How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?

[Balerion]

But do you agree that the Christian God is absurd?

Yes, of course. An all-powerful deity that only communicates through dreams and visions...unless he talks through a cloud or a burning bush, of course; that claims to love us but orders the slaughter of thousands at the hands of his armies, even offering their women up as a prize, for sex or slavery (soldier's choice, apparently), and that's when he's not flooding the world, of course.

Oh, and then we get to the part where he hacks a slab off the Holy Ego and sends it to earth in the form of a cult leader who tries to get everyone to abandon their possessions and their families and take off with him. This one preaches peace, except when he's chastising villagers for not stoning to death their unruly children (before chastising another group for wanting to stone an adulteress). Then, because Christianity is just a cult of human sacrifice, Jesus decides that he has to die in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled, and in order to save Man from sin. But instead of just waving a wand and saving everyone, he has to put them through this torturous nightmare. And instead of simply turning himself over to the authorities, one of his buddies becomes the fall-guy for what must happen in order to save humanity.

It's not simply absurd, but obscenely so.

 

[Yazata]

How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?

It is actually an argument against God. Since the evidence in favor of FSM is the same that is in favor of God, they can both be said to be equally true. It goes beyond mere parody.

I think that I'm inclined to agree with Goat.

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is kind of an attempt at sarcastic flippancy, I guess.

But it probably does have a more serious philosophical point, as a reductio-ad-absurdem of certain kinds of justifications for belief in God.

If somebody tries to insist that faith justifies their assertions that God exists, then it's easy enough to reply that people can potentially have faith in anything, however absurd it might be. If conventional sensory evidence isn't necessary to establish God's existence, then what prevents people from announcing that any number of imperceptible things, however absurd, are silently flapping and invisibly slithering out there?

My agnosticism causes me to have quite a bit of sympathy with that line of argument.

 

[Sarkus]

perhaps that would make sense if you could provide an example of satire that doesn't utilize juxtaposition

Sure.
http://www.netreach.net/~rjones/no_dhmo.html
Feel free to point out the juxtaposition.

all satire require juxtaposition - its what distinguishes it from the object it is satirizing ... or even a pastiche for that matter

You continually seem limited in your view of satire.

yet god can be a meat ball and hell can be tomato sauce, eh?

correction

None of it is

Feel free to provide an example if you think otherwise.

Ever read Tom Sawyer... As CliffsNotes summarise:
"The Satire of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer

Twain does not confine himself to telling a simple children's story. He is, as always, the satirist and commentator on the foibles of human nature. As the authorial commentator, Twain often steps in and comments on the absurdity of human nature. In Tom Sawyer, he is content with mild admonitions about the human race. For example, after Tom has tricked the other boys into painting the fence for him, the voice of Twain, the author, points out the gullibility of man: ". . . that in order to make a man or a boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain."

There are stronger satires. Twain is constantly satirizing the hypocrisy found in many religious observances. For example, in the Sunday school episode, there are aspects of religion satirized, as Twain points out that one boy had memorized so many verses of the Bible so as to win prizes--more Bibles elegantly illustrated--that "the strain upon his mental faculties was too great, and he was little better than an idiot from that day forward."

The adults' reaction to Injun Joe and his malevolence is a typical Twain commentary on society. The adults create petitions to free Joe who has already killed, so it was believed, five "citizens of the village, but what of that? If he had been Satan himself there would have been plenty of weaklings ready to scribble their names to a pardon petition, and drip a tear on it from their permanently impaired and leaky waterworks."

Twain criticizes the adult attitudes and behaviors throughout the novel. That is part of the conflict: the maturation of a youth (Tom) into adulthood conflicting with the disapproval of the adult behaviors that exist. It is this double vision that raises the novel above the level of a boy's adventure story."

The satire is not necessarily funny, there is no real parody, but it is undeniably satire... all from merely holding up a mirror to society to show the existing absurdities that the satirist perceives.
Yes, there is juxtaposition there, but not all the satire requires it... e.g. where he merely provides an example and then mocks those who would use similar in the same or other contexts.

