debate-pointsThere are multiple different satires of religous beliefs, that are not only meant to be funny, but also provide a method of reflecting on religious belief by using the methods of that belief on a different incredible thing.
Do you consider making use of such satires (such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster) in your debates with religious believers useful?
It’s insulting, so, no, probably not. If you’re debating one in front of a crowd, and you want a cheap laugh, and you want to force him to differentiate his god from the FSM, sure. It’s still intellectually cheap, but that’s valid in debate.
If you’re having a serious discussion though, it doesn’t really have a place.
It is better to bring up some stories about gods that you both don’t believe in. For instance, if the person that you are talking with is Christian, then talk to them about some of the Hindu gods.
Things like Pastafarianism should only really be used as an in-joke. Anything else really isn’t useful.
No.
It’s likely to be considered offensive and thus a distraction.
This depends on who the debate is with, but I don’t mind generalizing from my experience: Analogies don’t work very well with the devoutly religious. They aren’t understood as a comparison of select similarities between things that are otherwise quite different. They are perceived as diversions – a change of the subject. This fundamental misunderstanding of how analogies work is one of the main reasons I believe those that are devoutly religious continue on as so; they can compartmentalize with great ease.
It is unfortunate that one of the most powerful tools for reconciling inconsistent thought is missing from so many’s vocabulary. I have often thought that helping to ingrain a strong sense of analogy and its usefulness is a prerequisite for effectively getting certain points across. However, this can be a difficult task to accomplish without coming across as condescending.
If it’s used to illustrate something like John Loftus’ Outsider Test for Faith, or as an illustration of the absurdity of the “God in the Gaps” argument, then yes. If it is simply to ridicule, then it’s likely to backfire.
Let’s not forget what the FSM satire was meant to do in the first place: ID proponents say that there had to have been an intelligence which created the Universe, but they (dishonestly) claim not to say anything about its identity. FSM was a way to get them to fess up to the fact that they really were advocating for their God, not just any old “intelligence” as the creator of the world. It was also an illustration of the weakness of the “teach both sides” argument, but claiming that if the Bible were to be included because some people believe it to be true, then beliefs as absurd as the FSM must also be included; there is no way for governments to distinguish between Christianity and FSM without violating the establishement clause.
90% YES; 10% NO. Depends on your goal.
10% No. One to one argument, intending to convince: Likely to be seen as mocking and belittling the individual personally. This is a no win situation, and while I see nothing wrong with using the metaphor of the FSM, it likely will not be “effective” here.
90% YES. Debate with theist; target of “changed thinking” is the audience listening: Deploying the FSM against a debate opponent MAY allow third party observers to get the point without feeling attacked personally. This goes for letters to the editor, columns, blogs, etc. Getting the idea OUT, in a “strange” way is good. One might even say it is “ART”… causing people to reconsider familiar issues/ideas/themes with a new perspective and understanding. Art is good.
The FSM is a wonderful method of directly undercutting a number of theistic claims, and so is very valuable in helping to change minds by showing alternative ways of thinking about fundamental beliefs about their God. Mockery of absurd beliefs (with the definition of “mockery” being “holding it up to the common light of reasoned assessment, for scorn and/or ridicule because of its complete abandonment of EITHER) is a tactic that must be deployed… not only because it is a back-door way to squeeze ideas past minds resistant to frontal attacks, but because WE cannot be held hostage to those who put absurd claims out into the “meme”sphere, and then DEMAND that they be off limits to criticism.
In a religious debate per say? No, not really. Depending on their maturity (and how you present it to them), they’ll end up thinking that you’re just mocking them, and thus start ignoring any other logic you bring up.
On the other hand though, if you know the person, and your in an uncharged conversation, it may (again, depending on their maturity) be useful to bring it up. In this situation, it wouldn’t seem like a personal attack, and would seem more like humor, and it would give the message a better chance to sink in.
That depends. Are you debating that atheists don’t have a sense of humor? :)
Yes and no.
The yes
When you want to start a debate, you want something for you to compare others with. A toy religion, is a very nice starting point. It is just like a ground for thought (or speech) experiments in which there is no people burning your family to hell when you mock their religion. To most theists, mocking a toy religion is much better than mocking with THEIR religion.
It is, in fact, most useful when we are talking to atheists rather than talking to theist - what I mean is that with such toy religion we don’t really have to mention a deity, and we get to use a name that we can say “and so FSM created this universe”, an “FSM uses its noodly appendages to affect the readings of your deityometer readings” to sort of further an explanation that such theory is not refutable in a world where explanation by deity is acceptable.
The no
Problem is that theists do not seem to respect toy religion as much as they do with other religion. (which is quite wrong, in fact.) and they will have a hard time understanding your statement with FSM.
And, most of the time, people u want to argue with don’t have a sense of humor =)
Yes, I do think it’s useful. Humor isn’t a bad way to broach a subject.
Case in point: A colleague at work had an FSM mug at his desk. I lightheartedly mentioned that I’d have to bring in my WWJD mug to pulverize his FSM mug.
Anyway, regardless of which side of the discussion you’re on, if your goal is to start a conversation, humor or satire is an easy way to do that. And to your question, it isn’t a bad way to continue the discussion, either.
I think the real problem with using satire in debates isn’t necessarily the satire, but the fact that the line between satire and something people actually believe is amazingly blurry. This past Christmas, an incident over a nativity scene in front of a courthouse – I believe it was in Tennessee but don’t hold me to that – resulted in the addition of a holiday message from people claiming to follow the religion of Jedi.
On the other side of the coin, if all you knew about Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church was a website, wouldn’t you believe this, too, was some outlandish satire?
At the crux of this, is a meme known online as Poe’s Law, which holds that there’s no such thing as an idea or concept in the realm of either religion or politics, that someone, somewhere, won’t take it seriously.
For all we know, maybe someone out there truly believes in the FSM. I’m sure a lot of the more fundamentalist theists think so.
Does that, in and of itself, render the satire unusable? Not really, but it can create for some interesting pitfalls, and it stifle any attempts to point out that all religions teach some pretty ridiculous things…
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.