Читать книгу: «The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster»
The Gospel of the
FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER
BOBBY HENDERSON
Epigraph
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was “Arrrgh!”
—PIRATICUS 13:7
Contents
Cover
Title Page
Epigraph
Disclaimer
A Letter from Bobby Henderson
THE BLUNDERS OF SCIENCE
The Need for Alternative Theories
An American Viewpoint
Toward a New SuperScience
What’s the Matter with Evolution?
An Alternate Vision
FSM vs. ID, an Unlikely Alliance
Communion Test
Unified Spaghetti Theory
More Evidence
Kiwi Birds: Flightless?
EXPLAINING PASTAFARIANISM
A Condensed History of the World
Key Moments in FSM History
Bobby Answers the Big Questions
WWAPD?
The Holy Noodle
A History of Heretics
PROPAGANDA
The Pastafarian Guide to Propaganda
Pamphlets
Swag
Fund-raising
A Guide to the Holidays
Enlightenment Institute
A Final Note from Bobby Henderson and His Staff
Acknowledgments
Illustration Credits
About the Author
Copyright
About the Publisher
Disclaimer
WHILE PASTAFARIANISM IS the only religion based on empirical evidence, it should also be noted that this is a faith-based book. Attentive readers will note numerous holes and contradictions throughout the text; they will even find blatant lies and exaggerations. These have been placed there to test the reader’s faith.
Disclaimer About Midgets1
OUR RELIGION DOES NOT WISH to discriminate or cause hurt feelings among any group—and this is especially true of the very short, who, if provoked, could easily appear out of nowhere and attack. As a solution, we offer the following:
To prevent angering the little people community, we suggest that this book be placed on the very highest shelf possible.
1. Sometimes referred to as “midgits” or “little people.”
A Letter from Bobby Henderson
DEAR FRIEND,
Welcome to the wonderful world of religion!
These are exciting times in holiness—politicians are crusading, nations are invading, and science1 is fading. With these changes come religious opportunities the likes of which haven’t been seen since the Reformation … or at least since the persecuted masses first huddled together and shipped off from Old Blighty to that great democratic revival meeting we call the United States of America.
With this in mind, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) invites you to learn a little more about us. We’d like to tell you all about our Heaven, which features a Stripper Factory and a giant Beer Volcano. We’d love to see you dressed in His chosen garb: full Pirate regalia. We want you to enjoy Fridays as His chosen holiday. But first you need to know a little more about us.
What do we stand for?
• All that is good.
What are we against?
• All that isn’t good.
Sounds sweet, right? Of course it’s not that simple, and that’s why we need a book. (Doesn’t every religion have a book?) The Jews have the Bible (The Old Testicle), the Christians have ditto (The New Testicle), the Muslims have the Q-tip or whatever, the Jains have Fun with Dick and Jain, the Sufis have Sufis Up!, the Buddhists have the Bananapada, the Hindus have Ten Little Indians, the Wiccans have The Witches of Eastwick, and so on. If this was a manifesto, a pamphlet, a flyer, an article, or some nut preaching from a street corner, you, fair reader, might perceive FSMism2 to be just another two-bit cult. But we’re not a cult (we’re more like a boutique religion at this point), and this is a book that will stand up to any of the others—at least in terms of strict plausibility if not literary finesse and retributive beheadings and disembowelments. The more you read about us the more you’re going to be persuaded that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the true Creator and that FSMism just might be the Best. Religion. Ever.
Go ahead. Try us for thirty days. If you don’t like us, your old religion will most likely take you back. Unless it’s the Jains, whose feelings are easily hurt.
RAmen.
BOBBY HENDERSON
Prophet
1. Also known as the language of the forked tongue.
2. Also known as “Pastafarianism”.
THE BLUNDERS OF SCIENCE
Part of education is to expose people
to different schools of thought.
—GEORGE W. BUSH, closet Pastafarian
The Need for Alternative Theories
SCIENCE IS A SUBJECT IN CRISIS. There’s a dirty little secret that the scientific establishment has been trying to keep under wraps for years: There are many unproven theories that are being taught to people as if they were established fact. But thanks to the heroic efforts of a handful of deep thinkers, the winds of truth are sweeping across the nation.
