What is a fundamentalist?

[Oleron]

I was listening to the 'Moral maze' on radio 4 last night and the discussion was on the role and effects of religion on the world as well as some debate on the new Narnia film. The panel were composed of mostly humanists and secularists and they were joined by some xians.

One of the questions that was put to Malcolm Duncan, a born again xian, was "What is fundamentalism and is the moderate xian church embarrassed by it?"

Duncan, to his credit, admitted that the majority of mainstream (or moderate) xians were deeply embarrassed by the opinions and actions of the fundamentalist groups in their own religion and in other religions.

His definition of fundamentalism was a bit hazy but he seemed to be hinting that fundamentalism is simply fanatical or very deep belief in a religion.

The panel argued, and I would agree with them, that it is not simply a strong belief because it is perfectly possible to hold a strong belief in most religions while still remaining a valuable and tolerant member of society.

To me fundamentalism is using your faith as an excuse to impose your will on people who don't share those views. It is essentially intolerance and a lack of restraint when facing opinions opposite to their own.

It started me thinking that I am perfectly happy to share the planet with religious people such as Malcolm Duncan, even though his deeply held beliefs run contrary to my own. However I deeply resent having to co-exist with radical muslims and xians (and others, of course) because they seek to limit my freedoms.

Sorry this is all a bit disjointed but maybe someone would like to take this subject out for a spin and see what they make of it?

 

[HeyLeroy]

Oleron, it doesn't sound disjointed at all. I think you hit the nail on the head, and I share your view.
Cheers.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

To me fundamentalism is using your faith as an excuse to impose your will on people who don't share those views. It is essentially intolerance and a lack of restraint when facing opinions opposite to their own.

I would define fundamentalism as a literal interpretation of scriptures. By this definition, it's not politics which make a person fundamental, but fundamentalism which drives believers into politics.

 

[Blue Monk]

I’ve always considered a literal interpretation of one’s sacred texts as a hallmark of fundamentalism. For example, the creationism/evolution debate seems to be a rather reliable litmus test for fundamentalism.

It seems to me that considering the overwhelming evidence for evolution anyone who insists on holding on to the idea of creationism, as literally defined in the Bible, would have to be defined as a fundamentalist.

I don’t think intolerance of other people’s views necessarily defines fundamentalist. That just seems to be a by-product. The equation seems to be: I believe that the written word is the word of God and God is infallible therefore my interpretation of the word is infallible.

I’m right and you’re wrong because God says so. That’s what makes them all so damn dangerous, the belief that they are infallible despite thousands of years of history littered with misery and ghastly mistakes by those acting on faith alone and too damn pious to even entertain the thought that while a God, if he existed, might be infallible, they may not be.

 

[MWare]

from dictionary.com:

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

Putting the "fun" back in fundamentalism.

 

[Marc L]

The panel argued, and I would agree with them, that it is not simply a strong belief because it is perfectly possible to hold a strong belief in most religions while still remaining a valuable and tolerant member of society.

To me fundamentalism is using your faith as an excuse to impose your will on people who don't share those views. It is essentially intolerance and a lack of restraint when facing opinions opposite to their own.

I disagree. I'd see that as fanaticism, rather than fundamentalism. Speaking as someone who was a fundamentalist for seven years, I saw it more as a belief in the 'fundamentals' of whatever philosophy you ascribed to. For me, it was the belief in God, the belief in sin, and the necessity for Christ's sacrifice (among other things). While I believed telling others about Christianity was part of that, I didn't feel the need to impose my will on others (nor did most others of my acquaintance at that time).

Fanaticism, on the other hand, is a slavish devotion to what you believe in, to the point of being willing to do anything up to and including die for that belief. The terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center were fanatics.

It's a difference of degree, I think. While all fanatics are fundamentalists, not all fundamentalists are necessarily fanatics. To put it another way, while all Hershey's bars are chocolate, not all chocolate is a Hershey's bar.

Marc

 

[Roboramma]

Fundamentalist: someone who takes their irrational beliefs to their necessary conclusion, and yet still holds on to those beliefs.

 

[tdn]

While all fanatics are fundamentalists, not all fundamentalists are necessarily fanatics. To put it another way, while all Hershey's bars are chocolate, not all chocolate is a Hershey's bar.

I wouldn't say that all fanatics are fundies. It's quite possible to be a fanatic, either harmless or dangerous, about a great many things besides religion. A sports team, a band, Socialism, Fascism, a TV show, sex, literature, guns... I'm sure we could all cite examples of said fanatics.

