Excellent satire of the criticisms of religion and Intelligent Design … unless you guys actually think the creation of the FSM and its subsequent religion is a valid critique of religion and Intelligent Design in the form of satire or actual truth for that matter. In that case, try studying and understanding your “opponents†first before attacking. Or maybe this “religion†of the FSM is just a good case of showing that people will believe almost anything (assuming that your church members ACTUALLY believe the FSM to be true). Yet, I very highly doubt that people are QUITE that stupid. Given enough time, they should be eliminated by natural selection anyway.
However, both ways I do enjoy and appreciate the artistic work and creativity you have put into the FSM and its subsequent church. It, as well as the hate mail you receive, is truly hilarious.
It’s a good thing that artistic method isn’t restrained by the scientific method. The religion of the FSM is evidence that art is not restrained by logic.
As an aside, since art is allowed to be taught in school in the form of an art class, the religion of the FSM should be allowed in school as well. Drop me a line if you need help creating a case (I wish I were a lawyer).
Similarly, religion or philosophy would also be considered art if it did not attempt to validly explain the existence of good and evil, reason, and other enigmas of the “human condition.†Art attempts to depict; religion, science, and philosophy attempt to explain in a valid manner.
Nevertheless, I can see how the religion of the FSM could attempt to explore the very concept of validity and its relation to truth. However, in this case, it should also attempt to be more valid itself and satirically examine or disprove science as well in order to be more encompassing and relative in addressing validity, in my humble opinion.
Or the creation of FSM and its religion may be just a load of quasi-artistic BS, in accordance with all gods written in history who were included within and were a part of the universe and describable as natural objects. re: ra (sun-god), poseidon (god of the sea), fsm (flying chunk of spaghetti and meatballs) “may his appendages be honoredâ€
Regardless of the psychology or validity behind the FSM, thank you for the humor, and good luck in continuing to intelligently or not so intelligently (whichever the case may be) evolve the FSM and its religion.
May your God given or unguided evolutionary given ability for creativity and the FSM’s noodly appendage guide you in your never ending search for that natural-selection-created concept of Truth.
CJYman http://cjyman.blogspot.com
I leave with you these three quotes:
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
–C. S. Lewis
“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts – i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy – are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”
–C. S. Lewis
“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.â€
–Albert Einstein
Erm.
I am a bit confused.
Can you please rewrite it in more comprehensible English – it is early Sunday morning here and my poor brain is a little befuddled (not enough grog last night). YOu seem to be putting forward several opposing ideas at the same time.
Please excuse me if I disappear shortly – we have an appointment with Santa on a steam train :)
I thought maybe it was just me Booty. I decided to come back and read it later to see what I wasn’t getting from the post. (was just reading TLM again, you understand) So I’m glad you posted. Still think I will read it again….very slowly…. later.
RAmen
The initial point appears to be:
If CoFSM is a parody of satirical religions then it is funny.
If it is an attempt to parody religion itself OR intended as actual fact, then it isn’t funny.
I haven’t been through the middle bit in detail, but I think the author likes some of the artwork.
The quotations appear to demonstrate an established fact: C.S.Lewis was a bell-end.
There’s also one from Einstein which doesn’t seem relevant, but here’s an alternative:
The most comprehensible thing about the “excelent satire … unless” e-mail is that it is incomprehensible.
- Oscar Wilde
I think he’s saying that we, having fun with the idea of the FSM (sauce be with him), might be creating Art here. I don’t have a problem with that.
I saw a pile of bricks in the Tate Modern gallery (London), and it looked like Art to me: context is crucial, and our context is the religiously-inspired lunacy of the world today. Looking at it like that, not only is this Art, it is Culture too, especially if the Parmesan is left out in the sun too long.
@Captain Noodulous Silicate TBHNA
Well done Captain, now what about this bit:
‘Nevertheless, I can see how the religion of the FSM could attempt to explore the very concept of validity and its relation to truth. However, in this case, it should also attempt to be more valid itself and satirically examine or disprove science as well in order to be more encompassing and relative in addressing validity, in my humble opinion.’
??
‘it should also attempt to be more valid itself and satirically examine or disprove science as well in order to be more encompassing and relative in addressing validity’
.
Yep that is definately what is bothering me
Nikkiee,
The author thinks that CoFSM could be used as device in some exploration of
validity [I suspect of argument and belief] and its relation to [I guess ontological] truth.
This part accords with the purpose of this site, Bobby Henderson wrote the letter because of [in essence] his concerns about flagrant disregard for these matters by people responsible for knowing better.
So the author is in communion with us on this point – RAmen, He has been touched by the noodly appendage.
The second part suggests that we ought to give science a bit more stick.
The author should pay more attention to their gospel [oFSM].
Bobby Henderson spends almost as much time satirising science as religion.
CoFSM is described as the only major religion supported by hard science.
RAmen.
‘a load of quasi-artistic BS, in accordance with all gods written in history who were included within and were a part of the universe and describable as natural objects. re: ra (sun-god), poseidon (god of the sea), fsm (flying chunk of spaghetti and meatballs)’
.
Gods represented by tangible natural entities are ‘quasi-artistic BS’ therefore I’m assuming whathisname poster is implying that the invisible supernatural being gods are not ‘quasi-artistic BS’
I’m still picking up xtian quasi-intellectual BS
Oh well, it’s been a long day and I’ve been out in the sun this afternoon. I’ll read it tomorrow when my brain is a bit fresher.
RAmen