Article on Fundamentalism

Abogado del Diablo

Abogado del Diablo

Ferally Decent
Messages
745
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Texas
Here are some excerpts from an interesting article by Prof. Steven Falkenberg on the nature of religious fundamentalism: http://www.newreformation.org/fundamentalism.htm



The problem with fundamentalism is not that fundamentalists put God first. The problem is that they do not put God first. They put a particular simplistic, limited, human understanding of God above all else. In most cases the fundamentalist understanding of God's will for mankind is that God wants things to be the way they used to be. God's laws are the ones we were taught since we were young. Fundamentalists then become neither Christian or Islam but rather defenders of the culture, dedicated to the preservation of "all we hold dear." In this regard, Christian fundamentalists are a lot more like the Pharisees than they are like Christ. Christ was a cultural and social revolutionary who disregarded the conventions of polite society, broke the religious laws regularly, associated with the "wrong crowd," and generally challenged the emptiness and superficiality of societies' traditions and beliefs. Christ was crucified, at least partly, for being a modernist and an ethical relativist. If Christ came to live among us in the 21'st century, the fundamentalists would have him crucified again, not because they hate Christ, but because they would not recognize him.

A major problem with fundamentalism is that fundamentalists believe they know Gods will for mankind. Fundamentalists believe that they know the truth, that their understanding is 100% accurate and there can be no questioning it and no compromise. Their position is "utterly non-negotiable." They believe they know what is right, wrong, moral, and immoral. As Dr. Neilson notes, this arises from a tendency toward literalism. Literalism, however, is used by fundamentalists as an excuse for the rigidity of their beliefs. They have been told that their beliefs are the truth because they are literal and directly from the Bible and therefore cannot be questioned. There is only one interpretation of the Bible allowed and that is the one they have been taught.

Having strong beliefs is one thing. We all have strong beliefs that we are unwilling to change or reevaluate. Everyone has to have something to believe in and we can't be constantly questioning everything. But where fundamentalism crosses the line and becomes dangerous and destructive is when fundamentalists refuse to allow anyone to have beliefs different from them. It is clearly the case that persons of strong character will refuse to compromise their beliefs. But fundamentalists consider it compromise to let you believe what you want to believe if it is different from their beliefs. So for example, some fundamentalists who believe that abortion is murder are unwilling to allow others to disagree with them. They are not satisfied to refuse to have abortions themselves and to teach their children and fellow believers to do the same, they feel compelled to work to get laws passed which will prevent anyone from getting an abortion. In point of fact, many thoughtful Christians have decided that abortion should be legal, at least in some circumstances. The fundamentalists think those who disagree with them are wrong and some are willing to take extreme measures (terroristic threatening, murdering abortion doctors, bombing abortion clinics, and other terrorist tactics) to prevent those who disagree with them from acting on their beliefs.
Click to expand...
 
The problem with fundamentalism is not that fundamentalists put God first. The problem is that they do not put God first.
Click to expand...
Spot-on obervation. Although many fundamentalists may be quite sincere Christians, many fundamentalists certainly have the appearance of fitting the description given by Prof. Falkenberg--and appearances often have more power than reality.
 
That would be my take on it. Also, that many literalists seem to only be so on certain passages. They tend to get irate and overly defensive if someone points out scriptural basis for another opinion.

Personally, I just admit that God, ultimate reality, Absolute Truth, etc. is just beyond my full comprehension and understanding. I can only catch glimpses, and I try to always have an open mind and heart so that errancies in my beliefs (of which there have been many over the years) can be corrected.

I do have some Christian fundamentalist friends who sincerely love God. But I think Bluejayway is right, the appearance of intolerance is often more damaging than the reality can overcome. I have atheist friends who are atheist for precisely that reason- years of intolerance and sometimes outright persecution tended to make them very skeptical of religions that claim to extend the "love" of God.
 
One interesting point in relating to fundametalists, is that generally we are not speaking the same language as they do.

