Ep. 99: Do Christian moderates enable fundamentalism?

[ScottBarger]

I will be the first to admit (and I do not enjoy the fact that I have to do so) that the leap to "the Bible is true" is the hardest to make. For me, the leap to "God exists" is easy because it seems so reasonable. From there, each subsequent step towards specificity (what kind of God is he?, has he communicated to us? etc.) is more and more difficult to make.

Here is a realization that has become clear to me over the last few years. For Christians, we simply have to admit that the starting place is trusting what we have been told...not by God, but by people who are speaking on behalf of God.

My $.02

[Dave B]

For Christians, we simply have to admit that the starting place is trusting what we have been told...not by God, but by people who are speaking on behalf of God.

I think that this statement perfectly exemplifies how Christian moderates enable fundamentalism.

[ScottBarger]

How so? If the fundamentalist and I both hold to the authority of scripture, but the fundamentalist is misusing it, how am I enabling the fundamentalist? Just because I value a something that a fundamentalist misuses doesn't mean I have to denounce the thing in order to denounce the fundamentalist, does it?

[Dave B]

How so? If the fundamentalist and I both hold to the authority of scripture, but the fundamentalist is misusing it, how am I enabling the fundamentalist? Just because I value a something that a fundamentalist misuses doesn't mean I have to denounce the thing in order to denounce the fundamentalist, does it?

You said that Christians must trust those who are speaking on behalf of God. Fundamentalist preachers are speaking on behalf of God.

Even if we limit your statement to trusting scripture, fundamentalist preachers make a pretty good case that their ideas are solidly based on scripture. If you go around promoting the idea that scripture must be trusted, some of the people you end up convincing are going to trust its plain meaning without the level of interpretation necessary to retrofit it for millenia of cultural change.

[Keep The Reason]

How so? If the fundamentalist and I both hold to the authority of scripture, but the fundamentalist is misusing it, how am I enabling the fundamentalist? Just because I value a something that a fundamentalist misuses doesn't mean I have to denounce the thing in order to denounce the fundamentalist, does it?

How so? Because you are part of a proud tradition of beliefs that have run the gamut as to what they mean, and your claim to scriptures being "misused" by people who interpret differently than do you is without gravitas. I look at the thousands of years that Christianity has propelled horrifying behavior, only recently bridalled in historic terms, and what stands out clearly is you have no grounds to claim modern fundamentalists are "misusing scriptures". They are indeed following it far more closely than do you and would likely find you to be misusing it.

Whom to believe? By what criteria? What are the standards theists use to decipher how many angels dance on the head of a pin? And how many thousands of years has this debate been raging, primarily between all of you theists,and usually with an unusual amount of bloodshed? At what point do you look at each other and recognize that your interpretations are an endless variation on a theme of lost causes?

You desperately want these beliefs, and so you insist they are rooted in some kind of objective reality. By doing so you help create and foster a culture that is forced to accept "all comers" to this interpretation game,the rules of which are grounded in that level but useless playing field of "Because we say so". These are the rules of the dogma you embrace and help to flourish, and you do not have grounds to point any finger of accusatory "misuse" to any group likewise using the exact same rules you do.

For as much as you can claim "they are misusing it", they can say "You are both misusing it and dismissing it".

And in terms of integrity to the scriptures themselves, they have the better argument. Hell, you admit on the podcasts themselves often enough how there are aspects of the Christian doctrine you find deeply troubling (as well you should) while your fundamentalist brethren have little concern with any of these things.

When you are part of a machine that fosters concern for ones eternal disposition, don't be surprised that you help create people who take it seriously, and go the distance to its logical conclusion. And given the paradigm of Christianty itself, the fundamentalists are merely holding to it to its logical conclusion, with less concession to wiggle room than you're willing to commit.

[jambijuce]

How so? If the fundamentalist and I both hold to the authority of scripture, but the fundamentalist is misusing it, how am I enabling the fundamentalist? Just because I value a something that a fundamentalist misuses doesn't mean I have to denounce the thing in order to denounce the fundamentalist, does it?

