Fallacy of your satire

Published June 14th, 2010 by Bobby Henderson

Hello, I have purchased and read your book, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and I would just like to share with you a constructive feedback of your book. For its objective purpose of proving the illogicality of the provincial-minded nature of those who stand in opposition to allowing the scientific theory of the Big Bang/Theory of Evolution from being taught publicly, it served its purpose well. However I would like to call to mind the hypocritical nature of the book. I believe consistency with one’s own message is important to achieve a total victory and it satirically charges Christians with creating blind assumptions. I understand the comparison of pirate decrease to global temperature increase was to further the point of the illogicality of religion, but you assumed there was a lesser amount of pirates. In fact there are more pirates now than there was in the 1700′s, the lack of the Pirates of the Caribbean-esque romanticism is the only reason this fact is not widely spread. You made an assumption which went against fact which defeated your principle of factual basis. One may argue that was the continuation of satire but that would be most likely incorrect as the faux-correlation of coincidence is the satire and not the actual analyzes as global temperature is indeed rising since the last minor ice age in the Napoleonic Era.

Furthermore it appears you attack religion as a whole entity as illogical and we’d be better off it was nonexistent as the end of the book turns into repetitive bashing, This is the same mindset as the illogical fundamentalists whom do not hear the logic of scientific theory who completely disregard science as it is alien to their beliefs. Religion is extremely important in its influence in sociology as it combats the modern mainstream schools of thought such as widespread apathy, post-modernism and rampant sensationalism. It teaches values of selflessness and charity opposing the media advocacy of self-service which even in an evolutionary sense is not nature as we are social animals which rely upon societal advancement, not just the advancement of self. Religion plays a large role in academic studies as well, I’m sure you’re aware that one of the theorists of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest. To the (logically) theistic, the belief in God does not interact with evolution or creation as God is a theory pertaining to spiritual well being while evolution pertains to physical creation. Religion (or belief in God) does not isolate one from logic, rather the fallacy assuming that because one is religious they must abandon reason. I think if you had pulled back on the senseless bashing of theists and made it rather a criticism of the solely illogical due to their ignoring of blatant scientific evidence even the Pope would have agreed with you. Book such as the one of your own writing are dangerous as human beings tend to take the extremity of each end, by the extensive mockery of the religious you isolate them while creating a malicious current in atheists against theists, which is academically wrong as scholarly debate should be through procedure of logic but your book goes from such to foolery. Such anti-God contempt creates social hysteria making people, for example, atheistic in assumption of its logic while in fact they have little intelligence to even contemplate the bane of their existence.This correlates with the thesis of The Prince as one should be firm in their own beliefs and adhered to logic but they can also not crush the other side as that creates blatant opposition for the sake of opposition rather than following a conventional and more satisfying procedure of scholarly victory.

I hope your book has accomplished your objective and enlightens the close-minded Kansas Board of Education.

Maroun Shami

 

This is the type of email I like to receive.  I don’t agree with a lot of what Maroun is saying but I have a lot of respect for him voicing his criticism.  –bobby



226 Responses to “Fallacy of your satire”

  1. Phyve says:

    While this letter is certainly more polite than most, it is still riddled with truthiness and judgements.
    At least he has read the Gospel. Everyone is entitled the truth. Savvy?

  2. Raul says:

    Come on man you should have read our About page:

    Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment, satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, but rather a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools. These people are mistaken. The Church of FSM is real, totally legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental.

  3. bubuka_visszater says:

    @Insightful Ape, comment#12:
    I agree, especially with this part: “It claims we are “dangerous” while forgetting the biggest danger of all, which is human gullibility and belief in the absence of evidence. This is not just promoted by religion, (!)it is the very nature of religion.(/!)
    In a way it can do more harm than our usual ilk of trolls. Presenting the same poison in a reputable package.”

    And that’s the point. I am not more pleased by Francis Collins’ [biologos] views on evolution than the views of a “sensible” ISKCON krishna believer who actually does not deny the moonlanding but still believes in an elephant-headed deity. Yes, “the same poison in a reputable package”.