But LG, if you want to discuss satire more fully, perhaps this is not the best place for it.
Feel free to set up another thread in the linguistics section.

 

[Robittybob1]

How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God? The eyes on stalks sure makes the FSM look absurb.

 

[GeoffP]

But do you agree that the Christian God is absurd?

The premise supposes a being we can't really understand. If you wanted to say it's an unrooted mythical premise, you could argue that. To call God 'absurd' is a bridge I'm not crossing today.

 

[spidergoat]

How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God? The eyes on stalks sure makes the FSM look absurb.

Maybe the form? But God was a burning bush, so maybe that's not so relevant. The only difference is one has a long tradition and an old book to give it an air of legitimacy.

 

[Robittybob1]

Maybe the form? But God was a burning bush, so maybe that's not so relevant. The only difference is one has a long tradition and an old book to give it an air of legitimacy.

What does the King James Version say: Exodus 3:1-5

3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.

3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3:3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

So I wouldn't say God was the burning bush. How do you find eating burnt spagetti?

 

[lightgigantic]

Sure.
http://www.netreach.net/~rjones/no_dhmo.html
Feel free to point out the juxtaposition.

So you don't think the whole thing rests on juxtaposing scientific warnings with something as everyday as water?
And that this is absurd?

You continually seem limited in your view of satire.



Ever read Tom Sawyer... As CliffsNotes summarise:
"The Satire of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer

Twain does not confine himself to telling a simple children's story. He is, as always, the satirist and commentator on the foibles of human nature. As the authorial commentator, Twain often steps in and comments on the absurdity of human nature. In Tom Sawyer, he is content with mild admonitions about the human race. For example, after Tom has tricked the other boys into painting the fence for him, the voice of Twain, the author, points out the gullibility of man: ". . . that in order to make a man or a boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain."

so you don't think its absurd that the desirability of something be simply a matter of how hard it is to attain?

There are stronger satires. Twain is constantly satirizing the hypocrisy found in many religious observances. For example, in the Sunday school episode, there are aspects of religion satirized, as Twain points out that one boy had memorized so many verses of the Bible so as to win prizes--more Bibles elegantly illustrated--that "the strain upon his mental faculties was too great, and he was little better than an idiot from that day forward."

ditto above?

The adults' reaction to Injun Joe and his malevolence is a typical Twain commentary on society. The adults create petitions to free Joe who has already killed, so it was believed, five "citizens of the village, but what of that? If he had been Satan himself there would have been plenty of weaklings ready to scribble their names to a pardon petition, and drip a tear on it from their permanently impaired and leaky waterworks."

ditto above?

Twain criticizes the adult attitudes and behaviors throughout the novel. That is part of the conflict: the maturation of a youth (Tom) into adulthood conflicting with the disapproval of the adult behaviors that exist. It is this double vision that raises the novel above the level of a boy's adventure story."

The satire is not necessarily funny, there is no real parody, but it is undeniably satire... all from merely holding up a mirror to society to show the existing absurdities that the satirist perceives.
Yes, there is juxtaposition there, but not all the satire requires it... e.g. where he merely provides an example and then mocks those who would use similar in the same or other contexts.

so they seem to agree that satire requires absurdity.
What exactly was your point?

But LG, if you want to discuss satire more fully, perhaps this is not the best place for it.
Feel free to set up another thread in the linguistics section.

To be honest at the moment it appears you are lodging an argument that satire has a requirement for absurdity.

I am not sure how this helps you suggest that the FSM is not necessarily more absurd than christianity
:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

The premise supposes a being we can't really understand. If you wanted to say it's an unrooted mythical premise, you could argue that. To call God 'absurd' is a bridge I'm not crossing today.

Interesting. I'm curious why you have a problem with this particular word.

utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.​

 

[wynn]

The premise supposes a being we can't really understand.

I think that I'm inclined to agree with Goat.

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is kind of an attempt at sarcastic flippancy, I guess.

But it probably does have a more serious philosophical point, as a reductio-ad-absurdem of certain kinds of justifications for belief in God.

