Ep. 99: Do Christian moderates enable fundamentalism?

[Agnostie]

Great show guys! One of the best for sure. It is interesting for me to listen to this show and think about what I would have thought of Scott's responses back when I was a Christian. In those days had I heard Scott, I am pretty sure I would have not considered him a "real" Christian and probably would have guessed his sermons were taught from the NIV, not a decent literal translation like the KJV or NASB, "chuckle". I would have felt he had a whamsy pamsy watered down Christianity, wow, I am glad those days are gone. Now I can relax and enjoy both Emery's and Scott's positions. I can't help but wonder though if Scott is on the slippery slope towards agnosticism; from his genuine responses the gap between Scott's Christianity and Agnosticism seems pretty narrow.
I thoroughly enjoyed the show, thanks!

[yjoeyh]

I still can't tell if vjoeyh is being obstinate or he's just (repeatedly) missing the distinction you're clearly making between a required assumption and a consciously applied and purposefully suitable assumption.

I've always gotten that distinction. If you read back through my posts you'll see that. My point was that this distinction is irrelevant because we are only talking the other kind.

Here's a very simple illustration to make my point: if my wife told me there was a bear in the back yard, I could: 1) Believe her and go about my business. 2) Disbelieve her and go about my business. 3) Get up and take a look for myself to verify or disprove her claim. 4) I could refrain from assuming and remain neutral to her claim (maybe there is, maybe not).

Okay. I follow your reasoning here, and I actually think it is a good illustration, BUT I think you are confusing a couple of different concepts. You make it sounds like options #1 & #2 have the same end result for you... you "go about your business" either way. At the expense of going off on another tangent here, this illustrates the difference between "belief" and "faith" that I was trying to describe earlier. Whether or not you believe her is not really relevant if you are going to go about your business either way. When you pair that belief up with action, that's when faith comes into the picture. And yes that faith can, and actually should, be based on the kinds of precedents and evidences like you mentioned.
Now, let's get back to your analogy for its intended purpose. Do you REALLY think that #4 is a realistic option? Even if it were, it requires a greater assumption, which is that the issue doesn't really matter either way and you are justified in ignoring the question. So even if you, or KTR or anyone else really falls into category #4, then why are you engaging in a discussion about it? Why not just ignore it like you claim you do?

You're staking claim to positions you cannot justifiably defend

Like what exactly?

and making comparisons that do not accurately compare the issues at hand (i.e. whether or not Genghis Khan lived or did anything he's reported to have done is irrelevant to existence; your claim of a "correct God" is not).

No it's not and if you read back over the post, you'll see that had nothing at all to do with my point. But you are doing here the very thing you accuse me of, but you do it without justification. The point was to show that ancient texts are relevant to the demonstration of truth claims, something KTR seemed to be saying wasn't relevant.

I think you may be well served to ponder the reality that refraining from committing to a position without convincing and conclusive evidence or demonstration is not unreasonable; sometimes a "non-call" is the best call to make.

And I would respect you for taking such a position, but the second you assert the alternative, you are no longer in this category.

[jambijuce]

Okay. I follow your reasoning here, and I actually think it is a good illustration, BUT I think you are confusing a couple of different concepts. You make it sounds like options #1 & #2 have the same end result for you... you "go about your business" either way. At the expense of going off on another tangent here, this illustrates the difference between "belief" and "faith" that I was trying to describe earlier. Whether or not you believe her is not really relevant if you are going to go about your business either way. When you pair that belief up with action, that's when faith comes into the picture. And yes that faith can, and actually should, be based on the kinds of precedents and evidences like you mentioned.
Now, let's get back to your analogy for its intended purpose. Do you REALLY think that #4 is a realistic option? Even if it were, it requires a greater assumption, which is that the issue doesn't really matter either way and you are justified in ignoring the question. So even if you, or KTR or anyone else really falls into category #4, then why are you engaging in a discussion about it? Why not just ignore it like you claim you do?