  4. Maroun Shami says:

    First off, I would like to thank the people who thanked me for the sending of my opinion.

    Secondly, things such as saying I was claiming “you can’t be good without religious training” and “atheists are immoral, selfish, and evil” are quite amusing as I never stated such things, if I believed so I would have done so blatantly. It is aggravating to see commentary such as “Get to know us, you’ll find that we’re not a bad bunch of people. Those of us who do have a chip on our shoulder about religion typically have earned it through the hypocritical abuses of the contemporary religions – generally Christianity, as I think, by and large, that’s the culture we’re generally from. We’ve found, though, that a lack of religious spirituality really isn’t necessary to living our lives and being good people. We have kids, we hold our jobs together, keep up the lawn, and we look just like one of you. So, think about it: what could you do with all that extra time on Sunday morning?” Since when have I said I was even isolated from people who lack belief in God? I have many friends of every creed, I’m not going to discriminate based upon such things (in fact I like diversity of mindset, it makes intellectual discussions infinitely more interesting). When I emailed Mr. Henderson he was very polite, very intellectual, very nice, nothing I can complain about, I enjoyed our brief conversation. I’m not going to pin assumptions of evil or inferiority upon people because they don’t believe what I believe. Again, baseless supposition. It is alarming, as those who claim to be so well backed with evidence are normally those who make baseless comments. I’m sure someone is going to twist that around saying I’m calling atheists stupid, quite frankly I don’t care because I’m directing this to people in general not any specific group of persons.

    Next, I would like to respond to those saying I am “insecure” and therefore I sent Mr. Henderson an email. That of course is false as I think its important to voice one’s opinion as long as it is in a decent manner, the same right and importance that this book has, so calling me insecure is just angry banter from malicious people who would rather attack me then critique my commentary.

    “Mind-body dualism is an illusion, negated decades ago.” Mind-body dualism is a particularly Roman Catholic emphasis neglect body, focus on spirit. I am not a Roman Catholic nor do I see any pertaining of my letter to Mind-body dualism. You attach mind-body dualism to religion, when have I stated this is part of my credence?

    My comment on the pirate-global warming chart was dry humor for those of you beating the dead joke thinking I was serious. I don’t actually believe anyone believes that, hence when I said satire and not “your set of beliefs”.

    “There is no such thing as a dangerous book. Books are pure and innocent, regardless of their content; they’re just collections of words. If you want to angrily shake your fist at something, go shake it at a person whose doing something wrong. (I’ll bet at least nine times out of ten you’ll find that you’re shaking your fist at someone who has a strong belief in a god.)” Interesting comment as I always say myself knowledge is not good or evil, it is the manner we use it. But a book can be dangerous nonetheless in its use, the danger of a situation does not taint the innocence of the object. I was not getting angry at anyone, I merely wanted to share my opinion and I was warned by Mr. Henderson that people would distort what I say and he was right. And belief in God has nothing to do with shaking an angry fist here, this is where some people really confuse me as why must you bring up the belief in God? I did not write my commentary because I was offended, simply because feedback is important. Now I pose the same response to everyone who is offended by what I have written. I utilized the same right under which this book was written to give a decent response and yet I’m sure someone is/was “shaking their fist at me” for doing nothing wrong. Go shake it at someone who deserves it, and I’m not going to guarantee you that 9/10th of the time the person will belief in a god or no god, because quite frankly I find that irrelevant and unimportant.

    For those of you saying religion is violent and controlling, again you are generalizing and thinking of major world religions. It is the result of the desires of people which cause them to use a median to manipulate others, while religions are mostly conceived in a genuine manner.

    For those of you who remained civil and respectful even if you disagreed, I have profound respect for you and thank you because our differing beliefs did not make you belligerent against me as you demonstrate maturity, security, intellectualism and clarity.

  5. Np237 says:

    First of all, thank you for taking the time to write something constructive. It is refreshing in the midst of the flow of insults.