I think the point you're missing, Scott, is that you have no grounds to make your claim that they (fundamentalists) are "misusing" scripture. There is absolutely nothing "wrong" with the bible, if it's acknowledged and recognized to be an historically significant book. On the other hand, insistence to preserve the "sanctity" and "virtuous" nature of faith in God and belief in scriptural edicts without empirical evidence and or reasonable measures to verify the validity of the "message", you're left with personal interpretations and emotional convictions; there is no assurance of a moral and ethical result from the yielding of reason and submission to "divine authority".

To paraphrase a sentiment from Sam Harris, it's (theology) at best giving good people bad reason to do good, when there's perfectly good reasons to do good in the first place. You can disagree with the fundamentalists, Scott, you can even show them where they are misinterpreting what you interpret scripture to say, that may sway a few to reconsider their positions, but I ask, to what end? To reinterpret scripture as you see it? Who are you? What assurance do you have that your interpretation is correct? Why not rely on the proven effectiveness of rationally, reasonably and logically validated and demonstrated positions? Why not appreciate and use the bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. for whatever they can demonstrably offer as being beneficial or educational to mankind? Why submit or yield to an authority that has never been shown to exist? Why embrace and respect or even tolerate any ideology that inherently promotes and instigates conflict and opposition due to the supersedence of reason to "holy books" (i.e. "it doesn't make sence to me, but who am I to oppose gods will...")?

[NH Baritone]

I will be the first to admit (and I do not enjoy the fact that I have to do so) that the leap to "the Bible is true" is the hardest to make. For me, the leap to "God exists" is easy because it seems so reasonable. From there, each subsequent step towards specificity (what kind of God is he?, has he communicated to us? etc.) is more and more difficult to make.

Here is a realization that has become clear to me over the last few years. For Christians, we simply have to admit that the starting place is trusting what we have been told...not by God, but by people who are speaking on behalf of God.

My $.02

By what criteria do you decide whether they are trustworthy?

I do not wish to set up a straw man, but testimony from believers indicates that they trust it simply because it's what their parents taught them or because of the way it makes them feel ... i.e., that God has "warmed their heart."

But this is an incredibly weak basis for determining whether a book accurately describes reality. The same authority can be claimed by the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Buddhist Pali canon, the writings of Baha'u'lla, the Book of Mormon, and countless other texts, many of which are mutually exclusive.

Perhaps you have another reason selecting the 66 books of the Bible as authoritative beyond all other contradictory writings, but I have never heard one that didn't fall victim to the fallacies of tradition or emotional appeal.

[Dr Mundo]

How so? If the fundamentalist and I both hold to the authority of scripture, but the fundamentalist is misusing it, how am I enabling the fundamentalist? Just because I value a something that a fundamentalist misuses doesn't mean I have to denounce the thing in order to denounce the fundamentalist, does it?

Scott How can you say that the fundamentalists are the ones who are misusing scripture? I would gladly stand on the side of the person making an argument that can be demonstrated to be true. If you are correct in the way you interpret scripture, then there must be a way for me to come to the same conclusion as you have. If I follow your steps into discerning what is "true" in the bible and what is metaphor, or what is just flat out incorrect, I should come to the same conclusion as you did. If I don't then its not You nor I who are misusing scripture. It seems that it was set up to be wide open for interpretation at that point. The fundamentalists would more than likely claim that it is you who is misusing scripture and possibly some might even condemn you to hell if you don't repent of your sin,(not accepting the holy word of God). Here is my position on the bible, I hope you see why I think its far more reasonable than either of your many interpretations as to what god means. For me its a book put together by a council trying to set a cannon, Some people say there are some good things in there, and others can clearly see the bad (you included). But that's just it, it seems to be a book set up in pre-scientific times. We as a collective group have no way to distinguish between God(s) existence or non existence. So to claim that a book has either been authored or inspired(what ever that means) by this God seems like a bad position to even begin with. Lets wait until we can have sufficient demonstrable evidence that this God exists, before ascribing attributes to it especially how it wants us to conduct our behavior towards others.

