5 posts tagged “fundamentalism”

Christian Thinker Brian Trapp has a lesson on hyperbole in response to the opening paragraphs of an article at Daylight Atheism and, ideologies notwithstanding, it's something everyone should read and ponder.  Read and watch Brian systematically dismantle an emotional rant with facts and sound reasoning as he exposes the writer for being guilty of the same sort of "wild-eyed rhetorical bombthrow[ing]" as those he targets. 

I don't post this to needle atheists nor, God forbid, in support of the religious right but rather as an example of how anyone can be so consumed with zeal for any ideology that s/he loses sight of reason and adopts a fundie mentality.  In this case, it just happens to be a Christian exposing the flawed fundie rhetoric of an atheist.  Far too often, imo, it's usually the other way around.  So, please, don't read Brian's article as a defense of Christianity (altho' I'm sure he intends it as such) but rather and a broad appeal to truth and reason no matter what ideology you embrace.

I fully realize that the dreaded f-word will be trotted out to stigmatize any model of this kind. Before responding, however, we must first look into the use of this term 'fundamentalist'. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like 'son of a bitch', more exactly 'sonovabitch', or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) 'sumbitch'. When the term is used in this way, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you feel obliged first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of 'fundamentalist' (in this widely current use): it isn't simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like 'stupid sumbitch' (or maybe 'fascist sumbitch'?) than 'sumbitch' simpliciter. It isn't exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation is that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase 'considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.' The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like 'stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine'.

Alvin Plantinga: Warranted Christian Belief

Hat Tip:  Brian Trapp

clipped from www.timesonline.co.uk You’re as much a fundamentalist as those you criticise. No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may “believe”, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will.

I appreciate Dawkin's distinction of a fundamentalist as a person who won't change his mind in the face of contrary evidence. However, the term fundamentalist or fundie, as it's often called, has several connotations and one of them, a person that directs toxic, insulting, disrespectful tactics and language towards those who hold opposing views, does indeed fit Mr. Dawkins. Sad to say.

101 Games Fundies Play - "Points out the games played by those bigots who try to wrap their bigotry in religious robes in an attempt to hide the true ugliness of what they preach."

Fundamentalist Tactics - Brief exposé of fundamentalism written by a Christian theologian and professor of Biblical Studies.

Outlawing Unbelief - Some American states legally render "atheists, secular humanists, and other freethinkers as second-class citizens."

Is There A God - This thought provoking essay by Bertrand Russell is a classic.

BOSTON – Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who’s leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out.

Among the millions of Americans who don’t believe God exists, there’s a split between people such as Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called “New Atheists.”

Epstein and other humanists feel their movement is on verge of explosive growth, but are concerned it will be dragged down by what they see as the militancy of New Atheism.

The most pre-eminent New Atheists include best-selling authors Richard Dawkins, who has called the God of the Old Testament “a psychotic delinquent,” and Sam Harris, who foresees global catastrophe unless faith is renounced. They say religious belief is so harmful it must be defeated and replaced by science and reason.

Epstein calls them “atheist fundamentalists.” He sees them as rigid in their dogma, and as intolerant as some of the faith leaders with whom atheists share the most obvious differences.

More at Nashua Telegraph

It pleases me to finally see some atheists speak out on this topic.  Greg Epstein's term "atheist fundamentalists" is one I have been using for years to describe certain factions in atheism.  While Epstein tags them such due to their rigid dogma and intolerance, I attribute the label because of the use of "fundie" tactics as well.

The Irony