If somebody tries to insist that faith justifies their assertions that God exists, then it's easy enough to reply that people can potentially have faith in anything, however absurd it might be. If conventional sensory evidence isn't necessary to establish God's existence, then what prevents people from announcing that any number of imperceptible things, however absurd, are silently flapping and invisibly slithering out there?

My agnosticism causes me to have quite a bit of sympathy with that line of argument.

I agree with Geoff's point here - insofar that some people cannot relate to the God of the Bible.
But many people have done so in the past and do so nowadays.

I don't think this has much to do with God as such, Biblical or otherwise, but rather with the particular moral system of the people who believe in a particular version of God.

On a few occasions, I myself was close to joining a Christian church (each time a different one). I never went through with it, though. I felt alienated from the people there. I thought this was because I didn't have the right or didn't have enough belief in God (and the church members would tell me so too). But in hindsight, I also notice that I simply didn't have much in common with those people - we had nothing to talk about, we were as if from different worlds.

For example, they saw no problem with eating meat, and belittled vegetarians. That was one big issue on which we divided. Then our views on the consumption of alcohol, coffee, cigarettes, sex, also differed radically. So did our views on art, education, politics. On communication and relationships. On philosophy.

I can imagine that someone with views like theirs would find the God of the Bible perfectly acceptable, along with the particular epistemology of what to someone else may seem faith without evidence.

Morality supersedes epistemology.


(Note, for example, the importance that Buddhists give to virtue!)


EDIT:

Note how Jehovah Himself called the Israelites "stiff-necked people" and that He Himself was apparently not all that fond of them:

Exodus 33:1-3
New International Version (NIV)

1 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Leave this place, you and the people you brought up out of Egypt, and go up to the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants.’ 2 I will send an angel before you and drive out the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 3 Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way.”


What we have is the Bible written from the perspective of Jews and Christians. But we don't hear much about God's perspective as such, other than indirectly from the perspective of Jews and Christians.

 

[GeoffP]

Interesting. I'm curious why you have a problem with this particular word.

utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.​

Call it an intense personal suspicion.

Or, in the nonvernacular, balance it against reason on the axis of NOMA.

 

[James R]

I do not think that hostile/militant criticism or ridicule can actually lead to wholesome and lasting change, so I see no wholesome justification for satire or parody.

Satire and parody are marvellous methods for holding a mirror up to certain aspects of society and/or culture.

It seems to be mostly humourless ideologues who denounce satire and parody, which in itself is quite revealing, don't you think?

 

[James R]

GeoffP:

Don't you think the "axis of NOMA" is a bit of a cop out? It's just a way of nicely partitioning off religion into a "no go" area for reason.

 

[Yazata]

How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God? The eyes on stalks sure makes the FSM look absurb.

Works great for snails.

Maybe the form? But God was a burning bush, so maybe that's not so relevant. The only difference is one has a long tradition and an old book to give it an air of legitimacy.

You know, the idea that the hypothetical first cause and ground-of-being of reality itself has the form of a human being, seems absurd to me.

I guess that many of the more sophisticated Christian theologians don't espouse physical anthropomorphism and don't really claim that God has a giant cosmic body like our own, with a giant butt, scrotum and belly button.

But the vast majority of them still seem to hold to psychological anthropomorphism, insisting that the universe's ultimate principle is a person with something very much like a human psychology. We are supposed to be made in "his" image, after all.

Personally, I don't think that idea is any less absurd than the FSM's physical form.

 

[wynn]

Satire and parody are marvellous methods for holding a mirror up to certain aspects of society and/or culture.

And with what intention and with what results do they hold up that mirror that way?

It seems to be mostly humourless ideologues who denounce satire and parody, which in itself is quite revealing, don't you think?

Yeah, totally.

 

[Sarkus]

So you don't think the whole thing rests on juxtaposing scientific warnings with something as everyday as water?
And that this is absurd?

Nope. These are two entwined ideas to create satire, they are not juxtaposed.

so you don't think its absurd that the desirability of something be simply a matter of how hard it is to attain?