You're still missing the point, yjoeyh, let's take this a step further and clarify it a bit. Replay the scenario only this time replace the "bear" with a unicorn (a unicorn's existence is axiomatic in the way that you apply that term to God; reported in ancient texts like the bible, cave drawings, etc.), now let's say my wife claimed to see the unicorn and I face the same four options described earlier; 1) Believe her and go about my business. 2) Disbelieve her and go about my business. 3) Get up and take a look for myself to verify or disprove her claim. 4) I could refrain from assuming and remain neutral to her claim (maybe there is, maybe not). Based on my experience and the collective evidence gathered throughout the history of mankind I can (with a reasonable amount of confidence), assume, that she is mistaken or attempting to deceive me; either way I would be perfectly justified in "going about my business". Could I be wrong? Sure. Is that likely? Not in circumstances such as this when an extraordinary (or supernatural) claim is being made. I remain open to the possibility (seeing is believing after all), but skeptical until conclusively shown one way or the other.

No it's not and if you read back over the post, you'll see that had nothing at all to do with my point. But you are doing here the very thing you accuse me of, but you do it without justification. The point was to show that ancient texts are relevant to the demonstration of truth claims, something KTR seemed to be saying wasn't relevant.

I don't have some yahoo telling me that accepting Genghis Khan as my lord and savior is the only way to avoid everlasting torture or that he was resurrected from the dead; try comparing like with like.

And I would respect you for taking such a position, but the second you assert the alternative, you are no longer in this category.

yjoeyh, if you took an objective look at our society today, you'd quickly recognize that theological claims of all shapes, sizes and colors are being propagated, instigated and articulated without check wherever you turn without a single shred of evidence to support the foundational assertions of their doctrines. I'd love to drop this "discussion" but it's unfortunately unavoidable.

[yjoeyh]

See the word "assume" in each of your above assertions? Take that word out, and replace it with:

BELIEVE, ACT, OR BEHAVE AS IF IT'S TRUE

and you'll see where your argument fails.

Okay I did that, but I don't see where my argument fails from that, just substituting different words that mean the same thing.

Feelings demonstratably applying to a computer? No, as I've noted brain mapping and chemistry signatures support empirically the emotive response humans have called "feelings" and I don't know about your PC, but mine does not have a living brain and hormones in it ( though it sometimes acts like it has all the nasty hormones).

Now wait a minute. You JUST said that the POSSIBILITY of demonstration was sufficient for your purposes. That's why I worded it that way, within the framework of your own stated worldview. Tongue and cheek comments aside, it is certainly hypothetically possible, even quite feasable to have a computer develped that can respond to the same stimuli that an individual would when we say they have feelings. And yes, that should include a functional equivalent of a "living brain" and "hormones." Heck some computer games pretty much can do most of that already. The only difference is you (hopefully) would not assume that said computer 'actually' had feelings. Yet you would (and do) assume that other people do. I do the same thing, but I never made any claims that making these kinds fo assumptions was incompatible with my worldview. But you have done that.

So sorry, but it's demonstrable people have feelings, and minds in fact as the thinking patterns also can be detected.

Again, saying so doesn't make it so. I pretty much just drained all the juice from your "demonstration." If you come up with something else, please let me know.

Ghengis Khan? Not just ancient texts that he conquered, but also archeological evidence he conquered.

So the ancient texts do count for something then, right? Does the archeaological evidence count for more? Does it matter how much and which historical facts are based on which ones?

No, really-- demonstrate "sin", go ahead, I'll wait.

I would be heart-broken at this point if you posted something without resorting to a red herring somewhere in your post. Anyway, this request is easy so here goes:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/triple-bombings-southern-iraqi-oil-city-kill-14867044

Thanks for a robust exercise.

My pleasure. If we can ever agree to disagree on some of these other issues, I'd like to hear more about your idea that theism=solipsism sometime. Thanks to you as well!

