of the universe, I still think that Christ was a real person,and that he had some very good ideas that we should pay more attention to. As Gandhi said: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”) Now, I belive that just because some probably superstitious guys back in BC wrote something down (not to mention years after the fact), it isn’t necissarily true. My Christian friend keeps using the old “The Bible is absolute fact- it says so in teh Bible” dodge to escape having a serious discussion about it. I don’t believe this is true.
    Secondly, I am not an Atheist. If other people are, that’s fine with me, but I don’t believe in that any more than a belive in any organized religion’s version of God. I think there is definately something powering the universe that brought it into existance, but I don’t know what that is. Perhaps it is jsutsome grand life-force; I don’t know. And I don’t pretend that anyone else does either. There is no absolute proof that anyone has hit on the exact truth yet. no proof at all. I reject your hypothesis that there is.
    Thirdly, though as I mentioned earlier, I am primarily an Agnostic, I am also a Pastafarian. Why? Because I think people need to lighten up and have a little more fun. Pastafarianism is fun for me. So I am one.
    Feel free to debate any of my points. If you have proof, I’d love to hear it.
    RAmen, and may peace be with you.
    ~W.A.

  3. faghettini says:

    I have nothing to argue in any of your points but I have to say, I love that Gandhi quote.

  4. Werefox Alchemist says:

    Yeah. Gandhi was a great guy.

  5. Christian says:

    To Werefox Alchemist,
    I appreciate your post. I want to make some comments about agnosticism and I’m sure you’ll recognise them as friendly disagreement, not personal attacks.
    .
    Firstly, I make a distinction between practical agnostics and convinced agnostics. The former are people who say: ‘At this time I want to reserve judgment about whether God exists’. Convinced agnostics, on the other hand, are people who make the much stronger statement: ‘There isn’t enough evidence to decide whether God exists’ and many will even add ‘Nor can there ever be.’ This latter position is, I think, untenable. The problem I see with it is that convinced agnostics seem to think there is a universal standard for deciding how much risk one should be prepared to take. They want to dictate how much risk other people ought to take. I can’t see how belief in such a universal standard can be supported.

  6. RAT says:

    A true agnostic is the closest thing to scientist’s view on God.

  7. 'trick says:

    I believe that a person can disprove, using logic, certain concepts of God. I considered myself to be an Atheist/Agnostic.
    Atheist in regards to certain concepts of God that can be logically contradicted such as the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, all good, creator of all things, Supreme Being (umm…Christianity). Agnostic in regards to a possible god that does not have such qualities that can be contradicted using basic logic. My point is, a person can be both depending on the God definition being used.

    I am no longer Atheist/Agnostic now that I have converted to FSMism! While updating my website I have uncovered proof of His noodly existence. If you go to my site hover over the “s” in tricksplace.com for a second. The FSM has mystically appeared on my site without me placing it there. That combined with the flawless scientifical charts on this site have converted me to the high probability that the FSM exists!

  8. J says:

    Christian,
    .
    This ‘how much risk to take’ thing seems to be one of the few remaining sticking points between where you and I sit on all of this – and yet thereby hangs the gulf between your Christianty and my atheism. I’m fascinated!
    .
    I’m interested in your position partly because it’s not an ‘all or nothing’ situation.
    .
    Back when Paul was writing, when Christianity was as sound a *scientific* theory of existence as any other (as there was no hard-evidence-based knowledge to contradict it), *then* not taking the risk of believing in Christ would have left him with nothing. All he had to compare Christianity to was other gods. One way or another he’d be indulging his God-Shaped Hole (the very human predeliction to believe in *some* sort of Creator and Authority). It would have been a question of which one convinced him. If he wasn’t a theist of some kind, he’d have had no explanation of life at all. And if he was the sort of intelligent, rational, sincere and intelligent man you believe him to have been, he probably would not have been happy with that!
    .
    But for you and I, Christian, there is not this kind of polarity. It’s not ‘either risk believing *this* or don’t, and be left stranded’. We have a set of similarly risky god-based hypotheses on one hand. And then we have the far, far, far *less* risky scientific position.
    .
    How can I say it’s less risky? Simply because a lot less risks have been taken in forming it. It has gathered slowly through a process of people scrutinising the available facts and making the smallest, smallest guesses they can – and then fighting about those guesses with other similarly pedantic intellectual experimenters and searching for more evidence to back them up.
    .
    So, it’s not just a question of ‘Are you prepared to take the risk of believing in god?’. It’s ‘Why take up a massively risky belief when there’s one which has the minimal possible risk involved and which does the same job?’. I think this is why I find your risk-based logic hard to fathom.
    .
    So, a ‘universal standard for deciding how much risk one should be prepared to take’ would not be something like: ‘This much: [XXX].’ It would be: ‘The least risk possible’. Paul probably observed this principle in settling for the most convincing explanation available to him. He was certainly brave enough to turn away from the older, more established religions in favour of what most persuaded him. (Today, he may well have turned out to be a good evolutionary scientist…)
    .
    We should do the same.

Leave a Reply