Strawman, LG. Where have I said otherwise?

...
ditto above?
...
ditto above?
...
so they seem to agree that satire requires absurdity.

And I have said no different.

What exactly was your point?

That satire does not require any more absurdity than already present in that which is being satirised.
Your argument was that the FSM was more absurd than the Christian God as satire necessarily requires it to be more absurd.

But since you seem to be erecting another strawman... :shrug:

To be honest at the moment it appears you are lodging an argument that satire has a requirement for absurdity.

In the eyes of the satirist, yes, as it is not satire if there is nothing to ridicule.

I am not sure how this helps you suggest that the FSM is not necessarily more absurd than christianity

There is no necessity about it. It may be more absurd, as exaggeration is a tool of the satirist.
But it is not necessary.

 

[Yazata]

The premise supposes a being we can't really understand. If you wanted to say it's an unrooted mythical premise, you could argue that. To call God 'absurd' is a bridge I'm not crossing today.

Depends on what the word 'absurd' means, I guess. In normal speech, it seems to refer to the state of being incoherent, in the sense that something isn't consistent with the rest of our knowledge and experience. Absurd things are strays, outliers.

That in turn seems to have both a descriptive and a prescriptive dimension.

The descriptive dimension would revolve around what (purported) knowledge and (alleged) experience a particular community actually possesses. If a community has no knowledge of electricity or electromagnetic radiation, the description of a cell-phone would seem absurd. If a community believes that it possesses revealed religious knowledge about ultimate things, the idea of their God won't seem absurd to them at all.

The descriptive dimension describes what communities of people do in fact find absurd.

From our own perspective, we might not agree with all of their ascriptions of absurdity. We might think that we have far better knowledge and experience of many things. We are apt to laugh at them when they think that cell phones are big-mojo magic. And we are apt to dismiss their faith in their God as absurd.

But I think that most of us would agree that our particular culture at this particular time isn't the last word on knowledge and experience by any means. So we start to generate a new and more prescriptive idea of absurdity -- the idea of 'absurdity-in-principle' or 'absolute absurdity'. Ideas that any rational being should find absurd, no matter what their level of knowledge and experience is.

And I'm less sure that human beings have, or ever will have, any access to that absolute standpoint. (That's a big part of why I'm an agnostic.)

Meaning that ascriptions of absurdity are probably always going to be descriptive, local and culture-specific.

 

[Cyperium]

If absurdity is because something is less probable to exist, then the FSM is less probable to exist because we made it with that intention. Also the FSM is made of spaghetti, and God is made to resemble man (as if you believe in God man is made to resemble God), spaghetti isn't aware of anything, but man is. As such a God that is aware is more likely to resemble a human than to resemble spaghetti.

It isn't always true to say that religious ideas are a fabrication by us either (which is probably what the FSM is trying to show), the fact that there is similarity between cultures in their religious ideas with no obvious connection between them tells us that at least parts of the religious ideas comes from nature itself, that we are predisposed to have ideas that resemble spirituality in different ways. As such religious ideas are to some extent "natural" while the FSM is made to be un-natural.

 

[kx000]

If absurdity is because something is less probable to exist, then the FSM is less probable to exist because we made it with that intention. Also the FSM is made of spaghetti, and God is made to resemble man (as if you believe in God man is made to resemble God), spaghetti isn't aware of anything, but man is. As such a God that is aware is more likely to resemble a human than to resemble spaghetti.

It isn't always true to say that religious ideas are a fabrication by us either (which is probably what the FSM is trying to show), the fact that there is similarity between cultures in their religious ideas with no obvious connection between them tells us that at least parts of the religious ideas comes from nature itself, that we are predisposed to have ideas that resemble spirituality in different ways. As such religious ideas are to some extent "natural" while the FSM is made to be un-natural.

I believe he resembles the air outside. Or maybe he's both A, and B and the space in between...

 

[answers]

The difference? FSM is new, the christian god is old.

In 2000 years people will be taking FSM more seriously. The christian god was originally just a satire of the jewish god, now people get up in arms over it.