[Keep The Reason]

Now wait a minute. You JUST said that the POSSIBILITY of demonstration was sufficient for your purposes. That's why I worded it that way, within the framework of your own stated worldview. Tongue and cheek comments aside, it is certainly hypothetically possible, even quite feasable to have a computer develped that can respond to the same stimuli that an individual would when we say they have feelings. And yes, that should include a functional equivalent of a "living brain" and "hormones." Heck some computer games pretty much can do most of that already. The only difference is you (hopefully) would not assume that said computer 'actually' had feelings.

Actually, a sufficiently advanced computer puts us both wrong. A sufficently advanced computer might just demonstrate that it has feelings. You cited "Star Trek" awhile back-- isn't there an episode where this applies to Data and his quest to be considered "alive"? Well, if it passes the test, then ok, it, or he, has emotions and feelings.

When we get to that point, I'd accept that criteria. I don't have any vested interest in only humans being "permitted" to have feelings.

Again, saying so doesn't make it so. I pretty much just drained all the juice from your "demonstration." If you come up with something else, please let me know.

No, you didn't, but no worries. Jambijuice has made it clear how you're mistaken as well.

So the ancient texts do count for something then, right? Does the archeaological evidence count for more? Does it matter how much and which historical facts are based on which ones?

Sure they count for something. What, are you supposing that evidence is only magically permitted to be one thing and one thing alone. I did some reading up on old GK by the way. Fascinating life, and even more fascinating discoveries regarding his palace and mysteries surrounding his burial grounds. A confluence of evidence that indicates he was alive, and conquered and so on. Lots of great stuff on him and his children, including Kublai Kahn who Marco Polo visited; as well as his fathyer Niccolo and Maffeo. Lots of corrborative details from divergent sources, many totally unrelated. Plus actual places and relics from his life. You know -- all those things missing from Jesus, and the Apostles, Adam and Eve, David, Samuel, Noach, and so on.

So you have the bible. Big deal. And even if you have the actual buildings and corpses of Moses and David and anyone else you want to name-- this doesn't support the concept or existence of god. You merely assume it does.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/triple-bombings-southern-iraqi-oil-city-kill-14867044

I see a tragedy there but somehow I'm missing god responding with anger or offense at this. Can you point it out to me? I don't see any offense to any gods in your link.

Ok, I know I said "last word" but... mea culpa, I had a few more words in me.

Re: Solipsism, I will when I can.

[yjoeyh]

You're still missing the point, yjoeyh, let's take this a step further and clarify it a bit. Replay the scenario only this time replace the "bear" with a unicorn (a unicorn's existence is axiomatic in the way that you apply that term to God; reported in ancient texts like the bible, cave drawings, etc.),

Now how on earth do you get that a unicorn's existence is axiomatic?
I know the reference you are talking about in scripture that you assert talks about a unicorn, but you are wrong about that. Pretty much all scholars and historians (even the secular ones) agree that the word you talk about is not decipherable beyond that of merely a "horned animal." Nice try, but no, you're wrong. Look that up if you don't believe me.

now let's say my wife claimed to see the unicorn and I face the same four options described earlier; 1) Believe her and go about my business. 2) Disbelieve her and go about my business. 3) Get up and take a look for myself to verify or disprove her claim. 4) I could refrain from assuming and remain neutral to her claim (maybe there is, maybe not). Based on my experience and the collective evidence gathered throughout the history of mankind I can (with a reasonable amount of confidence), assume, that she is mistaken or attempting to deceive me; either way I would be perfectly justified in "going about my business".

You are making a distinction without a difference. 4 is not an option apart from the other three. You can go with option 1 and still remain "open" and "skeptical."The same with option 2 and with option 3. 4 just doesn't stand on its own as a reasonable option independent of the other three.

Could I be wrong? Sure. Is that likely? Not in circumstances such as this when an extraordinary (or supernatural) claim is being made.