Consider the theory of Evolution. To their credit, Intelligent Design advocates have successfully argued that their alternative theory deserves as much attention as Evolution, since neither can be considered fact. This is a valid point, but Evolution is hardly the only theory in trouble.
It seems strange that Evolution is singled out as “just a theory” when there are so many basic ideas in science that remain unproven, yet are still taught as fact. The objections to teaching Evolution have only illustrated this point further: Alternative theories must be taught in order to give our young students’ minds a broad foundation. The Intelligent Design proponents make a compelling, and totally legitimate, argument that if a theory has not been proven, then one suggested theory is just as good as another.
Take gravity, for example: the force of attraction between massive particles. We know a great deal about the properties of gravity, yet we know nothing about the cause of the force itself. Why are particles attracted to one other? If we review the literature, we find a lot of material dealing with the properties of gravity, but very little dealing with the underlying cause of this attraction. Until we have a proven answer to this question, it seems irresponsible to instruct students in what is, ultimately, just a theory. However, if we must discuss the theory of gravity at all, then it’s reasonable that all suggested theories should be given equal time, since none have been proven or disproven. Therefore, I formally submit that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is behind this strange and often misunderstood force.
What if it is He, pushing us down with His Noodly Appendages, that causes this force? He is invisible, remember, and is undetectable by current instruments, so in theory it is possible. And the fact that the gravitational powers of the Spaghetti Monster haven’t been disproven makes it all the more likely to be true. We can only guess as to His motives, but it’s logical to assume that if He is going to such trouble, there is a good reason. It could be that He doesn’t want us floating off earth into space, or maybe just that He enjoys touching us—we may never know.1
And while it’s true that we don’t have any empirical evidence to back up this theory, keep in mind the precedent set by Intelligent Design proponents. Not only is observable, repeatable evidence not required to get an alternative theory included in the curriculum, but simply poking holes in established theory may be enough. In this case, the established theory of gravity makes no mention as to the cause of the force; it merely presents the properties of it. I fully expect, then, that this FSM theory of gravity will be admitted into accepted science with a minimum of apparently unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense, including the peer-review process.
For further evidence of the true cause of gravity—that we are being pushed down by His Noodly Appendages—we need only look at our historical records. The average height of humans two thousand years ago was about five feet three inches for males, compared with an average height of around five feet ten inches for males today. Useless by itself, this information becomes quite important when viewed in terms of worldwide population. Humans, apparently obsessed with shagging, have increased their numbers exponentially over the years. We find, counterintuitively, that a small population correlates with shorter humans, and a larger population correlates with taller humans.2 This only makes sense in light of the FSM theory of gravity. With more people on earth today, there are fewer Noodly Appendages to go around, so we each receive less touching—pushing down toward the earth—and thus, with less force downward, we’re taller.
It is evident that early man received much more touching than his modern-day counterparts.
We can fully expect that as the population increases, and we receive less downward pushing by the FSM, we’ll continue to grow in height. Conversely, we can expect that the sudden occurrence of a worldwide plague would cause our average height to decrease. This phenomenon can be verified in historical records. We find that regions undergoing health crises have shorter people—strong evidence that the theory is sound.
No one is saying that the FSM theory of gravity is necessarily true, but at the very least, it’s based on sound science, sound enough to be included in the curriculum with the other nonproven theories. Until the currently taught theory of gravity, known as Newtonism, is proven as fact, alternatives should be taught as well.
The unusually high placement of this prehistoric cave art is attributed to the natural shelter that caves provided from His Noodly Appendages.
1. It would appear that midgets receive the most FSM touching—thus placing them on a pedestal in His eyes.
2. If we are to believe that height is a function of nutrition, as we’re told, then a smaller population with more food available per person should correlate to a taller height. This is not what we find.
An American Viewpoint
A Note from
Ferris P. Longshanks: County Sheriff, School Governor, Concerned Citizen
Honestly, fellow citizens, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. We’re not saying that Intelligent Design is any more valid than Evolution or any other half-baked theory of creation—all we’re interested in is giving people choices.
