# How Can There Be NON-Fundamentalists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 24, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896 "2004-09-24T17:06:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/21 "2004-09-24T18:49:08Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > So based on my experience, I think they’re all afraid they’ll become Gay. And that’s why they won’t rethink things. > > Okay that last part is for humor only. … but it does go a long way towards explaining where all the gay Muslims are… ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/22 "2004-09-24T18:53:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But I don’t know how you reliably pick out the good bits of meat from the nasty ones. In my buffet, I’d toss the whole pot. I prefer a different analogy. It’s like the attic in a house your family has lived in for generations. Every now and then you might go up there and poke around. Maybe you’ll find something that catches your eye. So you bring it down, dust it off, and use it. But maybe you’re not using it the same way previous generations did. Is that wrong? No. Likewise, it’s ok to stick something of yours up there. Maybe a future generation will clean off the dust and use it. Or maybe they’ll leave it there because they can’t think of a use for it. Religion is a living and evolving thing. The fundamentalists are the ones who stand still against natural social change. > [@Eve](#): > > But I don’t think you can drop that—if there had never been an Old Testament, there’d be no Judaism today. Mmm. Maybe. But then again, Judaism had an active oral tradition centuries before the OT was actually written down. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/23 "2004-09-24T18:58:45Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > He goes on to state that the nice, reasonable, “cafeteria” Christians, Jews and Muslims—the kind we befriend and chat with here on the Boards—are fooling themselves. “Well, I believe in the Old Testament [or New Testament, or Koran], but I don’t believe you should stone adultresses to death or torch entire towns because some inhabitants are infidels.” > > Harris argues that these people are making deals with themselves psychologically, because if they admitted that _some_ of their religion is outdated rantings from thousands of years ago, they’d have to let in a chink of reason and admit that maybe _none_ of their Holy Book held water. > > Opinions? This argument sounds like “fundamentalist atheism.” If it is possible for any aspect of your key Holy Book to be false, then logically, _all_ of it must be false. Personally, I don’t agree with fundamentalist all-or-nothing Christians, and I don’t agree with all-or-nothing atheists. I don’t believe that those who consider themselves fundamentalist Christians (I don’t know enough about other religions to form an opinion) are doing as good a job as they claim of following the word of the Bible to the level. As far as I’m aware, there are not individual editions of the Bible that give each person a minute-by-minute play by play of how he should live each day of his life in the 20th century. We’re covered when it comes to the proper method for sacrificing a lamb, but the book is oddly silent when it comes to stuff like how to deal with it when someone cuts you off in traffic. Therefore, _every_ person who claims to be a fundamentalist is actually acting on his _interpretation_ of his religion’s Holy Book. Even if the book itself were infallible, and even if the humans who wrote it down were infallible, the people who are reading the book are most definitely not. Even thouse who feel they are following the literal word of the book to the letter, are actually interpreting what it says and deriving their own fallible human understanding of its meaning from it. But I fail to understand how someone could come to the conclusion that that means the entire book is invalid. It is the work of human beings, inspired by God to explain to other human beings how God “works” and how we should be treating each other. There’s an awful lot in the book that’s so obviously _right_; why is that all invalid just because the universe isn’t really only a couple thousand years old? Why should I reject a religion that overwhelmingly says “love your neighbor” just because it has bits that say “unless he’s gay?” > [@Eve](#): > > (is that the hottest author ever, by the way?) No. That would be John Irving. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/24 "2004-09-24T19:05:24Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > Why should I reject a religion that overwhelmingly says “love your neighbor” just because it has bits that say “unless he’s gay?” Hey, that would ceretainly be sufficient reason for _me!_ (And Sam Harris is _way_ hotter than John Irving!) ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/25 "2004-09-24T19:10:43Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > But I don’t think you _can_ drop that—if there had never been an Old Testament, there’d be no Judaism today. Had there been no New Testament ever written, no Christianity. No Koran, no Muslims. The Christian Church made it for a few hundred years before there was a bible. I wonder if different media had been available if there’d be Christianity. If, for instance, instead of written texts, we had video of people who passed on what they had heard about Christ a generation after it happened. Or if the gospels had never been codified into a bible. If they just called them ‘our best documents about what happened,’ and nobody ever said the documents themselves were holy. Actually, **Eve** , I think the best example of your OP’s argument might be the Book of Mormon. Are there any Mormons who don’t take it literally? “Non-literal” and “Mormon” really do seem mutually exclusive to me. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/26 "2004-09-24T19:39:08Z")
> [@Johnny Bravo](#): > > I prefer a different analogy. > > It’s like the attic in a house your family has lived in for generations. … So you bring it down, dust it off, and use it. But maybe you’re not using it the same way previous generations did. Yep, that rack up there makes a dandy coffee table if you throw a board over it. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Religion is a living and evolving thing. The fundamentalists are the ones who stand still against natural social change. Precisely. But if religion were initiated by a perfect deity, why should it be a living, changing thing? Wouldn’t a deity get it right the first time? If religion were purely manmade, reflecting whatever the moral code of the time was (and I’ll give you the best morals, not the worst) then you’d expect it to be changing, just as you said. Some religions resynch with the current moral code through new divine inspiration, be it Messiah, prohet or angel, but the same argument holds. ---
**Author:** ![Already\_in\_Use](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@Already\_in\_Use](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Already_in_Use)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/27 "2004-09-24T19:48:29Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Damn, **blowero** beat me to it! > > I understand the divinely inspired, human written position, but I think it has significant problems. How does one tell the parts that are purely human, written, the parts that are divinely inspired where the human made a transcription error, and the parts where the divine shines through. How can any deity expect us to act upon such unreliable instructions, except through the same non-divine logic and moral reasoning that we would use without any divine inspiration at all? > > If there were large chunks (think containers in a buffet) that were one or the other, it would be easy. We could see Job as a fable, Chronicles and Kings as non-inspired historical commentary, and Leviticus, say, as divinely inpsired. We could fill our plates from the good containers and avoid the dubious ones. But things seem a bit more mixed than that. The important stuff, like the Shma, is mixed in with the stuff we’d rather ignore (like the “every harlot must get stoned” part. Could an advocate of the divinely inspired - human mangled position give me an algorithm for a filter that does not involve our human perceptions? > > I understand where this position comes from, by the way. Our moral code is far beyond that of 2700 years ago. But I don’t know how you reliably pick out the good bits of meat from the nasty ones. In my buffet, I’d toss the whole pot. I suppose most believers who accept that their religious text is fallible retain only the parts that ring true to them spiritually. But upon closer examination, how can that work? Isn’t that saying that your ability to discern the “true” parts of your religious text is better than that of the saints who wrote it? Of course, I guess one can pick out the parts that ring true, but at the same time acknowledge that one’s own spirituality is as fallible due to personal and cultural influence as that of the texts’ authors, and pray for divine guidance. Nobody ever said religious belief was easy. (OK, I’m sure some snotty atheist/agnostic/humanist has said it. However, I was raised Lutheran and am now a snotty agnostic, and I can honestly say that making sense of your life is hard any way you choose to do it, whether through faith or through reason or some combination thereof.) I guess what I’m saying is that it’s a question of how the divine manifests itself. If it can only be glimpsed in distorted form through texts, and religious leaders are similarly fallible, what can man rely on to get a better view? Again, one can pray for divine guidance and hope for the best, but ultimately, how does distinguish between divine and Satanic influences? If God’s love is everywhere corrupted by the imperfect state of the world, and even man’s own abilities to perceive it are flawed, how can man ever be expected to know the true path to God? (Sorry if any of this post is contradictory, but the topic is a bit of a brain-stretcher. And **Eve** , I like your recent habit of GD thread-starting. You keep your OPs short, sweet, and humble, which is quite a breath of fresh air for the forum!) ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/28 "2004-09-24T20:50:09Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > Opinions? Yep, he’s hot. You have chosen wisely, go forth… ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/29 "2004-09-24T20:53:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, Eve, I think the best example of your OP’s argument might be the Book of Mormon. Are there any Mormons who don’t take it literally? “Non-literal” and “Mormon” really do seem mutually exclusive to me. Depends on what you mean by “literally.” There are some few Mormons who do not think that the BoM is actual history, but that Joseph Smith was inspired to write it. A pretty unorthodox opinion, but then Mormons don’t have a whole lot of ‘required’ beliefs, and the historicity of the BoM isn’t one of them. People who think the BoM is not in _some_ way an inspired book tend not to be Mormons for very long. On the whole, however, LDS accept the BoM as what it claims to be. The BoM contains a lot of narration of events (literal), some quotes from Isaiah (largely metaphor), accounts of visions or allegories with their interpretations, and sermons on how to behave. It isn’t as difficult to tell which is which as it is with the Bible. The LDS view of the Bible is that it is mostly inspired and correct, but also corrupted and containing mistakes. Individual Mormons tend to vary on how much they accept as historical (such as Noah’s ark, etc.), and most wouldn’t be too bothered to find out that one or another ancient story was exaggerated or whatever. Of course, we firmly believe in the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that he is the Savior. Everything else is secondary, however. Mormons tend to be literal about the Bible where some others are not, and metaphorical in spots that Fundamentalists take literally. We also think that the authors of the books of the Bible were inspired, but human. All this confusion is why we think it’s important to have a living prophet. It’s his job to help modern-day people figure out the word of God and how it applies to them. Prayer and personal inspiration are also considered helpful. Hope that helps you understand the LDS POV. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/30 "2004-09-24T21:42:51Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > So based on my experience, I think they’re all afraid they’ll become Gay. And that’s why they won’t rethink things. Who says that rejecting faith is the only way to rethink things? Lots of non-fundies look at the truth of the bible in a more postmodern sense. We don’t see the truth in the bible in the universe being created in 144 hours, we see it in Jesus saying the most important thing is to love God with all your heart and next most important is to that love your neighbor as yourself. Just because **some** who call themselved Christians reject homosexuals doesn’t mean God does. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/31 "2004-09-24T21:44:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But if religion were initiated by a perfect deity, why should it be a living, changing thing? Why should it be, why shouldn’t it be? I know it must seem like a pretty tired excuse to an atheist, but saying “this **is** was God thinks” or “this **was** what God was thinking” isn’t something I consider possible. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/32 "2004-09-24T21:51:26Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > This argument sounds like “fundamentalist atheism.” If it is possible for any aspect of your key Holy Book to be false, then logically, _all_ of it must be false. Personally, I don’t agree with fundamentalist all-or-nothing Christians, and I don’t agree with all-or-nothing atheists. Be fair, Sol. Eve said _maybe_ none of it holds water. She did not say “all of it _must_ be false.” ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/33 "2004-09-24T21:55:24Z")
The OP’s problem is the assumption of perfect knowledge. This is a tenet of Fundamentalists, who are Biblicists, & assume that just because a text is canon, it’s infallible. The non-religious should know better. Just because a history textbook has a few inaccuracies, doesn’t mean it has no truth. This who are not “fundamentalist” read their scriptures seriously, & judge them against reason & outside information. That doesn’t mean they throw the baby out with the bathwater. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/34 "2004-09-24T21:55:41Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > Hey, that would ceretainly be sufficient reason for _me!_ Then I worded it incorrectly. How about attempt two: I reject the notion that all those who don’t accept Christ as their savior are doomed to hell. I also reject the notion that homosexuality is an abomination. Does that mean that I must also reject the notion of “judge not, lest ye be judged,” or “love thy neighbor,” or to go back further, “thou shalt not kill?” Since atheists have rejected the Bible as “the truth,” then does that mean I should be in constant fear of atheists trying to murder me or steal from me or covet my neighbor’s wife? I’m at a loss to understand why I’m “fooling myself” if I accept only the parts of Christianity that make sense to me, those that fit in with the rest. It does form a coherent belief system and a coherent moral code; it’s not as if I’m just winging it here and making stuff up as I go along. > [@Eve](#): > > (And Sam Harris is _way_ hotter than John Irving!) DIE, HERETIC! ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/35 "2004-09-24T21:56:06Z")
