Читать книгу The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - Bobby Henderson - Страница 10

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.