Yes, there are many, many exceptions – that’s why I included (italicized, even) the words “in general.” Nevertheless, the point stands. The overwhelming majority of those raised by Christian parents are themselves Christian, by Muslim parents Muslim, etc. “Laziness” is an unsatisfying explanation for this phenomenon.
Fine, if that’s how we want to use our terms. I am not without metaphysical beliefs. A fundamentalist does not choose to reach conclusions A, B, and C about metaphysics, just as I did not choose to reach conclusions X, Y, and Z.
Not from where I stand. If they’re members of a particular faith simply because they were raised that way, and not because it makes sense to them, and if, as adults, they didn’t question and search beyond the boundaries of their faith, they’re intellectually (or spiritually) lazy.
Aligning yourself with anything supernatural or mystical, i.e., believing in one over all the other options, as opposed to accepting life as the mystery it is, is choosing.
I’ve apparently not made myself clear. Those aren’t the beliefs that I consider reprehensible; while I find them a little baffling, they’re no more baffling than beliefs that (for example) Elvis Presley and Janis Joplin may embody the God and Goddess on a Wiccan high holiday. And I hung out plenty with people who believed that.
No: the beliefs which I find reprehensible,and which I therefore mock the holders of, include:
-Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God because God wanted to kill the sexually licentious.
-Evolution is junk science invented by atheists to pervert the truth of God’s 7-day creation of the world.
-Because God professed to know a particular prophet in the womb (I forget which prophet), that means that abortion is morally equivalent to murder and should be legally equivalent to murder.
-The United States was founded as a Christian nation, and should remain such.
-Atheists are not qualified to hold public office.
yes, yes, I realize that these beliefs do not fit the theological definition of “fundamentalism.” However, if I draw a Venn diagram, with holders of these beliefs in one circle and technical fundamentalists in the other, there’s a mighty big overlap.
Perhaps it comes from spending most of my life in the South, but I don’t really encounter that many Catholics who profess such dangerous nonsense. I don’t meet tons of Episcopalians who spout this kind of venomous rhetoric. No Hasid has ever gone off on me about any of it. It’s always been fundamentalists who are front and center when it comes to religiously-based nastiness in my life.
But if you can show me a significant contingent of self-proclaimed fundamentalists who do not believe a single point above, then I’ll start looking for a different phrase to use to describe these creepy people.
In the past, I’ve called them Jesus Crispies; I may return to that.
Anyone who refuses to even consider evidence that is contrary to their beliefs has rejected reason. On what grounds does someone “believe” that unspecified scientific evidence is flawed or misinterpreted? Are they not extremely biased?
And as VarlosZ indicated, most people have their belifs instilled in them during their upbringing rather than as a result of using reason. In order to use reason, you have to begin by being unconvinced.
But they are arguing that misinterpretation of evidence based on faith. They have no evidence to refute what they are being told. They simply deny it out of hand. Saying “I don’t believe that because of this evidence which states your evidence is in error.” is much different from saying “I don’t believe it because that’s not what it says in the bible and that’s the final word.”
But are you combining people with strong faith with fundamentalists? There are differences. Fundamentalists believe there are fundamental tenets to their specific religion (hence the term “fundamentalist”) from which one must not deviate. And to do so is a sin. There are reasonable Christians/Muslims/Jews who understand that part of their holy books are allegory. Fundamentalists deny the possibility of allegory. In other words, a zealot. I don’t mock anyone for their faith. I simply have no respect for anyone whose mind is completely closed against any other interpretation but their own.
Kalhoun, there is just as much faith in choosing to believe there is no God as believing there is one. It’s a choice from what I can tell. While there is a great deal of proof for evolution, it does not prove or disprove there is a god.
“Fundie” is about as perjorative a term for fundamentalists as “commie” is for communists, period. People can use the terms “commie” and “communist” both disrespectfully or sympathetically, but in the absence of any discerning factors, the former connotes disrespect while the latter is ambivalent.
