I've another interesting find on the internet. Been seeing the words Flying Spaghetti Monster for a while and was really wondering what they're all about. What I discovered is that they are now a legit religion, whatever legit means. I'm still quite confused about what makes a religion a religion and what makes something else a cult. Seems like a belief system is occult if it's leader is really just a scammer out to get your money, or society judges it as 'too weird,' like this one group that appeared in the news where the people believed that the way to enlightenment was through 'bunot' (having your teeth pulled out while on a meditative state).
Did some searching and found a site dedicated to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. These people have a sense of humor. I actually like them. The site covered one of their...I think it's a procession of sorts, they're raising up the image of their god here:
 |
| Creator spotted! |
From what I gather, their main thrust is to encourage people to be rational about things. I agree, otherwise, what's your brain for if you just follow what the whole flock is doing? I, personally, am strongly against fanaticism. It is one dangerous state, I dare say. In this state, people can be so blinded by their beliefs that they act almost as if hypnotized, going on killing sprees for their god, or trampling on others in the hopes of wiping a towel on the miraculous Black Nazarene. That is dangerous indeed.
But on the other hand, I am also skeptical of groups that place too much value on the human rational mind. Let's not forget that the same rational thinking is also behind the persecution of the poor. It is what logically allowed us to come up with the idea of maximizing profit, giving birth to feudal systems and uncompassionate corporate hierarchies. Priding ourselves with rationality, it is always logical to ask "Will this benefit me?" "How can I maximize profit and minimize cost?"
Yes, let's be rational, but let's not leave out another part of being human--the capacity for spirit or mysticism. The Greeks, a people that nurtured some of the greatest philosophers of all time,
called this mystikos (μυστικός), meaning 'an initiate.' From Wikipedia, Mystikos is:
...the knowledge of, and especially the personal experience of, states of consciousness, or levels of being, or aspects of reality, beyond normal human perception, including experience of and even communion with a supreme being.
Mysticism is scary to the rational mind. It is a different state of mind that is highly valued by ascetics and monks. But it is this different way of thinking that has also enlightened many persons on the value of working for something greater than oneself. How limited our being as humans if we just box ourselves within this thing called reason. Reason has no space for kindness or love, except in that these things will ultimately benefit the self in the end.
Anyway going back, The Church of FSM actually has an FAQ area. I feel like commenting a bit, but you can read the full text at their
website:
Q: To what extent do Pastafarians need evidence to support
their beliefs? What is considered valid evidence, and why are some
religious ideas lacking evidence believed more widely than others? Why
is Christianity more widely accepted than Pastafarianism?
A: For many religions, acceptance is due to the time it has been
around and due to the number of people who already follow it. For
potential followers it’s often less a consideration of evidence, and
more a judgment that the collective group of followers is better
informed. That millions or billions of people already follow this
religion is strong social proof that there is something to it. The
larger the group and the longer it has been around, the more pronounced
the effect. - (This is very true, in short these are called the Bandwagon effect and the fallacy Appeal to Tradition)
But nonbelievers are overreaching when they dismiss the phenomenon of
religion as wrong and useless because it so often lacks a basis in
evidence. The fact that millions of people get something positive out
of a religion – even if it is based in superstition – *does* mean
something. But that’s not to say it’s True, only that it has Value. - (Let me just challenge this position, I mean who are we to say that only science can be true? Is Value any less important compared to Truth? Because if it is, then religion, which has Value, should thereby be dismissed altogether. This statement contradicts itself.)
For
many people, religion is about being part of a community and being part
of something bigger and more important than themselves. - (Uh-uh, discussed in Mystikos above)
Nonbelievers would be better off criticizing only on the negative,
damaging parts of religion, and being less judgmental about the idea of
religion in general. Nonbelievers get hung up asking for evidence when
really we should be looking at why does religion thrive despite
evidence? - (Interesting point you have here. This is certainly something that should be studied further)
We should be pushing the idea that faith is not equivalent to
evidence-based-reasoning without insisting that it’s inferior, only
that they are different ways of seeing the world. And that the problems
happen when these world views clash. - (Another contradiction. If faith is not equivalent to evidenced-based-reasoning then why is this different way to see the world any less true than the scientific approach?)
Pastafarianism is different than most religions in that we explicitly
make the point that our scripture need not be believed literally. In
other religions this is known but not often said out loud (Many
Christians don’t take the Bible literally but won’t volunteer this).
Pastafarian scripture has some outlandish and sometimes contradictory
components – and unlike the scripture of mainstream religion, these
pieces were intentional and obvious, and our congregation is aware of
this. - (The congregation is aware now, but will they be in the future? The Creationist myths had the same function in the past, to explain existence. But through time people began to interpret them as what really happened despite scientific evidence)
Well, I can only say this to those people: it’s only because of the
insistence that we were *not* legitimate, that there was motivation to
*be* a legitimate religion. You see, our religion, like Christianity
and other mainstream religions, is based *not* on a foundation of
evidence, but of community. The Pastafarian church was built and its
legitimacy formed by people tired of being disenfranchised for thinking
rationally. We have every right to exist and form a religious community.
That many of us don’t literally believe our own superstitions or in
the existence of our own God is evidence that we’re thinking. - (Ah, so that's what they meant by legit)
I'm done. That was fun. I'll be keeping my eyes open for this group. Let's see what they have in store for the world.