Straw man - remember I dismiss the possibility of the supernatural, let alone make any supernatural claims.

I don't have some yahoo telling me that accepting Genghis Khan as my lord and savior is the only way to avoid everlasting torture or that he was resurrected from the dead; try comparing like with like.

Now here is a red herring and a straw man put together in the same sentence! First, the point about Genghis Kahn has absolutely nothing to do with a comparison to claims of Christianity. It was merely a demonstration that ancient text is a valid source of evidence for making claims, which is something KTR seemed to state that it was not. Second, the accusitory summation of this description of reasonable Christian truth claims is baseless and it shows that you don't have even a basic understanding of the worldview you are arguing against. I suggest you keep to attacking the philosophical merits of Christianity and leave evidentiary claims alone. Statements like this are emotionally charged and openly demonstrate your own ignorance of what things Christianity claims to begin with. You'd asked me to spell that out before and I'm sorry I haven't done that yet, but you must realize how tall of an order that is, without having some specific target in mind.

yjoeyh, if you took an objective look at our society today, you'd quickly recognize that theological claims of all shapes, sizes and colors are being propagated, instigated and articulated without check wherever you turn without a single shred of evidence to support the foundational assertions of their doctrines.

I agree completely. This is unfortunate because Christianity is often found guilty by association alone rather than by the merits of its own claims. It's truly sad.

I'd love to drop this "discussion" but it's unfortunately unavoidable.

I agree. Questions about axiomatics are unavoidable. That's what makes them axiomatic.

[yjoeyh]

When we get to that point, I'd accept that criteria. I don't have any vested interest in only humans being "permitted" to have feelings.

Really? Okay, I'll grant you that much is consistent with your worldview. I personally think it sounds pretty far fetched that anyone, including yourself, would ever really consider a computer to have feelings, and I'm not really sure I believe that when it came right down to it that you actually would. So I must ask again... really? Still, that's what you say, so I'm content with that. ( but really???)

Sure they count for something.

Okay, just wanted to make sure your earlier comment was a little exaggerated and not what you really meant to say. So good, we are in agreement at least that ancient text is a reliable source of information in and of itself. (no veiled claims of the Bible's realiability there - just a clarification)

Lots of corrborative details from divergent sources, many totally unrelated.

Now here's where I do insert the BIble for comparison. It contains the same kinds of independent sources you're talking about. Why would you suggest otherwise?

Plus actual places and relics from his life. You know -- all those things missing from Jesus, and the Apostles, Adam and Eve, David, Samuel, Noach, and so on.

Remember he came along much later than any of the people you mention. We should not expect to find as many surviving relics. I think if we compare them for these individuals with any of their contemporaries, they should stack up at least proportionally. But we do still have several things like the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, the remains of Susa, the Moabite stone, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Not to mention the unprecedented number of ancient manuscripts. That's just a few I can name right now. There's lots more I could look up if you like me to.

So you have the bible. Big deal.

Yes I think it is a big deal. Do you not? Agree or disagree that it's special revelation from God, but you have to admit it's a big deal. I think I heard you say as much in a n earlier post somewhere.

And even if you have the actual buildings and corpses of Moses and David and anyone else you want to name-- this doesn't support the concept or existence of god. You merely assume it does.

You're right that is doesn't prove the existence of God. Technically it's the other way around. But those things do support the authenticity of the text as a reliable source of data, again, theistic assumptions are not necessary to concede that much.

I see a tragedy there but somehow I'm missing god responding with anger or offense at this. Can you point it out to me? I don't see any offense to any gods in your link.

Sin is not defined anywhere as simply being an offense "against God." Any wrong act that has consequences for anyone, (yourself of anyone else) satisfies the definition of sin. Yes, it is inherently an offense against God as well. But an evil act is an evil act and it is a sin.

Ok, I know I said "last word" but... mea culpa, I had a few more words in me.

touche!

