I've been thinking....

[cherydactyl]

which is of course a dangerous pastime.

Anyway, it occurs to me that Christianity, Pastafarianism, and other monotheisitc religions require faith in a creator-god-being, aka faith in a personification or agent. Buddhism is about faith in a *set of principles*, starting with The Four Noble Truths (which I will paraphrase as: suffering exists, we create a lot if not all of it ourselves, there is a way to end it--and it's not suicide, and that way is to follow the Dharma, or teachings). Buddhism is about faith in a set of ideas instead of a Being (or Beings, if you're a polytheist). It's no wonder I prefer the Buddhist model.

P.S. If someone gets a Flying Spaghetti Monster applique for my car (like the catholic fish...you've seen those, right?), it will be applied forthwith.

P.P.S. I wonder if there is a Dewey Decimal designation for Pastafarian-related works. Are they in religion or comedy or education or politics?

Comments

[evalerie.livejournal.com]

...and of course there's the Darwin fish. Jan has one on our car. It's a fish that has evolved little feet, and it says "Darwin" inside.

[cherydactyl.livejournal.com]

Right! I knew I was forgetting a variety I had seen. Love those too. But they are just not as pointed a rebuttal as FSM, IMO.

[evalerie.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I'm a fan of both the Darwin fish and also the flying spaghetti monster. But I worry about both of them being extremely highly offensive to religious people.

[cherydactyl.livejournal.com]

Well, Pastafarianism was created specifically to rebut creationism in schools, not religion in general. If sommeone is offended by either of these symbols, they are likely guilty of not doing unto others as they would have done unto themselves, and of being unable to agree to disagree or differentiate contextual spheres. There are Christians and other people of faith who are able to appreciate the FSM; it's something other than being religious per se that causes people to be offended by the FSM story.

Creationism is not appropriate to teach in schools simply because it does not match the definition of science. That is, it is NOT TESTABLE. Something less ridiculous than the FSM and thatis equally untestable would also make this point, but not as well or hilariously. Arguably, the DARWIN fish serves the same purpose in the opposite way. But I like it less because by implication it makes evolution into a BELIEF instead of a scientific theory by equating it as somehow equivalent to a religious symbol. (This is why I'd rather have an FSM badge than a DARWIN badge.)

The whole point should be that evolution is a scientific theory that has stood up to years of testing and peer review, while Creationism (especially those strains that assert God made fossils appear older than the Earth on purpose to fool us--which drives me bonkers, because it's a backdoor attempt to say nothing is testable and science is a fallacy) is not testable at all. The two ideas are not comparable, and claiming or implying that they are comparable as an either-or proposition offends my logical brain.