 

[rharbers]

Fundamentalist: someone who takes their irrational beliefs to their necessary conclusion, and yet still holds on to those beliefs.

I like that. The problem with born again fundamentalists is that they are an even bigger pain in the rear the second time around.

 

[Ducky]

Fundamentalist. Someone who has to impose their religious worldview on others without answering direct criticisms. I think this also goes with a bit of losing touch with reality.

I'll provide some examples, of say, someone on this forum that merely preaches and does not respond directly to questions postited.

Over 10 pages of crap.

She's back.

This type of fundamentalist is irritating and irrational. There's no debating with them because there is no debate or even any chance that anything you would say in criticism of their statements is anything but denying their reality or denying Christ.

Of course it also fuels the "Christians are persecuted, and we walk the road less travelled" myth to debate them. Any criticism isn't debate, it's opression.

 

[Yahweh]

Fundies.

 

[Oleron]

I disagree. I'd see that as fanaticism, rather than fundamentalism. Speaking as someone who was a fundamentalist for seven years, I saw it more as a belief in the 'fundamentals' of whatever philosophy you ascribed to. For me, it was the belief in God, the belief in sin, and the necessity for Christ's sacrifice (among other things). While I believed telling others about Christianity was part of that, I didn't feel the need to impose my will on others (nor did most others of my acquaintance at that time).

Fanaticism, on the other hand, is a slavish devotion to what you believe in, to the point of being willing to do anything up to and including die for that belief. The terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center were fanatics.

It's a difference of degree, I think. While all fanatics are fundamentalists, not all fundamentalists are necessarily fanatics. To put it another way, while all Hershey's bars are chocolate, not all chocolate is a Hershey's bar.

Marc

Interesting idea, Marc. I think it's a matter of degree, as you say, but I would argue that you weren't fundamentalist, simply a xian with deeply held beliefs. Perhaps Blue Monk is onto something when he mentions biblical (or scriptural) literalism. Were you a biblical literalist/creationist?

If you weren't a creationist then, to me, that shows that you had the ability and the freedom to interpret the scriptures in a way that made more sense to you. It also shows that you used reason and logic to temper your faith.

A fundamentalist would not allow themselves any right to interpret the bible, such a thing would be blasphemy. Reason and logic are not used.

 

[Marc L]

Interesting idea, Marc. I think it's a matter of degree, as you say, but I would argue that you weren't fundamentalist, simply a xian with deeply held beliefs. Perhaps Blue Monk is onto something when he mentions biblical (or scriptural) literalism. Were you a biblical literalist/creationist?

If you weren't a creationist then, to me, that shows that you had the ability and the freedom to interpret the scriptures in a way that made more sense to you. It also shows that you used reason and logic to temper your faith.

A fundamentalist would not allow themselves any right to interpret the bible, such a thing would be blasphemy. Reason and logic are not used.

I honestly thought I was, because that's what I was expected to be. Thinking back on it now, I'd have to say that I'm not sure I really bought it 100%. It made it easy to leave when my church told me I was doing something wrong, and I was certain it was right and what Jesus would have done in the same situation.

I agree with Blue Monk on the need for literal interpretation, though. Again, most people of my acquaintance believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible, and none of them where what I'd call fanatics.

Marc

 

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Fundamentalism: What do we consider the hallmarks of such?
Some of these have been pointed out previously, but they bear repeating

1) Strict adherence to a written dogmatic stance

2) Willingness to do strange and distasteful things in order to prove their faith.

3) Refusal to consider an alternate viewpoint as anything but wrong or wrongheaded.

4) The need to recruit.

From these we can infer a few things:

1) These people have staked their reputations and lives based on these beliefs, and will react violently when they are challenged.

2) A written dogma provides inflexibility. It is an unchanging structure for these people to hang their worldview on. These people crave the security of having one rule for every situation. They lack the confidence to think for themselves.

3) The more people who support this framework, the more real it is percieved. The more real it is percieved, the stronger the reaction to anything challenging it. Thus, a large group of such people are much more dangerous than one or two by themselves. These people are motivated, and focused. The gain confidence from the structure and network they've established.

4) Which brings us to recruitment, the more times they hear their own beliefs reflected back to them, the easier it is to believe. The more times you say something, the easier it is to believe, which is why all the praying occurs. The hymns, prayers, and masses are confimration of their beliefs. When you hear nothing else, it is easy to believe you are right.