Re: Solipsism, I will when I can.

Thanks! PM me and let me know when you're ready just so I don't miss it.

[jambijuce]

Now how on earth do you get that a unicorn's existence is axiomatic?
I know the reference you are talking about in scripture that you assert talks about a unicorn, but you are wrong about that. Pretty much all scholars and historians (even the secular ones) agree that the word you talk about is not decipherable beyond that of merely a "horned animal." Nice try, but no, you're wrong. Look that up if you don't believe me.

A unicorn is just as self evident as your God is, yjoeyh. I'm not saying that to be derogatory, I actually think it is a very appropriate comparison. I can show you numerous references to it/them throughout history in numerous places around the planet. There are countless references made in literature, song, legend and folklore. I can also point you to countless images and statues. Unicorns predate the bible (Chinese mythology first mentions the unicorn (Kilin) 5000 years ago). There are an unknown number of people who, to this day, sincerely believe in the existence of unicorns and their "mystical powers".

What makes God axiomatic and not unicorns, yjoeyh? Please show me what qualifies God as being axiomatic and what disqualifies Unicorns.

You are making a distinction without a difference. 4 is not an option apart from the other three. You can go with option 1 and still remain "open" and "skeptical."The same with option 2 and with option 3. 4 just doesn't stand on its own as a reasonable option independent of the other three.

So, saying "maybe so, maybe not" is prohibited in your worldview; duly noted.

Straw man - remember I dismiss the possibility of the supernatural, let alone make any supernatural claims.

You can accuse me of creating a straw man argument all you want, but until you hold your "goal post" still I'm kind of forced to wing it. Just for the record, you don't believe in supernatural claims such as the resurrection of Christ or his alleged virgin birth? You don't believe he turned water into wine or walked on water? No parting of the Red Sea or Jonah in the belly of the whale? Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego did not "do time" in a furnace? Interesting, and again, duly noted.

Now here is a red herring and a straw man put together in the same sentence! First, the point about Genghis Kahn has absolutely nothing to do with a comparison to claims of Christianity. It was merely a demonstration that ancient text is a valid source of evidence for making claims, which is something KTR seemed to state that it was not. Second, the accusitory summation of this description of reasonable Christian truth claims is baseless and it shows that you don't have even a basic understanding of the worldview you are arguing against. I suggest you keep to attacking the philosophical merits of Christianity and leave evidentiary claims alone. Statements like this are emotionally charged and openly demonstrate your own ignorance of what things Christianity claims to begin with. You'd asked me to spell that out before and I'm sorry I haven't done that yet, but you must realize how tall of an order that is, without having some specific target in mind.

First, ancient texts are a source of claims; they become valid once they are validated. Second, until you clearly define your worldview, I will obviously not be able to have even a basic understanding of it. Why don't you try making a definitive theological position of yours known (without any equivocation) before pontificating on my ignorance of Christianity. I do realize that this is a tall order indeed and I've got a sneaking suspicion that your hesitation to share your theological position is indicative of a fear that it will show your "emperor" to be lacking some clothing.

I agree completely. This is unfortunate because Christianity is often found guilty by association alone rather than by the merits of its own claims. It's truly sad.

What is distinctly and uniquely meritorious about Christianity as opposed to other worldviews, yjoeyh? What can your worldview provide that mine cannot? What do you have that I do not? What will you gain that I cannot? What can you give that I cannot?

I agree. Questions about axiomatics are unavoidable. That's what makes them axiomatic.

Please see the request for clarification of your definition of "axiom" above.

[yjoeyh]

A unicorn is just as self evident as your God is

Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense. I don't know anyone who would claim that unicorns are self-evident. Sorry, jj, you don''t seem to know what you're talking about. And I don't mean that derogatorily either. I just need you to make coherant points if you want to engage in conversation, otherwise I can't follow what you're trying to say. Take a note from KTR who actually makes some really good points for your side. Now we disagree on those points, but at least I can follow the reasoning. Sorry but I'm not following you here.