Isn’t that what America is all about?
Republican or Democrat
McDonald’s or Burger King
Coke or Pepsi
And here’s another to consider …
The Benevolent Lord Our Savior or
Everlasting Damnation in Hellfire
Whichever side you fall on doesn’t really matter, because we’re all Americans. Still, any real American supports his or her inalienable right to have choices—and lots of ’em. For what are people without choices? Communists! And despite this fact, there are those who would bar the public from having an open and honest discussion about Intelligent Design, a scientific concept that’s so clear and logical as to appeal to Baptist holy men and intellectually discerning Formula One fans alike.
Sometimes I see the hypocrisy and just shake my head.
Granted, these are controversial issues we’re dealing with, and well-reasoned people do disagree on whether life as we know it was created by a benevolent and all-knowing Creator (ID)—or through a random and heartless struggle for dominance, commonly known as survival of the fittest (Evolution).
For the sake of clarity, allow me to use a simple analogy to explain these two very different versions of creation.
Say you want to buy one of those new flatscreen TVs that are so popular these days. According to the opposing theories of ID and Evolution, you might acquire that TV in two very different ways:
1. You could assume, quite fairly, that Intelligent Designers from Sony, Toshiba, and Sharp are actively producing new and affordable forty-two-inch, high-definition flatscreen TVs, which are then boxed and shipped to the nearest Wal-Mart or Circuit City for you to purchase. Or …
2. You could wait several million years for a new flatscreen TV to evolve spontaneously from a “soup” composed of mud, DNA, and spare television parts. Once this happens, you might attempt to drag your new television out of a swamp and back to your house (or more likely, cave) before a stranger comes swinging out of a tree, kills you and your children, then inseminates your wife with his own seed.
As you can see, both theories present potentially dramatic consequences for society. I’m not saying that one scenario is more valid than the other, but I will say that the Intelligent Design option is the first one. In the interest of fairness, I’ll also say that Evolution (or Natural Selection) is the one where your wife gets raped by a man who lives in a tree. Both theories present unique challenges.
When considering the two, ask yourself which makes more sense in your life.
Then ask yourself, Who’s making these arguments, anyway?
ID proponents can boast of several scientists—brave men who are willing to be called upon by name—to represent their views. You’ve seen these pro-ID champions on your televisions (which, we can safely assume, were designed by engineers and bought from a store … further proof). You’ve observed them being viciously attacked by activist judges, the liberal media, and a certain Bobby Henderson. But where are the men of science who speak out in support of Evolution?
A number of scientists have been cited in defense of Evolution, but if we examine the situation more closely we begin to see a disturbing pattern.
Names like Darwin, Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Meyer—and many other scientists who 95 percent of the country have never heard of—are offered up as men who’ve supported Evolution. Yet you’ve never seen one of these so-called scientists publicly defending their theory. Why?
Answer: Because they’re all dead.
Hmm … coincidence? When the pro-Evolutionary movement has to resort to dead scientists (who are probably a little warm right now, if you get my drift), it makes one wonder how good an argument they actually have. What’s next … bringing back Aristotle (a homosexual) and Ptolemy (forgotten) to argue for a flat earth? Given the pro-Evolutionists’ track record, that can’t be too far away.
Dead.
As I’ve stated, we do see living judges trying to wield their laws in the face of this highly scientific discussion. However, I predict that the well-prepared ID scientists will soon have liberal activist judges quaking in their penny loafers. These judges are much better suited for sanctioning same-sex marriage, and most of them are old and easily confused. Ignore their words and proclamations, for they tire easily.
The liberal media has also chimed in on the subject, only to be reminded that they’re just overpromoted weathermen with good hair, deep voices, and small penises. I don’t have conclusive evidence on this last point, but looking at news anchormen I’m pretty sure it’s true. Don’t worry about the media, they’ll lose interest as soon as forest fire season returns.
