I, Pastafari: A Flying Spaghetti Monster Story

[sun rise]

Don't you think there should be a method to check things rather than ancient books or beliefs?

The spiritual path is about checking things by personal experience beyond intellectual belief.

 

[crossfire]

Yeah, so what? I check my belief vis-a-vis science all the time. Not going with science will make it false. I believe science is the measure with which things should be weighed. Don't you think there should be a method to check things rather than ancient books or beliefs?

When you get down to the actual scientific method, it is basically empirical neti-neti, no?

 

[ronki23]

I never understood pastafarianism myself. It's clearly an attempt to defeat religion but the primary deity (Flying Spaghetti Monster) is clearly manmade:

spaghetti is made from mixing wheat flour and water
meatballs are made from killing pigs or cows ,cutting them and mashing them up
sauce is made from mixing tomato and garlic

You can't create a Centaur or a Minotaur and you don't see them roaming around

 

[sun rise]

When you get down to the actual scientific method, it is basically empirical neti-neti, no?

Falsifyability is considered by many to be essential but not by all such as is noted here: Does Science Need Falsifiability?

 

[sun rise]

I never understood pastafarianism myself. It's clearly an attempt to defeat religion but the primary deity (Flying Spaghetti Monster) is clearly manmade:

spaghetti is made from mixing wheat flour and water
meatballs are made from killing pigs or cows ,cutting them and mashing them up
sauce is made from mixing tomato and garlic

You can't create a Centaur or a Minotaur and you don't see them roaming around

That's not quite the history. FSM was created in response to the desire to teach "intelligent design" as science. Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

When you get down to the actual scientific method, it is basically empirical neti-neti, no?

Yes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes.

But everything can't be answered using the empirical method.

 

[crossfire]

But everything can't be answered using the empirical method.

Indeed. However, the fact that not everything can be answered by using the empirical method (such as the differences in two separate individuals' qualia regarding a commonly observed event) does not mean that it can be called prudent to take license to outrightly discard empirical evidence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But everything can't be answered using the empirical method.

If the answersw are not available, then we wait till they are(available). Better than accepting false answers.

 

[PureX]

Indeed. However, the fact that not everything can be answered by using the empirical method (such as the differences in two separate individuals' qualia regarding a commonly observed event) does not mean that it can be called prudent to take license to outrightly discard empirical evidence.

That very rarely happens. What usually happens is that people have a different criteria for what they consider significant or pertinent evidence.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Knowledge itself doesnt require science.

 

[crossfire]

That very rarely happens. What usually happens is that people have a different criteria for what they consider significant or pertinent evidence.

The point being that different individuals will have different reactions to the same stimuli. We are not robot automotons programmed to all clone the same subjective reactions to the same stimuli.
These subjective differences are real--even between identical twins.

 

[PureX]

The point being that different individuals will have different reactions to the same stimuli. We are not robot automotons programmed to all clone the same subjective reactions to the same stimuli.
These subjective differences are real--even between identical twins.

The point, to me, is that they result in a different perception and understanding of reality. For everyone. Objective reality may be objective, but our experience of it is not. Nor is our understanding of it.