    However, there is a rampant fallacy in your sayings: that religion is necessary to build up a morality. Because most religions include morality in their teachings, it became a justification for their existence. But they don’t have a monopoly on morality. You don’t need religion to become someone good; other humans are here to judge you, and there is no need for a god to do it.

    I welcome you to read a bit about Sartre and existentialism.

  6. bubuka_visszater says:

    @Maroun: You addressed all but one argument: we (well, I, at least) oppose religious kind of faith in any supernatural phenomena because it is simply not supported by evidence. It is the very same reason why we oppose homeopathy even if it does not do any harm alone (if the patient also applies ordinary medicaments) but with care it can do real good – that’s why western health science is using placebos. But it is never claiming it works in some mystical spiritual way – charlatans do and exploit human gullibility.

    And we regard religious faith as a mental placebo. We oppose it because it is not proven. We have problem with the “you can’t disprove therefore it is so and I believe so” approach in the first place.

  7. Insightful Ape says:

    Hey Maroun the troll, will you stop lying?
    First you claim, “Such anti-God contempt creates social hysteria making people, for example, atheistic in assumption of its logic while in fact they have little intelligence to even contemplate the bane of their existence.” Then you come in and add: “I’m not going to pin assumptions of evil or inferiority upon people because they don’t believe what I believe.” So which is it? They have “little intelligence”, but you are not going to “pin assumptions of inferiority”?
    You talk about mind-body dualism, but you don’t have a clue what it means. It means the existence of mind as an entity with an existence independent of the brain, and it is the underpinning idea of the “soul” claim. It is the whole basis of the whole “afterlife” bull. It is not restricted to catholicism, as you think. And it is a lie. Go educate yourself. (I don’t care if you don’t like my tone. Stop being ignorant and presumptuous if you don’t like getting called ignorant and presumptuous).
    You are saying we are “dangerous”, but then adding you are not insecure? Interesting. So how exactly are we dangerous? Ever an act of violence by people sharing a joke? If we are dangerous, can that possibly be for any reason other than you think we may be persuasive? And you are saying you are not insecure?
    “But a book can be dangerous nonetheless in its use, the danger of a situation does not taint the innocence of the object.” So are you going to write to those who publish the bible and the koran and tell them they are playing with fire?
    “For those of you saying religion is violent and controlling, again you are generalizing and thinking of major world religions. It is the result of the desires of people which cause them to use a median to manipulate others, while religions are mostly conceived in a genuine manner.” That is a lie. Islam and christianity both promote they idea of hell, that is, if you don’t stay in line, you are going to burn for ever and ever. If that is not controlling, then what is? Sorry, “religion” is not controlling in general, only christianity and islam are. Better now?
    “I utilized the same right under which this book was written to give a decent response and yet I’m sure someone is/was “shaking their fist at me” for doing nothing wrong”. So you have the right to rant the way you did, but we don’t have the right to “shake our fist at you”? (Figuratively, that is). Nice double standard.
    “My comment on the pirate-global warming chart was dry humor for those of you beating the dead joke thinking I was serious. I don’t actually believe anyone believes that”. You go on a whole paragraph debating the number of pirates since the 1700s and yet you claim you realize no one believes that? You are lying, again. And it is showing.

  8. flyin says:

    Organize a religion and the preachers appear with a show, full of dogma telling me it’s better to know what they know, than it is to grow.

    Makes you wonder what the blessed FSM is saying, when he looks down upon ramblings of his creation.

    Don’t you get it, it’s the rules, creeds and insidious doctrines, killing our chances for meaningful talking.

    and its tough to take when the best they can give is grief, because they’re walled in with their dogmatic beliefs.

    Instead of playing it safe with them, sticking with themes like the weather, I want to tell them lets open our minds, together.

    But I don’t because I’m afraid, don’t know the words to break into the holy ground inside their heads, and tell them what really should be said.

    But behold, there is a place where they come to me, Venganza, and here I can tell them what I see.

    better yet when it works I’ve got words seasoned with irony, to take home where it’s needed for a little sanity.

    So give a man a chance when he tries for intelligent conversation, I know I could us it with my family, friends and nation.

Leave a Reply