Example. When the government moved on Waco and the Branch Davidians, they had loud speakers blaring for the folks to come out and surrender to the "authorities". The problem here was that for these folks, the only authority they could surrender to was God (specifically God as seen in the Old Testament). (This example was from Dr. James Tabor)

Members of the same faith, and sometimes even of the same denomination do not speak the same "language". I think that this has cultural roots as well as just differences in how folks view God. I have found myself wondering if we could learn to at least relate to fundamentalist in their "language", if we might not be able to overcome some of the fear that goes with their idea of religion?

the janitor
 
Christ was a cultural and social revolutionary who disregarded the conventions of polite society, broke the religious laws regularly, associated with the "wrong crowd," and generally challenged the emptiness and superficiality of societies' traditions and beliefs. Christ was crucified, at least partly, for being a modernist and an ethical relativist. If Christ came to live among us in the 21'st century, the fundamentalists would have him crucified again, not because they hate Christ, but because they would not recognize him.
Click to expand...

very, very well said. there's a radio program around here where the refrain is "reclaiming america for christ". with the xenophobic, homophobic rhetoric that program puts out, one has to wonder when the speakers last opened the bible and read the words of christ.
 
Somehow I can't but help feel there's something of a strawman at work here, though - isn't it also a case that fundamentalism is as much an attitude, and once that affects different political and religious belief systems, from right to left?

I've known some absolutely hardcore hellfire spitting Christian Fundamentalists - and also some extremely friendly and polite Christian Fundamentalists.

I've also encountered Liberals who are first in the queue to condemn others - for condemning others.

So if we're going to make a discussion issue of Christian Fundamentalism, it might be worth qualifying it in terms of specific Christian attitudes and approaches to literalims and conservatism - or even of expanding the approach to views which could be regarded as closed-minded within Christianity in general, and that includes more modern liberal reform movements.

2c.
 
I said:
I've also encountered Liberals who are first in the queue to condemn others - for condemning others.

So if we're going to make a discussion issue of Christian Fundamentalism, it might be worth qualifying it in terms of specific Christian attitudes and approaches to literalims and conservatism - or even of expanding the approach to views which could be regarded as closed-minded within Christianity in general, and that includes more modern liberal reform movements.

2c.
Click to expand...
I agree. It can include any political, religious or even scientific worldview. Anytime one's mind is closed to an honest exchange of ideas it's unfortunate. And that can happen in a lot of different areas. There's a certain fundamentalist faith in science in some circles that ridicules any point of view that allows for or incorporates non-materialistic experience. The USSR had an officially "atheist" fascism that was a political fundamentalism.

Pointing out that others are using a mean-spirited methodology in an exchange of ideas, as opposed to condemning them for their beleifs, isn't inappropriate in my view. It's necessary if there is to be any value in a dialogue.
 
Abogado del Diablo[QUOTE said:
]I agree. It can include any political, religious or even scientific worldview. Anytime one's mind is closed to an honest exchange of ideas it's unfortunate. And that can happen in a lot of different areas.
Click to expand...

I hope the way that I used the quote worked....folks forgive me if it did not, I am just learning the ways here.

One of the things that I find interesting, is that we view thier minds as closed if they will not listen to our ideas. Again I think that it comes down to language. We can consider these folks as closed minded, but do we pause to think about how they consider us. The fact is....wether it be political, religious, or scientific, these folks consider themselves to be right, and even though they may be using things out of context, they can back up their thought. When we try to counter, well then, we are just wrong and cant see the truth. If we had a better understanding of the language that they are using we could use that same lanugage to make an argument. There in lies the difficulty, how do you reach an unreasonable person when they view you as unreasonable?

the janitor
 
janitor said:
I hope the way that I used the quote worked....folks forgive me if it did not, I am just learning the ways here.

One of the things that I find interesting, is that we view thier minds as closed if they will not listen to our ideas. Again I think that it comes down to language. We can consider these folks as closed minded, but do we pause to think about how they consider us. The fact is....wether it be political, religious, or scientific, these folks consider themselves to be right, and even though they may be using things out of context, they can back up their thought. When we try to counter, well then, we are just wrong and cant see the truth. If we had a better understanding of the language that they are using we could use that same lanugage to make an argument. There in lies the difficulty, how do you reach an unreasonable person when they view you as unreasonable?

the janitor
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying. That's certainly part of it. Fundamentalists erect a wall as part of an "us v. them" worldview, and often won't listen to anyone who doesn't demonstrate a sharing in the fundamentalist's worldview. Otherwise, the typical method is to label others in order to justify disregarding what others say.

