The FSM is on the agenda of the American Academy of Religion’s Annual Meeting. This article on CNN.com gives a fair representation of what Pastafarianism is all about and actually portrays it in a positive light, which surprised me. When I saw the title I braced myself for cheap shots (I guess I’ve watched too many supposedly fair interviews of Richard Dawkins in which he is constantly interrupted and attacked). Anyway, I thought the article was great, in fact, I forwarded it to all my friends who have looked curiously at the emblem on my car!
Bravo to CNN for an article that actually understands the point of Pastafarianism. Would love to be a fly on the wall at those FSM talks in San Diego.
Does it seem to anyone else that the theology students' reaction to the FSM is, well, bonkers?
Haven't you heard? They've found direct evidence for the FSM. http://tinyurl.com/yogog8
Blake –
I hear what Sunclipse is saying about the last quarter of the article. However, I interpreted it as an interesting question they were posing – not that they were drawing the conclusion that we use FSMism (or sports or Star Trek) to fill our “God shaped holeâ€. Overall, I thought the article fairly represented the ideas behind the FSM, even if they did pose controversial questions. (Cross posted at Sunclipse)
How can someone examine religion in such a broad sense and _not_ see that it's all fiction?
"To fill one's 'God-shaped' hole."
Heh.
That sounds kind of naughty. *snigger*
As I noted over at Making Light, this isn't even close to the first spoof religion to "get out of hand". (Hail Eris! ;-) )
Can you really call it a religion when it's lacking the very first requirement for it to be a religion? I.e. that you actually believe, on faith, that the deity you claim to follow is real despite lacking evidence to the contrary? Since everyone knows it's a spoof, nobody's really believing it, are they? Likewise, everyone pretty much knows their favorite football team is real. Perhaps the only thing taken on faith is the unwaivering conviction that your team is going to win.
Unless you're going to change the definition of what a religion is, it'll pretty much be limited to religions.
And of course, that should have been "despite lacking evidence either way".