Thus, you get a sort of fascism from a fundamentalist movement. Oddly enough, it hardly ever falls into a communism, as one might expect. If we are all equal before (Fill in your favorite god's name here), then you would expect a kind of communism to occur, where everyone gives freely and all pull together for the common good. But what occurs most often is the rise of a charismatic leader. And it is in this leader that people find their faith. This guy knows all the answers and cannot be wrong, for he's God's favorite.....because he told you he was.

Fundamentalism is something to be concerned about because they are notoriously immune to reason. They do not compromise, for doing so would be questioning their own beliefs. When you have staked your life and death on something, it has to be right. No matter what.

As for leadership, I might post more later.

 

[Oleron]

I think you're right, clarsct.
I also think that the secular society has indirectly encouraged the rise of fundamentalism.

I'll explain what I mean-
The twentieth century saw the rise of science and technology and started to explain things that had previously only been explainable by religion. This led to a rise of the 'secular society' and religion was reeling.

In response to having to give more and more ground to the advance of science, the religions started to feel threatened and their membership started to rebel. The rebellion took the form of fundamentalism, a retreat into the safety of dogma - where science could not go.

Science has made the world an uncertain place to live. Nothing is black and white anymore and that is unpalatable to a great many people who simply want to be told what to believe.

Question is, what happens now? Is fundamentalism a passing phase that people will eventually learn to do without? Or will the advance of science continue to drive more people into fundamentalism?

 

[clarsct]

Well, the truth is that science WILL march on. Even if it has to go underground. It is much like guns, you can take them away, perhaps, but never the KNOWLEDGE of them away. You can go after terrorists all you like, but anyone who can find fertilizer and oil can make a bomb. It is simply the truth.

If the US falls to a fundamentalist government, you will see Germany or Britain, or Japan become the next world power, for the simple reason that they will leave us in the dust of history. They will out-tech us.

But I think it is a fad. It is the last bastion of an older generation giving us their last hurrah. Once people realize that their son is gay and being a Fundy is creating a lasting rift in their lives and the lives of the people around them, they will repent, if even on the deathbed. People are like that.

And if it isn't their son or daughter, it will be their cousin or uncle, or the nice guy down the road. It is easy to hate 'gays', but what about old Bob across the street who invites you to BBQs and helped you fix the brakes on your car when you were in a bind?

Fundamentalism, at least in the US, is a reactionary tactic employed by an older generation who is feeling themselves slip away and can't stand it. The power base is unstable. Independent Candidates have been elected state governors. With worldwide information access people are more and more likely to form their own ideas, and reject the traditions of their parents. The center does not hold.

It is also nostalgic. A return to a 'simpler' LeaveittoBeaver-eque time when everyone went to church and kissing was a big deal. Nevermind we polluted more, and had the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction hanging over our heads. Nevermind Vietnam and Korea. It was a better time. Really.

Science will drive people into fundamentalism, perhaps, but it will also drive people into science, too. In the long run, if being a fundamentalist means not having the coolest gadgets, people will seek a less stringent religion. At least in the US. When Japan lands the first guy on Mars, you will see a resurgence of Science in the classroom. We just need that wake-up call. I think stem cell research may provide it. But that is just a guess.

So I think it is part of the cycle of American Politics. We had the same types of things going on in the Twenties/Early Thirties. Prohibition of Alcohol, and the Scopes trial, to name a few things. Eventually WW2 pulled us out of it due to the massive increases in Science it took to keep up with the Germans. Then we had a new threat in the 60's to keep Science on course. And another will come to pass.

Is it a worry? Yes, it is. Mainly not because Science will die, but because it is NOT the type of government >I< wish to live in, or support. There is already, from what I'm seeing, the beginnings of a backlash against such intolerance. *sigh* I can only hope I am correct.

I hope this answered a few things, it was quite a ramble, after all. BUt then again, I'm known for such things.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Oddly enough, it hardly ever falls into a communism, as one might expect. If we are all equal before (Fill in your favorite god's name here), then you would expect a kind of communism to occur, where everyone gives freely and all pull together for the common good.

Like in the Acts of the Apostles?

Read up on this, mention it to your favorite right wing fundie, and watch the cognitive dissonance!

 

[clarsct]

That's a new one for me, Dr. A! Hmmmmm. I may have to take you up on that....


I always like having new material..

 

[Marc L]

That's a new one for me, Dr. A! Hmmmmm. I may have to take you up on that....


I always like having new material..

Especially when you add Peter's execution of Annanias and Sephira for not giving their things to the group.

Marc