In my own experience I've found that trying to approach fundamentalists using their own "language" only works to a point. Inevitably, such a dialogue will eventually reveal that you do not accept the dogmas unquestioningly. And that will be the end of the dialogue.
 
I said:
Somehow I can't but help feel there's something of a strawman at work here, though - isn't it also a case that fundamentalism is as much an attitude, and once that affects different political and religious belief systems, from right to left?

I've known some absolutely hardcore hellfire spitting Christian Fundamentalists - and also some extremely friendly and polite Christian Fundamentalists.

I've also encountered Liberals who are first in the queue to condemn others - for condemning others.

So if we're going to make a discussion issue of Christian Fundamentalism, it might be worth qualifying it in terms of specific Christian attitudes and approaches to literalims and conservatism - or even of expanding the approach to views which could be regarded as closed-minded within Christianity in general, and that includes more modern liberal reform movements.

2c.
Click to expand...
I have not heard the term strawman for years but that is my first impression also:) , not just the article but the website. I think attitude is everything I might also add approach.



Everyone is a fundamentalist. We have fundamentals in everything.

God is a fundamentalist & so was Jesus.

Crooks & liars are fundamentalists.

Professor Steven Falkenberg is a fundamentalist.

Individuality teaches fundamentalism.

Nature has fundamentals.

CR has fundamentals.



Without fundamentals, you have nothing but chaos & confusion & no foundation. It is when someone tries to destroy some ones fundamentals & pretend they have none is where I see problems. The far left & right both have fundamentals. This is why I feel it is important to stay in the middle where there is a balance, in all areas of life. I see both right & left & the center as fundalmentalists & can all be closed minded. You do not have to give up beliefs to listen to others. I can usually see the direction of someones intent after a few words & there really is no point in discussing if you already know the final result of a debate. Besisde, the bible teaches us not to be caught up in long debates & to avoid certain topics, all for a good reason.



I viewed all of this mans website & he reminds me of a headshrinker attempting to be a preacher with a very twisted, leather couch personality. It was odd that his idea of reformation in Christianity is to leave out the bible & Jesus & suggest other religions like hindu, muslim & Buddah. I also did not appreciate his approach to abortion, trying to make Christianity look bad. It is not just a Christian issue. Typical approach today.

I have a guy at work. His name is Bart. I have been preached at for 7 years. I have to eat Bart food, listen to Bart music, vote for Bart politics, believe Bart’s religion, go on vacation where Bart tells me I should go & allow the squirrels to live in my home attic…we do not get a long. He is not a bible believer & has mocked my faith in Jesus several times. But he is honest & he has great work ethics & that is where I have to focus in things with him & they are the only things that keep me from firing him.



Traditional beliefs are not the only things that make one a fundamentalist. Everyone is a fundamentalist.
:)
 
Bandit said:
Everyone is a fundamentalist. We have fundamentals in everything.

:)
Click to expand...
Now that's a strawman.

Having "fundamentals" and being a "fundamentalist" are not the same thing.

Do you take Communion? Does that make you a "communist"?
 
Thank You. I will take that as a compliment. I stick with what I have already said.
 
Excuse the interruption, but I feel the need to interject here. For an argument to qualify as a strawman fallacy, it must needs use a type of "Red herring" as it were. The strawman fallacy usually entails building a false image of a person or group, and then attacking the false image. This is done for several reasons not the least of which is that the person positing the argument cannot successfully debate with the reality of the issue, or uses an ad populum (sp?) approach to gain favor with an audience. Here we mention fundamentalist ideas, and that typical mindset for the sake of discussion, and not to target a specific group. There are here in Colorado and Kansas, hate groups who use the Bible and Jesus toward their own hateful ends, which is this fundamentalist behavior/mindset in the extreme. The teachings of Christ, the Christian communtiy in general are not hateful. All we can do here is identify the archetype, which in reality isn't a strawman fallacy after all.
 
