The Flying Spaghetti Straw Man

Recently on the campus of the University of Central Arkansas (UCA), a former student of mine was handed a pamphlet by a fellow student, espousing the virtues of the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (CFSM). Its members call themselves "Pastafarians" and dress like pirates.

Background

The fliers are distributed by a real student group (The Secular Student Alliance), but the CFSM is not a real church. It is a parody religion that was invented by a secular humanist (atheist) in order to make a particular point. In 2005, the Kansas State Board of Education was debating whether to add Intelligent Design (ID) to their curriculum, teaching it alongside Darwinian evolution. In response, Bobby Henderson wrote an open letter to the local newspaper promoting a third view—that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster—that should be taught alongside evolution and ID. His point was to discredit the only other “religious” view—Intelligent Design. (Arguably atheism is a religious, theological position as well.) The atheist community has adopted the FSM argument and made it its own. Also, it seems that the FSM has become the mascot of atheism more broadly, rather than just a token of the evolution/ID culture war.

A Christian response

In the spirit of reason and love, I think the best course of action for Christians, such as my former student, is not to return in kind with equally caricatured parodies of atheism. As the late Francis Schaeffer writes in The God Who Is There, such a response reveals a desire to simply win an argument rather than a desire to love the people whose ideas you oppose. The right course of action ought to be to try to determine what exactly their objection (or argument) is and give a reasoned response to that argument. (see 1 Peter 3:15-17) So, what is their argument exactly?

Their argument

I take FSM as a de jure argument against the belief that God created the universe. This requires a bit of explanation. A de jure argument is one that states that it is irrational to believe proposition x. In contrast, a de facto argument states that argument x is simply false.

A de facto argument looks something like the following: It is false to believe that the dark side of the moon is covered with spiraling high-rise buildings. We've seen the dark side of the moon, and there are exactly zero high-rise buildings there. Therefore, the claim is false.

An example of a de jure argument is as follows: It is irrational to believe that there is a very sophisticated race of giant pink bunnies that live at the center of Mars. While this is a logical possibility, it is highly irrational to believe such a thing. People who espouse such views would be thought insane. The FSM argument, as far as I can tell, makes no claims that Christianity is false, but that it is irrational. Here are the premises:

• Belief that the FSM is the creator of the world as we know it (A) is obviously irrational.
• (A) and the belief that the Christian God is the creator of the world (B) are the same.
• Therefore, (B) is obviously irrational.

Given the two premises, I agree that their conclusion is valid. However, the second premise [that (A) = (B)] is simply false; therefore, the conclusion must be false. We must examine the second premise.

My argument

The FSM argument is a straw man. Secular atheists have set up an argument that is allegedly equal to Christianity and attacked it. However, the belief in FSM and the belief in the Christian God are not even remotely comparable. The FSM argument is much weaker and, therefore, much more easily defeated. I agree with the secular humanists that belief in the FSM does not pass the threshold of rationality (what Plantinga calls “warrant”). Unlike the secular humanists; however, I believe that Christian belief does pass the threshold of rationality. It is warranted and, therefore, rational.

Christian belief is not limited to the proposition that some unknown and fantastical being created the cosmos. Even if we reduce orthodox Christianity to the lowest common doctrinal denominator (that which is held by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox traditions), Christianity is far more complex than the simple proposition that some being called “God” exists and created the world. To borrow C.S. Lewis' title, “mere Christianity” is a complex network of interlocking beliefs. The complexity of the structure corresponds to the complexity of this reality, of which it tries to make sense. An oversimplified belief structure, like FSM, is incapable of making sense of this complex reality we find ourselves inhabiting. This whole complex network of beliefs is called by philosophers a “noetic structure,” but more commonly it is called a “worldview.”

A worldview is a set of lenses (assumptions) through which we see the world, and everyone has a worldview—even atheists. Some worldviews adequately make sense of the world around us, and others do not. While the origin of biological life is certainly an important part of any worldview, it is not limited to this question. I can see why someone would have a hard time accepting the fact that life (or the whole universe) was created by an invisible God who has no sensible form. (I don't find the cosmological argument for the existence of God to be adequate alone.) However, Christians don't become Christians because of that belief alone. Most, I think, become and remain Christian because of the cumulative explanatory power of the whole Christian worldview. Christianity simply makes sense of the world around them. Even if you find a naturalistic form of Darwinian evolution superior as an explanation for the existence of the biodiversity we have today, pure naturalism absolutely fails to answer so many other important worldview questions, such as:

• What is evil?
• What is good?
• What is friendship?
• How can something come from nothing?
• Why have the vast majority of humans in history been theistic?
• How can you explain the remarkable cross-cultural consistency of the human moral code?
• Why do we have a conscience?
• Why do people adopt and love non-biological children?
• Why do we feel compelled to make art?
• How did organic life begin?
• Why do firemen run into burning buildings to save strangers?
• Why do some things strike us beautiful?
• Why are people inherently drawn to happy endings and good superheros?
• What is justice?
• How can we know right from wrong?
• Why do we even have categories for "right" and "wrong"?
• Why does rape strike the human heart as inherently wrong?
• Why do we demand justice when we're abused?

There are countless other questions that only Christianity is able to answer satisfactorily. (I welcome comments of other questions you may have.)

If atheists (or the supposed pirate Pastafarians) want to be taken seriously by Christians, they need to begin by answering these very serious human questions. To ignore these questions is to ignore what makes us human. Silly pamphlets and a single explanation of where we came from are not sufficient to win us over. Why should the question of origins receive supreme priority? Show us you actually care about our humanness and answer all the questions above. We've answered them. Now, it's your turn.

Conclusion

I do take the secular de jure argument seriously and have tried to offer a cogent and respectful argument in response. To those who are atheists, I hope this is received in the same spirit of love in which it was intended. I want human-to-human conversation, rather than shouting and hate. If any "Christians" have responded with hate, let it be condemned here. I suspect that Christians and atheists alike tend to respond with vitriol when they don't know how to make an argument in response. It may be that they are afraid their whole worldview might be torn down. That can be terrifying, and fear produces anger. That is why the loving thing to do, on both sides, is to stay calm and present each side accurately and fairly. I welcome all comments that are fair, reasoned, and seeking after common truth. 

----------------------

Special thanks to my senior Bible classes for helping me to think through this issue. You are exceptional people, and I'm blessed to know you and serve you as your teacher. Thanks to: Kirsten, Kirk, William D., Jake, Cory, Kimmy, Luke, Allison, Breanna, Camille, Jamie, Jenny, Lance, Drue, Jacob, Harrison, Ethan, Bradley, Austin, Maci, Rebekah, Calli, Tyler, Robbi, Shandi, and Sarah Jo.