I can show you numerous references to it/them throughout history in numerous places around the planet. There are countless references made in literature, song, legend and folklore. I can also point you to countless images and statues. Unicorns predate the bible (Chinese mythology first mentions the unicorn (Kilin) 5000 years ago).

None of these are sufficient to qualify something as an axiom.

There are an unknown number of people who, to this day, sincerely believe in the existence of unicorns and their "mystical powers".

This would be a little closer if it were true. Still an "unknown" number is far too ambiguous to signify anything.

What makes God axiomatic and not unicorns

An axiom is something that is both obvious and ultimate.
First, the existence of God is obvious to me, and to lots of other people. I means LOTS of other people... I'll even go so far as to claim MOST other people. Now that doesn't prove that God exists and it would be fallacious reasoning for me to say that it did (it would be an appeal to popularity.) But it does prove that it satisfies that part of the qualification of being an axiom. Is the existence of unicorns obvious to most people? Of course not! And I would hope you wouldn't try to claim that they are. I think you would be hard pressed to find many (if ANY) people who sincerely believe in the existence of unicorns.
Second, beyond God's existence is the essence of his nature as the "ultimate" being. He is the starting point for everything that a theist believes, and the standard by which we measure all existence, reality, morality and truth. Even if you find one of these "unknown" number of people who believe that unicorns exist, do you really think ANY of them would say that they measure all things that are real and true by the standard of unicorns?

So, saying "maybe so, maybe not" is prohibited in your worldview; duly noted.

Not true. You miss the point again. I can say "maybe so or maybe not," and I can even mean it, BUT I can't do so to the exclusion of what I believe to be true. For example, I don't believe that bigfoot actually exists. Maybe he does and maybe he doesn't. I can't be certain. But I can know that I do not believe that he does. What's more, I would even be justified in saying that I don't really care enough about the question to even address it or even think about it. But since I'm talking about it, I've ruled that out as an option. Likewise, when you go on forums and talk about the existence of God, you forfeit the "let's just wait and see before deciding what I believe" option.

You can accuse me of creating a straw man argument all you want, but until you hold your "goal post" still I'm kind of forced to wing it.

No your not forced to do anything. You don't have to attack a position if you have no basis to know if its my position or not. It's fine for you to ask me something specific about my position, and I will try my best to answer.

Just for the record, you don't believe in supernatural claims such as the resurrection of Christ or his alleged virgin birth?

I don't believe that those are "supernatural" claims. They are just claims. but yes I absolutely believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I also believe in the virgin birth, although I make room for the somewhat ambigious meaning of "virgin."

You don't believe he turned water into wine or walked on water?

Yes I do. i grant you these things are unusual and "special."

No parting of the Red Sea or Jonah in the belly of the whale?

yes to the red sea... probably to the Jonah in the whale (but I suspect he probably died if that did happen.)

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego did not "do time" in a furnace?

Yes that too. Sorry if we are getting stuck in semanticsland here. This is a problem for me though, because the term "supernatural" is not really compatible with the claims of Christianity. At the very least it has a negative connotation, which paints a distorted theological perspective of of the kinds of events these and others actually are. If you want to deal with the events on face value, that's fine. I'll try not to let the semantics further hinder the conversation.

First, ancient texts are a source of claims; they become valid once they are validated.

Of course!

I do realize that this is a tall order indeed and I've got a sneaking suspicion that your hesitation to share your theological position is indicative of a fear that it will show your "emperor" to be lacking some clothing.

I think its more my laziness in not wanting to come up with a concise summation of all the various aspects of my Christian worldview. How about this... I'll throw out some terms that I think describe various aspects of my worldview and if you see any in particular you want to talk about I will expand on them. Fair enough?