Paladin said:
Excuse the interruption, but I feel the need to interject here. For an argument to qualify as a strawman fallacy, it must needs use a type of "Red herring" as it were. The strawman fallacy usually entails building a false image of a person or group, and then attacking the false image. This is done for several reasons not the least of which is that the person positing the argument cannot successfully debate with the reality of the issue, or uses an ad populum (sp?) approach to gain favor with an audience. Here we mention fundamentalist ideas, and that typical mindset for the sake of discussion, and not to target a specific group. There are here in Colorado and Kansas, hate groups who use the Bible and Jesus toward their own hateful ends, which is this fundamentalist behavior/mindset in the extreme. The teachings of Christ, the Christian communtiy in general are not hateful. All we can do here is identify the archetype, which in reality isn't a strawman fallacy after all.
Click to expand...
ooops, i forgot to say, nice post Paladin.:)
it is kind of like 'TNT' if we use it the wrong way & are not careful.
 
Paladin said:
Excuse the interruption, but I feel the need to interject here. For an argument to qualify as a strawman fallacy, it must needs use a type of "Red herring" as it were.
Click to expand...
A "red herring" and a "stawman" are two different fallacies. "Red herring" is the use of a distraction to draw a debate away from an issue. A "stawman" on the other hand, is the fallacy of mischaracterizing an argument in such a way as to make it appear to be easier to knock down. A strawman takes the following form:

Argument Y is not the same as Argument Z
A makes Argument Y
B responds by characterizing A's argument as Argument Z
B then responds to Argument Z
 
The article is a strawman, then. It takes the extreme position in Fundamentalism and makes it out to the the typical one. I certainly agree that the extreme Fundamentalist attitude described in the article is disagreeable and dangerous. I just doubt that it is the typical one.

lunamoth
 
lunamoth said:
The article is a strawman, then. It takes the extreme position in Fundamentalism and makes it out to the the typical one. I certainly agree that the extreme Fundamentalist attitude described in the article is disagreeable and dangerous. I just doubt that it is the typical one.

lunamoth
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The author defines what he means by "fundamentalism." If you think that you or someone else doesn't fit the description, then you are not a "fundamentalist" of the sort the author is speaking of in the article. You are mixing your own definition of "fundamentalist" with the author's. He may not be using the word the way you would prefer to use it, but he does define it. That is not a "strawman." It's a difference in the definition of a word.
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
Not exactly. The author defines what he means by "fundamentalism." If you think that you or someone else doesn't fit the description, then you are not a "fundamentalist" of the sort the author is speaking of in the article. You are mixing your own definition of "fundamentalist" with the author's. He may not be using the word the way you would prefer to use it, but he does define it. That is not a "strawman." It's a difference in the definition of a word.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps what we have here is "The Old Bait and Switch." :)

I was in a similar discussion not too long ago about faith. Another poster defined faith as "that which is believed without evidence or in spite of contrary evidence." The dictionary definition of faith does not say belief in something in spite of contrary evidence, although that might be true in some examples. Building a case in which his definition of faith was actually a vice, he then implied that all faith is vice.

One makes a claim about something one has narrowly defined and leave the audience to make the jump that the claim applies to the broader or more typical definition.

By the way, we have reached (and surpassed) my limits in logical debate, so I'll concede your next move, counselor. :)

peace,
lunamoth
 
lunamoth said:
Then perhaps what we have here is "The Old Bait and Switch." :)

I was in a similar discussion not too long ago about faith. Another poster defined faith as "that which is believed without evidence or in spite of contrary evidence." The dictionary definition of faith does not say belief in something in spite of contrary evidence, although that might be true in some examples. Building a case in which his definition of faith was actually a vice, he then implied that all faith is vice.

One makes a claim about something one has narrowly defined and leave the audience to make the jump that the claim applies to the broader or more typical definition.

By the way, we have reached (and surpassed) my limits in logical debate, so I'll concede your next move, counselor. :)

peace,
lunamoth
Click to expand...
I don't view his definition as substantially out of line with the "broader or more typical definition." He uses the term "fundamentalism" the way I have usually seen the term used. "Fundamentalists" are usually defined in terms of their behavior rather than their beliefs - it's a method, not a specific worldview. Which is precisely how Falkenberg is understanding and using the term. It's also why it can't be considered a strawman, because he isn't debating their argument (so it goes without saying that he isn't mischaracterizing their argument). Rather, he is pointing out their method and some problems with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top