Aside from dead scientists, activist judges, and the liberal media, one other man has arisen as a voice for the Evolutionists—if not necessarily to argue for Evolution, then at least to mock the ID movement. We know little about this man, who hails from the Pacific Northwest and calls himself “Bobby Henderson.”
Far be it from me to cast stones, but there are disturbing rumors about him going around. I read on the Internet that he’s not even a scientist. Also, a very reliable source reports that he lied about his military record. I hear that he’s been divorced three times and sleeps in a crypt. Not all of these rumors are verified, but if we’re to let this lying divorcé, who may or may not be a shape-shifting night creature, take a lead on this important debate, I can only pray for the redemption of this country.
In conclusion, I would like to return to my original argument: We the People need choices. We need as many choices as possible, and we can’t allow the leftist cabal of scientists, judges, Bobby Henderson, and the media to take these choices away from us. Write to your congressmen and demand that ID be taught in schools. Write to your religious leaders and demand that they write to your congressmen.
If we don’t act now, I fear the day will come when judges and the media are free to operate with little regard for the tempering hand of public outrage. Laws will be passed and upheld, and only judges will be able to rule on them. The media will report the news without threat of legal action. To put it bluntly, the god-hating communists will have finally won.
I wonder if they’ll appoint Bobby Henderson to be their dictator.
Toward a New SuperScience
WE ARE ENTERING INTO AN EXCITING TIME, when no longer will science be limited to natural explanations. Who is to say that there aren’t supernatural forces—magic, some might call it—at work, controlling events around us? Propelled by popular opinion and local government, science is quickly becoming receptive to all logical theories, natural and supernatural alike. Not since the Middle Ages have we seen such open-minded science policy.
What is science, really? Some might call it the observational, descriptive, experimental, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. And so, not surprisingly, there are a few who argue that supernatural theories have no place in science, since they make no testable claims about the world. But that idea is a little shortsighted. Science is also a collection of tools whose purpose is to enable mankind to solve problems. In this sense, supernatural—or magic, metaphysical, not real, what have you—theories have the potential to be just as helpful, if not more helpful, than the standard natural-only science we’ve used for the last two hundred years.
Extending the science tool metaphor further, shouldn’t we endeavor to give scientists the largest collection of tools possible? No one is saying that they have to apply a supernatural explanation to any particular phenomenon, only that the supernatural be available if nothing else works, or if it is convenient for deceptive political purposes. And remember, this is not a radical new idea. In terms of years in use, supernatural science—SuperScience, if you will—has the edge on conventional science. Conventional, or empirical, science has been in use for only a few hundred years. Obviously there must be a reason supernatural science lasted so long, before this empirical-science fad began. Could it be that supernatural science is more productive than empirical science?
Consider the discovery and development of new land, an important scientific pursuit by anyone’s standard. If we compare a period of time in which supernatural science was the norm—say the years A.D. 14001 to 1600, to a period of time in which empirical science was preferred—say the years 1800 to 2000—we can get a clear picture of just how detrimental empirical science can be.
Here, empirical science comes up short even with every technological advantage it possesses. Even with satellite imagery and GPS navigation, scientists bound by the chains of empiricism have been unable to discover even a paltry 3 percent of the amount of new land that their supernatural-science counterparts found in an equal period of time. Scientists and explorers in the years 1400–1600 had few maps, only a compass, cross-staff, or astrolabe for navigation, and no motorized transportation. Yet even with these setbacks, they still managed to discover more than 14 million square kilometers of new, developable land. Clearly their openness to supernatural forces had something to do with their success, and we can only guess that they were guided to these newfound lands by some creature—most likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as historical art suggests.
SUPERNATURAL SCIENCE
Years 1400–1600
14.5 million sq km
EMPIRICAL SCIENCE
Years 1800–2000
0.3 million sq km
It’s only logical to assume that returning to balanced methods of science—natural theories and supernatural theories both—would allow us to find more land, something we greatly need for our growing population. More land means more resources, and more resources means fewer starving children. I can safely say, then, that anyone against the inclusion of supernatural theories into science wants children to starve. Such people obviously have no place in policymaking, and so I suggest that they get no say on the issue.