Does my position on it seem like it is far less constructive than yours? why or why not?

[ScottBarger]

You said that Christians must trust those who are speaking on behalf of God. Fundamentalist preachers are speaking on behalf of God.

Even if we limit your statement to trusting scripture, fundamentalist preachers make a pretty good case that their ideas are solidly based on scripture. If you go around promoting the idea that scripture must be trusted, some of the people you end up convincing are going to trust its plain meaning without the level of interpretation necessary to retrofit it for millenia of cultural change.

Yes, I was referring to the concept of inspired scripture. Those of us who hold to scripture as being authoritative because it comes from God, must admit that scripture itself is a product of human testimony...if for no other reason than the process of establishing canon was a human effort (ie. there is no God-breathed list of which bits are to be considered scripture and which bits aren't). I simply must trust the testimony of early Christians (and subsequent councils) that they did, in fact, get it right. At that point it really is a matter of finding the testimony of these people do be compelling...or not.

[ScottBarger]

I think the point you're missing, Scott, is that you have no grounds to make your claim that they (fundamentalists) are "misusing" scripture.

I totally disagree. I have all kinds of reasons to conclude that someone may be misinterpreting or misusing scripture. Examples:

1) Someone reads a phrase from Hosea 1:2 and decides that the Bible teaches that believers should only marry prostitutes.

or

2) Someone reads through the gospel of John (chapter 6) and decides that only first century cannibals make it to heaven.

These conclusions are preposterous and totally in violation of any reasonable hermeneutic. Why? Because they violate the rules of genre and interpretation. We use these rules all the time with all kinds of communication (ex: "what did he mean when he said that?" or "what was she really saying when she wrote this?") why can't I apply the same rules to the literature of the Bible and conclude that the fundamentalist has got it wrong? Like I said before, just because I value scripture and the fundamentalists value scripture, doesn't mean I have to devalue scripture in order to critique the fundamentalists. To make such an assertion is absurd and on par with me saying that you as an atheist must disavow atheism because some people use atheism to validate self destructive and hedonistic behavior.

Sam Harris' assertion (which Emery quotes at about 33:45) that moderate Christians fail to live by scripture strikes me as woefully ignorant (or purposefully dismissive) of the process of interpretation. Furthermore his conclusion that we moderates are somehow of no use unless we call into question the existence of God...well that's just silly. He is basically arguing that I am a shitty human being unless I agree with him.

[ScottBarger]

Scott How can you say that the fundamentalists are the ones who are misusing scripture? I would gladly stand on the side of the person making an argument that can be demonstrated to be true. If you are correct in the way you interpret scripture, then there must be a way for me to come to the same conclusion as you have. If I follow your steps into discerning what is "true" in the bible and what is metaphor, or what is just flat out incorrect, I should come to the same conclusion as you did. If I don't then its not You nor I who are misusing scripture. It seems that it was set up to be wide open for interpretation at that point.

I think that there is such a process and by using it most, if not all, readers will come to more or less the same conclusion about the core concepts in the Bible. The resurrection, for example. You may not believe it, but there's hardly a doubt that the NT writers did.

The fundamentalists would more than likely claim that it is you who is misusing scripture and possibly some might even condemn you to hell if you don't repent of your sin,(not accepting the holy word of God). Here is my position on the bible, I hope you see why I think its far more reasonable than either of your many interpretations as to what god means. For me its a book put together by a council trying to set a cannon, Some people say there are some good things in there, and others can clearly see the bad (you included). But that's just it, it seems to be a book set up in pre-scientific times. We as a collective group have no way to distinguish between God(s) existence or non existence. So to claim that a book has either been authored or inspired(what ever that means) by this God seems like a bad position to even begin with. Lets wait until we can have sufficient demonstrable evidence that this God exists, before ascribing attributes to it especially how it wants us to conduct our behavior towards others.

Does my position on it seem like it is far less constructive than yours? why or why not?

I think this is reasonable enough. Of course for me, the scales have already been tipped in a direction because I think theism is more reasonable than atheism and I have been tremendously impacted by the Gospel. It is hard to undo some of that.