> [@Padeye](#): > > Who says that rejecting faith is the only way to rethink things? Perhaps you missed the part where I said “Okay that last part is for humor only.” ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/36 "2004-09-24T22:09:32Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Be fair, Sol. Eve said _maybe_ none of it holds water. She did not say “all of it _must_ be false.” I’m not necessarily arguing with **Eve** , I’m arguing with her so-called “hot” author. If someone describes himself as being not a fundamentalist, then _by definition_, it’s not so damning to him if _maybe_ none of it holds water. If I’m a fundamentalist, then I have to believe in all or nothing. If I’m not a fundamentalist, I’m open to varying interpretations of the “truth.” As well as the possibility that the actual “truth” is unlike anything I’ve ever realized, that in fact it’s potato bug worship that is the One True Way, and I’m going to spend an eternity in torment because I stepped on one as a child and didn’t perform the proper ritual of attonement. If that is the truth, it’s irrelevant, because it doesn’t make any sense to me, so I couldn’t believe it even if I wanted to. So I believe that God gave me a brain, and I’ll use it to make sense of the world, believe the parts that fit in with that conception and find some other explanation for the parts that don’t. That’s not “letting in a chink of reason,” as if the entire notion of religious belief is unreasonable, and people come about their belief systems without giving it any thought. And I say it’s not “fooling yourself” to be able to reconcile a belief system out of things that would to a cursory observer seem like completely incompatible concepts. I believe it takes a lot of reason, a lot of time, a lot of thought, and a good bit of faith. (And since people seem to keep thinking I’m angry when I’m not: I’m not. Really. The digs at **Eve** ’s honey are meant in fun.) ---
**Author:** ![Freyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/freyr/32/5763_2.png) [@Freyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freyr)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/37 "2004-09-24T22:11:27Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > Harris argues that these people are making deals with themselves psychologically, because if they admitted that _some_ of their religion is outdated rantings from thousands of years ago, they’d have to let in a chink of reason and admit that maybe _none_ of their Holy Book held water. > > Opinions? Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure someone will) but isn’t this the logical fallacy of the excluded middle? IE: if some Scripture is untrue, then all of it is untrue. Extending the analogy: If **some** black people steal things, then **all** black people steal things. If **some** gay men are flamboyant, then **all** gay men are flamboyant. If \*\*some Republicans make homophobic statements, then **all** Republicans make homophobic statements. If **some** transsexuals are witty, gorgeous and have fabulous lives, then **all** transsexuals are witty, gorgeous and have fabulous lives. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/38 "2004-09-24T22:26:42Z")
> [@Johnny Bravo](#): > > Why should it be, why shouldn’t it be? I know it must seem like a pretty tired excuse to an atheist, but saying “this **is** was God thinks” or “this **was** what God was thinking” isn’t something I consider possible. Then you are not a Jehovah’s Witness, or a Catholic, or one of any number of fundamentalist Protestant sects that claim to know the word of God, and by extension, his mind. Also, the major Christian religions’ final appeal is to the truth of their dogma, which is justified as a representation of what God wants re. humans. That dogma is either immutable, or open to interpretation. If the former, then only one interpretation can be correct; if the latter, then it must needs comprise, at least in part, some human input. Humans being flawed, it follows that the dogma is to some degree suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/39 "2004-09-24T22:27:10Z")
> [@Freyr](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure someone will) but isn’t this the logical fallacy of the excluded middle? IE: if some Scripture is untrue, then all of it is untrue. If some scripture is untrue, then all of it comes into doubt. There’s a difference. > [@](#): > > If some black people steal things, then all black people steal things. Take away the word ‘black’ and add my distinction. then you have it. If some people steal things then all people might steal things. ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/40 "2004-09-24T22:29:22Z")
Same goes for your other analogies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896.md?page=3)