Here are a few that I relate to:
Biblical, Christian, Gospel, Disciple, Reasonable, Reformed, Systematic, Cessationsim, Molinism, Theistic Evolution, Theodicy, Protestant, Augustinian.

At the same time, here are some terms that DO NOT describe my worldview:
Fideism, Supernatural, Pluralistic, Emergent, Restorationism, Charismatic, Arminian, Creationism.

How's that for starters?

What is distinctly and uniquely meritorious about Christianity as opposed to other worldviews, yjoeyh?

It's truthfulness, it's reasonableness, it's precedence, it's solidarity, it's consistency.

What can your worldview provide that mine cannot? What do you have that I do not? What will you gain that I cannot? What can you give that I cannot?

The answer to all four questions is the same... Truth.

[knightxd4]

Do atheist extremists enable fundamentalism?

Yes.

In fact atheist extremists (we can call them anti-theists) created fundamentalism.

It is all about the phenomenon of reactionaryism. Extremists reactionaires go overboard in reacting to one thing and thus create the conditions under which other people go overboard in the opposite direction reacting against them as well. The fact is, that fundamalism is a reaction to the the attempt to turn theory of evolution into a theory of everything and thus into a kind of religion or philosophy of life, also known as social darwinism.

What??? Where did you get this? Perhaps my knowledge is in err here. Could you please explain to me the "atheist extremists" that caused the spanish inquisition, the crusades, the 17th century witch burnings... or if you prefer more current things how about the which burnings in Kenya, or more locally the evil ministries of Pat Robertson, Ken Phelps, Peter Popoff, etc? I hate to tell you this, but fundamentalism has been around much longer than any kind of modern concept of atheism let alone atheist extremism. In point, of fact, the reformation itself is the result of Christians criticizing other Christians. If you ever want to here fundamentalism at it's worst, listen to a fundamentalist respond to another Christian. Oh and fyi, fundamentalism has been around much longer than Darwin's observations.

[NH Baritone]

Do atheist extremists enable fundamentalism?

Yes.

In fact atheist extremists (we can call them anti-theists) created fundamentalism.

It is all about the phenomenon of reactionaryism. Extremists reactionaires go overboard in reacting to one thing and thus create the conditions under which other people go overboard in the opposite direction reacting against them as well. The fact is, that fundamalism is a reaction to the the attempt to turn theory of evolution into a theory of everything and thus into a kind of religion or philosophy of life, also known as social darwinism.

What??? Where did you get this? Perhaps my knowledge is in err here. Could you please explain to me the "atheist extremists" that caused the spanish inquisition, the crusades, the 17th century witch burnings... or if you prefer more current things how about the which burnings in Kenya, or more locally the evil ministries of Pat Robertson, Ken Phelps, Peter Popoff, etc? I hate to tell you this, but fundamentalism has been around much longer than any kind of modern concept of atheism let alone atheist extremism. In point, of fact, the reformation itself is the result of Christians criticizing other Christians. If you ever want to here fundamentalism at it's worst, listen to a fundamentalist respond to another Christian. Oh and fyi, fundamentalism has been around much longer than Darwin's observations.

The denial of reality in defense of faith has indeed been around for a millennia. (Jesus, for example, repeatedly indicated that faith could alter the laws of physics.)

"Fundamentalism," however, as a term and as a systematized belief system, spawned entirely in reaction against liberal Christian theologies similar to MitchMac's and Scott Barger's (and not, as MitchMac erroneously asserts, against atheists). Touting the Christian Fundamentals began among Presbyterians in the late 19th century, and although the ideology's roots have spread into all sorts of dogmatic proclamations, the core beliefs among those who align themselves with fundamentalism have not changed since their first iteration.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I've referenced that quote recently. However it really needs to be noted that these original Fundamentalists were not Fundamentalists in the modern sense. They were not for example opposed to evolution (there's a good book on this called 'Darwin's Forgotten Defenders' out of print now though) They were not Biblical literalists unable to recognise the use of figurative speech in scripture. They were not opposed to scholarship. And although many of them were Biblical inerrantists not all were. Fundamentalism as a cultural phenomenon developed over time, so opposition to evolutionary theory was something that came in later. Even when you had the great split over Biblical Authority in the Presbyterian Church in the US the leader of the conservative faction Gresham Machin was a convinced Darwinist.