[Dr Mundo]

Scott How can you say that the fundamentalists are the ones who are misusing scripture? I would gladly stand on the side of the person making an argument that can be demonstrated to be true. If you are correct in the way you interpret scripture, then there must be a way for me to come to the same conclusion as you have. If I follow your steps into discerning what is "true" in the bible and what is metaphor, or what is just flat out incorrect, I should come to the same conclusion as you did. If I don't then its not You nor I who are misusing scripture. It seems that it was set up to be wide open for interpretation at that point.

I think that there is such a process and by using it most, if not all, readers will come to more or less the same conclusion about the core concepts in the Bible. The resurrection, for example. You may not believe it, but there's hardly a doubt that the NT writers did.

The fundamentalists would more than likely claim that it is you who is misusing scripture and possibly some might even condemn you to hell if you don't repent of your sin,(not accepting the holy word of God). Here is my position on the bible, I hope you see why I think its far more reasonable than either of your many interpretations as to what god means. For me its a book put together by a council trying to set a cannon, Some people say there are some good things in there, and others can clearly see the bad (you included). But that's just it, it seems to be a book set up in pre-scientific times. We as a collective group have no way to distinguish between God(s) existence or non existence. So to claim that a book has either been authored or inspired(what ever that means) by this God seems like a bad position to even begin with. Lets wait until we can have sufficient demonstrable evidence that this God exists, before ascribing attributes to it especially how it wants us to conduct our behavior towards others.

Does my position on it seem like it is far less constructive than yours? why or why not?

I think this is reasonable enough. Of course for me, the scales have already been tipped in a direction because I think theism is more reasonable than atheism and I have been tremendously impacted by the Gospel. It is hard to undo some of that.

Scott I never want you to undo anything in your life that brings you meaning or some sort of emotional impact. But that is well within the realm of naturalism to be impacted by books and lifestyles whether they be a factual representation of reality or not. I'm glad you found something that brings you Joy and makes you a good person, but It is still not anything that should be claimed to come form a divine authority. What is it that tipped your scales in the direction of Theism? I was a theist for most of my life, and I know how we can interpret things and be completely wrong about it. Now when you insert an entity that is beyond our current capacity to measure you just increase the margin of error on what our feelings could be representing by an infinite amount.

I am really sorry Scott but I just have a hard time believing you will remain a theist for the rest of your life. I don't remember what episode it was but I think you referenced that you didn't know how to not be a Christian. based on the way you talk and respond to questions on the Podcast, I feel like you are well on your way to being Atheistic. You say you don't know how well you would treat people without having the incentive of a God wanting you to be that way. but I can almost guarantee you that will not be the case. You are human Just like I am, Your compassion and empathy for others will not diminish based on there being a God creature that you feel is watching you or not. Not to the extent that you will be a completely different person.

One more thing in which way do you think Theism is more reasonable than Atheism? In general not specific to you. Or is this only to you? but Atheism for me could be more reasonable? To me "reasonable" would necessarily need to apply to all of us, or else it seems to butcher the words meaning.

[jambijuce]

I think the point you're missing, Scott, is that you have no grounds to make your claim that they (fundamentalists) are "misusing" scripture.

I totally disagree. I have all kinds of reasons to conclude that someone may be misinterpreting or misusing scripture. Examples:

1) Someone reads a phrase from Hosea 1:2 and decides that the Bible teaches that believers should only marry prostitutes.

or

2) Someone reads through the gospel of John (chapter 6) and decides that only first century cannibals make it to heaven.

These conclusions are preposterous and totally in violation of any reasonable hermeneutic. Why? Because they violate the rules of genre and interpretation. We use these rules all the time with all kinds of communication (ex: "what did he mean when he said that?" or "what was she really saying when she wrote this?") why can't I apply the same rules to the literature of the Bible and conclude that the fundamentalist has got it wrong? Like I said before, just because I value scripture and the fundamentalists value scripture, doesn't mean I have to devalue scripture in order to critique the fundamentalists. To make such an assertion is absurd and on par with me saying that you as an atheist must disavow atheism because some people use atheism to validate self destructive and hedonistic behavior.