The Italian explorer Christopher Columbus was guided by a Higher Power.
Next, we’ll look at medicine. It might seem crazy to claim that medicine was superior in the Middle Ages—when science included the supernatural—than it is today—being now limited to the study of natural phenomena—but let’s take a closer look. Medieval medicine was dominated by religion, and yes, sickness was generally thought to be punishment for sins, and so treatment then consisted mainly of prayer. But let’s not forget about the “antiquated” medical procedures that were ultimately so successful as to render them unnecessary today.
Bloodletting, the removal of considerable amounts of blood from a patient’s body, is considered heinous by today’s supposedly superior doctors, but who is to say that the procedure didn’t do more good than modern medicine? Medical texts from the Middle Ages—anyone with even a moderate understanding of Latin can read them, and we have no reason to doubt their validity—tell us that many ailments, from headaches to cancer, are the result of evil spirits who are angry with us. We now know, of course, that there are many causes for these ailments, not just spirits at work, but it’s clear from the texts that they were a very significant cause of sickness—one that does not exist today, because bloodletting worked so well as to defeat these sickness spirits completely, much the same way polio was cured with high doses of vitamin C. To those who disagree, let me ask you: When was the last time you suffered a demon-induced fever?
But there are more diseases out there, and it’s apparent that medical science, equipped with only modern methods, cannot defeat them all. Why not, then, give these doctors and scientists more tools and the flexibility to consider supernatural causes as well as natural ones? Who knows what other ailments, even non-demon-induced ones, might be cured with a simple bloodletting or application of leeches? We’ll never know until we try.
And while it’s true that many people believe in the power of prayer to cure disease, there’s never been any verifiable evidence to support the practice. That’s not to say it’s not possible—it certainly is possible that prayer aids in healing—but it could very well be that these prayers are being applied in a nonoptimal fashion, thus explaining the lack of evidence for their effectiveness. The truth is we don’t know because current scientific methods and religious sensitivities don’t allow this type of study. What if those praying are simply praying to the wrong God, or offending Him somehow? What if, by the wearing of a simple eye patch or Pirate bandanna, those praying might have their prayers answered by the FSM?
History is full of examples of supernatural events, and unless we are saying that we’re somehow more intelligent and educated, better equipped to understand unexplained events today than we were five hundred years ago, then we must accept the explanations given to these events by those who witnessed them. Witches, for example, existed in such quantity and caused so much trouble that it was necessary to hunt them down and burn them in the tens of thousands. Here it is, the twenty-first century, hundreds of years later, plenty of time for the population of witches to have grown exponentially, yet they are decidedly less of a problem now than they were half a millennia ago. I have never even seen a witch, let alone felt the need to burn one to death. We can conclude, then, that our forefathers, equipped with the knowledge that supernatural explanations were reasonable, rounded up all the witches in existence and took care of them.
The other possibility is that there are witches out there, hiding somewhere, plotting their revenge, liberally applying fireproofing compounds to themselves. And someday they may reappear and start causing trouble. And then what will our high and mighty scientists do? Throw calculators at them? Witches eat calculators. The scientific community will be helpless to defeat the threat of these witches, offering only “logical” and “reasoned” explanations for the horrible events the witches are magically inflicting on us.
We tend to exalt our rigid empirical methods and technological advances, almost as if we’re proud of what we’ve accomplished with them, but when the record clearly shows that supernatural, nonempirical science produces these kinds of results—the discovery of new lands, the elimination of demon-inducing illnesses, and the extinction of witches—it’s time to rethink our methods and return to what gave us real results.
Witch eating a calculator.
The biggest irony is that the arguments given against the inclusion of supernatural theories in the realm of accepted science actually show clearly that supernatural theories are legit fields of scientific study. No one is saying that empirical, natural-only science and supernatural science can’t live side by side. They can, and in fact, they must. Intelligent design may shun natural explanations for phenomena, but FSMism makes use of both the natural and the supernatural equally.
FSMISM
INTELLIGENT DESIGN
1. Al dente.
Бесплатный фрагмент закончился.