I would see the central feature of current as opposed to early Fundamentalism as being a particular kind of belief about how the Bible relates to science. This view regards the Bible as a repository of facts, a kind of all purpose encyclopedia, so that the correct way of doing science is to start from the Bible get some facts together and construct your science on that. This I would argue denies or makes secondary the religious character of the Bible and is an approach very different to the one which has been normal in the Church for most of history. In spite of claims to the contrary historically doing Bible study has not been seen as a short cut to finding scientific facts. If you read for example the commentaries on Genesis of Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine and Calvin this will soon become apparent.

[mitchellmckain]

My point was that fundamentalism as characterized by a type of willfully ignorant black and white thinking is certainly NOT going to be enabled by those who point out that the truth is more complicated and subtle. And thus it is far more true to say that they are enabled and empowered by opponents who support the same kind of willfully ignorant black and white thinking in opposition to Christianity. The point is frankly that theist and atheist morons (used rather loosely for those who indulge in willful ignorance) have more in common with each other than they have with those who honestly use the brains that they were given.


It is indeed my own analysis of history, regardless of the reasoning given in support of fundamentialism in terms of Biblical interpretive principles, that this was ultimately motivated by a reaction to the use of the theory of evolution as a more general philosophy that was destructive of general Christian values and ideals. Much of this WAS indeed internal to the theological controversies in Christianity and we certainly can find opposition to social darwinism from the non-Chrisitan humanistic sector. I certainly do not insist on an oversimplification of a very complex conjunction of reasons and motivations but only to point out what I see as the most significant factor in the creation of this sector of Christianity. And I don't think this is incompatable with the observations of Moonwood here, and that the counterexample given in the person of Gresham Machin only highlights the fact that there really was no necessary conflict between scientific theory and Christianity. Though I will admit that my seeing this as the most significant factor may be considered a matter of bias on my part because of my own intense focus on the relationship between relgion and science. Internal squabbles over theological details just don't seem as significant to me as ones relating to the conflict between science and relgion which seem far more important to me.

[NH Baritone]

My point was that fundamentalism as characterized by a type of willfully ignorant black and white thinking is certainly NOT going to be enabled by those point out that the truth is more complicated and subtle. And thus it is far more true to say that they are enabled and empowered by opponents who support the same kind of willfully ignorant black and white thinking in opposition to Christianity. The point is frankly that theist and atheist morons (used rather loosely for those who indulge in willful ignorance) have more in common with each other than they have with those who honestly use the brains that they were given.

It is indeed my own analysis of history, regardless of the reasoning given in support of fundamentialism in terms of Biblical interpretive principles, that this was ultimately motivated by a reaction to the use of the theory of evolution as a more general philosophy that was destructive of general Christian values and ideals. Much of this WAS indeed internal to the theological controversies in Christianity and we certainly can find opposition to social darwinism from the non-Chrisitan humanistic sector. I certainly do not insist on an oversimplification of a very complex conjunction of reasons and motivations but only to point out what I see as the most significant factor in the creation of this sector of Christianity. And I don't think this is incompatable with the observations of Moonwood here, and that the counterexample given in the person of Gresham Machin only highlights the fact that there really was no necessary conflict between scientific theory and Christianity. Though I will admit that my seeing this as the most significant factor may be considered a matter of bias on my part because of my own intense focus on the relationship between relgion and science. Internal squabbles over theological details just don't seem as significant to me as ones relating to the conflict between science and relgion which seem far more important to me.

Apology (and acknowledgement of esoteric, ahistoric interpretation of reality) accepted.