Not what I was getting at, but thanks. See I think fundie is not perjorative because it is simply the shortening of an other word and carries the same conotations as the other word fundamentalist. So fundie is no more rude than faundamentalist is rude. I don’t see that fundie has gained any more negative meaning of its own. So it is not like Jap for Japanese or Paki for Pakistani where the shortened forms have become rude on there own account. But more like Brit for British, or phone for telephone, it is just a simplification for ease of writing and reading.
It’s a bit presumptuous to assume that the very religious, or those whose religious beliefs are consistent with that of their parents, are less reflective about their spiritual beliefs than skeptics. A person’s faith isn’t just so “simply because they were raised that way.” Rather, when a person thinks about spiritual matters, that thought process is effected by nothing so much as the spiritual environment in which he was raised. That person could not choose to substitute his upbringing with another in order to alter his conclusions.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Is it that to be religious in one way or another is to “choose” to be so, while to be atheistic is simply to"accept life as the mystery it is," and hence not a choice?
If so, consider what Sartre said: “Man is condemned to be free.” Choosing not to choose is itself a choice.
As I’ve said, though, I don’t think think that “choice” accurately reflects the way people come about their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
I do see, but I think you’re stretching semantics to the limit. You believe there is no god. But you cannot prove there is no god. It’s still a tenet of faith, and you choose to believe it. I’m fairly agnostic, but I don’t reject the idea altogether. I choose not to. #2 of your definition even goes so far as to call atheism a doctrine. Which is really what any religion is.
No qualifiers? No exceptions? Your statement seems rigid. It seems narrow. It allows no deviation for any other viewpoint of fundamentalism. By your own declaration, isn’t your view of fundamentalists itself a form of fundamentalism?
I don’t believe so, no. Please see my post in which I stated:
Fundamentalism is narrow and rigid. That’s why it’s fundamentalism. Doesn’t mean that all people who have strong faith are fundamentalism, and I am able to make that distinction.
I was referring only to “fundamentalists” such as you describe. I find their beliefs and outlook to be very frustrating, but I don’t think that they’re bad people. Indeed, what I find so frustrating about your typical fundamentalist is that he would be quick to judge me harshly, as an atheist, for my conclusions about spirituality. Shouldn’t I then try to withhold judgement?
Regardless, mocking them by use of the term “fundie” does more harm than good; that’s the main point I want to make.
Lib, are you seriously suggesting I am a fundamentalist about fundamentalism? I don’t have an article of faith about their religious tenets; rather, I am going by what several fundamentalists have told me about their religion(s). That there is simply no allowance for any differing or dissenting voice in regard to the structure of their faith.
Perhaps it is best to say that some fundamentalists, such as the ones you know personally, have rigid views. My sister is a fundamentalist who believes in the literal truth of the Bible, but is as kind and loving and tolerant a person who has ever lived. Thing is, she believes that she has no moral standing from which to condemn anyone for any reason. She believes the Bible tells her to be humble, and to love you without condition or restraint no matter whether you are gay, straight, atheist, theist, Demuplican or Republicrat — whatever.
I don’t think so. Unless your definition of “fundamentalist” is overly broad, I think an awful lot of people in the US believe those things. We’re straying far into IMHO here, but I think if you took a poll* on those issues in the US you’d find that well over 30% of respondents would agree with all of them, and probably 50% or more would agree with most of them. IOW, the set of people believing those is much larger than the set of people who self-identify with fundamentalism.
It would seem to be the more enlightened approach to attack (in the debating sense) the given beliefs that one finds dangerous rather than the particular brand of religion a person subscribes to.
*and the poll questions did not contain your negative slant
And that’s fine. I’m sure she’s a very sweet woman, and I’d probably enjoy talking to her as much as I enjoyed speaking with the self-titled “fundie” LDS kids I was talking about on page one of this thread. It does not mean she is open to changing her mind about her fundamental believes, does it?
Lib, are you seriously suggesting I am a fundamentalist about fundamentalism? I don’t have an article of faith about their religious tenets; rather, I am going by what several fundamentalists have told me about their religion(s). That there is simply no allowance for any differing or dissenting voice in regard to the structure of their faith.