Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
I guess if he wants to be a fool, let him.
You’re quick to call him a fool and the story may be amusing, but everyone should keep in mind that the grounds he has to practice Pastafarianism–or any religion–are the same grounds that in this country of the USA grant us the free liberty to practice Catholicism at our discretion.
Not quite. “Pastafarianism” is not an actual relgion – as far as I know, no one actually believes it – but an ironic way for irreligious people to express how moronic they think religion is. Until some evidence turns up that it’s anything more than this, there’s no reason to give it the sort of legal protection that attaches to legitimate religions. By “legitimate” I mean not necessarily intelligent, widespread, or anything else, but simply that there’s anyone in the world who seriously believes and follows it.
“You’re quick to call him a fool…”
Proving that JohnE is a good judge of character.
+JMJ+ OK, anyone else bother to look at the website? Come on, worshiping FOOD? It even says on the blog that this is based on wishful thinking. Jimmy, does that classify as a religion? Just “wishful thinking?” What exactly are the requirements to make a religion recognized as a religion?
Whenever atheists tell me that there is as good a reason to believe that there’s a Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is to believe that the God of classical theism exists (something I hear far more frequently than I’d like to admit), I challenge him: Provide me with *one* argument for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that is as strong as, say, Aquinas’s First Way, or as strong as one of the many versions of the argument from contingency, or as strong as Collins’s version of the fine tuning argument, or as strong as Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument, or as strong as Swinburne’s cumulative case argument, or as strong as — you get the picture. I then say that for an argument for the FSM to be “as strong,” it must (1) be logically valid, and (2) use premises that are minimally as plausibly true as the premises used in the arguments I mentioned above.
Surprisingly, the discussion usually ends after I throw that challenge out there.
The few who continue usually make the mistake of running one of the above arguments while cleverly (ok, not really) replacing ‘God’ in the conclusion with ‘FSM,’ at which point I explain the basic logical principle of the identity of indiscernibles to them (if we posit two entities, X and Y, and it turns out that X and Y have exactly the same properties, then X is Y), which means that they’re just calling God the FSM, at which point they call me stupid or deluded and move on.
That’s the tolerant, rational freethinking crowd for you. They could use a good dose of Chesterton (for starters).
Eric: I wish I could see one of these conversations in person. Unfortunately, I don’t really have any atheist friends. 🙂
I have atheist friends, but not the flying spaghetti kind. My friends are smarter than that.
How’s this? I’m a Pastafarian and I hold to firm belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Glad that’s taken care of.
No evidence necessary as evidence is not prerequisite to belief. I can believe whatever I like be I informed or ignorant and I would be under the protection of the law (and, I’d go so far as to say, justified by the natural liberties granted to me as an intelligent human being).
Already took care of this. My point being, of course, that you do not posses the omniscient capacity to scan the entirety of the universe to confirm your statement that there is nobody in the world who adheres to Pastafarianism. All ya need is a single person who says they do.
Just to mention that the Flying Spaghetti Monster joke originates from a South Park episode that was actually not anti-religion but anti-atheism, or more precisely anti-atheists like Richard Dawkins (who was brutally mocked and ridiculed during the episode), the “FSM joke” itself being meant to ridicule, not theistic arguments, but, on the contrary, atheists’ arguments (the joke being that a character instantly and loudly accepts this weak argument for the sole purpose of seducing Richard Dawkins).
So, the fact is that atheists spend a lot of energy embracing a joke that was meant to ridicule THEM, thereby proving their inability to comprehend humor.
Thibaud, you’re incorrect on several accounts. Inform yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#cite_ref-Luskin_South_Park_63-0
Josh, you’re not fooling anyone.
Seriously, where do people find the time to devote to this? I could not imagine having the time to argue with officials about something so mundane. Perspective of priorities is an interesting thing.
I can believe whatever I like be I informed or ignorant and I would be under the protection of the law (and, I’d go so far as to say, justified by the natural liberties granted to me as an intelligent human being).
Actually, no, you would not be. If you believe you must act under the belief that all people whose name contains the letter X must be killed, you surrender all protection for the belief (and belief to act) under the law.
Laws are made to promote the common good. There simply are a subset of beliefs that do not meet this criteria, not even arguably, and, hence, do not enjoy protection under the law.
The Chicken
The purpose of allowing religious headcovering in ID photos is because this is how the person normally appears in public because it is always worn in public, eg Sikh turban. Religious headcovering which is only sometimes worn in public eg bishop’s mitre would not be worn in such ID photos.
If he were sincere he would be wearing the pasta strainer in public at all times. And I would expect any official to query his photo ID if he was not wearing the pasta strainer in public.
Josh:
Even if you grant this (which I don’t), what is at issue is not religious belief, but the existence of religions. The existence of religion is a sociological fact which even an atheist must accept. The content of Christianity (or insert whatever religion you like) is highly disputable, but the fact that there are Christians is not. That is not true of the satirical thought experiment known as Pastafarianism.