Sam Harris' assertion (which Emery quotes at about 33:45) that moderate Christians fail to live by scripture strikes me as woefully ignorant (or purposefully dismissive) of the process of interpretation. Furthermore his conclusion that we moderates are somehow of no use unless we call into question the existence of God...well that's just silly. He is basically arguing that I am a shitty human being unless I agree with him.

What assurances can you give me that your interpretation is correct, Scott? I understand that you're convinced, but how can I demonstrate to Fred Phelps that his interpretation is wrong and yours is correct? Until you can demonstrate a conclusive reason to believe that you are the one who is correct, I have no reason to believe you. This is the crux of the "enabling fundamentalism" discussion; propagating belief without logical, rational, reasonable support is tantamount to enabling.

I know you don't like the implications of this charge, Scott, but that does not change the reality of the matter.

[Pseudonym]

Here are my single a priori assumptions:

The Laws of Logic ARE.

This is mildly off-topic, and also a reiteration of material discussed some time ago, but I'd like to point out for completeness that there is no single thing called "logic". There are multiple logic systems, which have only two "laws" in common. They "exist" in the sense that you can reason about them independently of any particular valid model, but they are not "universal" in the sense that not every logic models every application accurately.

As you were.

[yjoeyh]

On what basis do you deny any “attributes of Christianity”, Joey? As a self described “bible based - orthodox Christian”, can I not assume that anything biblical will accurately describe your belief? Why would anyone need to imagine particularities? We should be able to read scripture and know what you believe; right?

We all should but often many do not. Most Christians AND Non-Christians (including atheists) are satisfied with poor interpretations and bad hermeneutic approaches to scripture. People are content to read their own interpretations into the texts to proof-text their own positions, for or against it. I don't let other Christians get by with that, and I won't let you get by with it either. Take any specific text from the Bible you like and show how that represents an aspect of Christianity that I do not believe. In some (exceptionally rare) cases you might actually be able to point out something I consider to be an error in the text, but in those cases I will make the case on proper hermeneutical grounds why I believe it to be in error. It will never be simply because I don't like it.

Do you honestly not see a difference between the “demonstrability” of feelings, morality, reality and God?

Do you honestly see a difference in the demonstrability of those things?

As far as the “religion has served a purpose” is concerned, are you willing to then acknowledge that according to your “logic” this would also validate the existence of every other god of every other religion that has ever been claimed based solely on whether or not they accomplished anything “good”?

YES! Every religion that claims the existence of God or gods is validated in that axiom of God's existence. It's just that some religions do a better job than others at identifying and describing what God is like. Their God(s) still very much exists.

First of all, God is not logically necessary;

Then what is?

These laws limit, restrict and define the physical universe which we are a part of; anything that supersedes these laws, is, by definition, supernatural.

I admitted it was all semantics. If you want to rely on that definition of supernatural, I can't argue with that, BUT you begin to paint yourself into a corner by insisting that the laws of nature are logically necessary to being with. It's almost like you are making the argument that the supernatural actually does exist.

Any and all biblical claims that cannot be tested, demonstrated, recreated practically or by logically and reasonably theorizing, are supernatural claims.

What exactly doesn't fit that criteria? Maybe some things cannot be tested, but lots of things can't be tested that you would not consider supernatural, like your favorite color. I don't know of anything in the Bible that doesn't stand up to logical and reasonable theory at least.

For example, you make the case that Islam and Allah are axiomatically true simply because the Koran claims so and centuries of human experiences verify it.

Not true. The Quran would be an evidentiary claim, not an axiomatic one. The same goes for the Bible. But Islam does have the axiomatic claim of God's existence right. Not only that, they have one of the better logical definitions of God's existence. Even the Kalam Cosmological Argument that is discussed quite a bit on the podcast, is essentially an argument that originated in Islam.

Does your position still seem logically and reasonably sound when it’s applied to a belief system other than your own?

Of course it does.