All you’ve done here is to make a little semantic bend by which you blur the obscurity between belief and action–which are separate and distinct. What you take moral issue with is something of a “belief to act” which, when we break it down, is really a belief plus an action. It is only the former with which I’m concerned.
But sure. For the sake of argument, I’ll bite. Let me say that I think it is implied by the nature of my argument for natural liberties that I would never defend any belief which denies any individual any fundamental right. Especially not the right to life. I’ll also remind everyone that my comment in which I stated that I can believe whatever I want to was in direct response to The Pachyderminator’s horribly arbitrary statement that evidence ought to be necessary for a belief to have any “sort of legal protection.”(Bye-bye to most of the world’s religions!)
I agree.
As I think I pointed out, your semantic construction doesn’t really exist. Again, what these laws you speak of proscribe is action, itself.
Leo, what you’re saying makes sense and I’d agree with it. Except that it would seem to mean that everybody, in the interest of sincerity, would need to be sure never to lose or gain any weight, modify his hair length, color, or style, have any plastic surgery, or in any other way change his appearance from the way it is portrayed in an ID’s photo representation.
Some rights recognized by the government are not absolute natural rights. The right to life is an absolute natural right, but rights to freedom of speech, religion, and expression are not. They have limits. I can’t go around killing people in the name of freedom of religion, and I can’t publish (truly) seditious speech in the name of freedom of speech. The Supreme Court in this country has ruled that freedom of speech ends where the speech constitutes a “clear and present danger”. I think that interpretation is itself able to be misinterpreted and misapplied a little too easily, but it demonstrates that some rights are not absolute. The “right” to have a religion recognized that no one really believes is not a right at all.
“All you’ve done here is to make a little semantic bend…”
Actually, what the Chicken did was to engage in something called “L-O-G-I-C”.
It seems to me that you’re only taking into consideration those religions which are recognized as organized. There are countless “unorganized,” properly termed “faiths” or “belief systems” out there which have any number of followers and whose followers engage their prerogatives to believe and practice what they choose.
All you’ve done here is to make a little semantic bend by which you blur the obscurity between belief and action–which are separate and distinct.
Actually, they are not. Belief is an action, albeit a mental one. Belief informs all external voluntary actions. Your actions betray your beliefs.
Simply put, there are some beliefs that one is not allowed to hold: for instance, the belief that water is dry and wet. There are other beliefs that are deonticly forbidden, such as the belief that it is permissible to murder. These deonticly forbidden beliefs come from the Natural Law. They represent the anthropological constant for behavior in man. There are other beliefs that are simply wrong. One may hod them, but at their peril: for example, one may believe that cyanide is health and ought to be ingested, everyday. This is a belief one gets to act on only once.
The connection between belief and act is exposed when one considers that the work, “belief,” comes from the same roots as the German, ” beleiben,” which means to be in love with. Love seeks to be one ith the beloved and hence is moved o act.
The Chicken
Sorry for the misspellings. IPad auto-spell…
The Chicken
This is not a hard and fast rule. People behave contradictory to their beliefs all the time. Example: the Catholic who sins will full knowledge and intent.
It’s not that one is not permitted to hold this belief–or any other belief that is at odds with what we know to be truth. I am permitted to believe that cyanide is a vitamin. I am permitted to believe that the earth is flat or that the sun is a teapot. There is no entity in the universe which has the the power or force to compel me to change my mind on such ideas.
Now…I am also permitted to believe that anyone of race x should be murdered. I am permitted to believe that y individuals should not have the right to vote in the USA. I’m also permitted to believe that I can take from anybody whatever I like. These beliefs may be contrary to the truth and explicitly indefensible. But in holding these beliefs, I have done nothing wrong and I have violated nobody. I could never be incriminated on the grounds that I believe any of this because it is my prerogative and right to do so.
The minute, however, that I murder somebody, attempt to prevent someone from exercising his right to vote, or take something that does’t belong to me, I have–distinct from my beliefs–acted. And in that action lies the issue.
Josh,
Since, it appears that you believe that one cannot sin in thought, then that where the discussion must begin. You are confusing free will with the content of the intellect informing the will. You are free to think what you like, since God granted you free will, but he did set the structure for the proper ordering of that will, including how it is used to direct the intellect. Belief implies an act of the will, not merely the intellect and since the will is the seat if sin, it certainly is wrong to believe certain things, even if permitted, just as it is wrong to murder someone even if God permits you to do it without interfering. A thunderstorm is threatening, so I will postpone my comments until later.
Compared to what Episcopalians are now believing and doing I think Pastafarianism might be a good alternative for them.
I would also think that now that Pastafarianism has been in existence for a few weeks the time has come, like all Protestant groups, for a breakaway group; – and that would be the ClutenFree Pastafarians.
After all they have the right to their own cult. They would come to be known as Glutenfreerers.
They would need their own strainers and of course it would be important that women have equal rights to wear the strainer.