And are there people who use that word to describe their beliefs?
“Fundamentalism” and variants are frequently used in religious discussions on the SDMB. What does that really mean? Considering the ubiquity of the word, I think a definition of terms is in order.
Martin
To quote myself from here:
Damn, MEB.
Shortest. GD thread. Ever.
Fundamentalist is just a polite way of saying “nutcase”.
Well, I wasn’t trying to kill the thread. I was just trying to get things started, but I’d already said something relevant before, and rather than re-phrase, I just went back and copied-and-pasted it. I’m lazy that way.
I imagine martin_ibn_martin would be interested in the application of the term “fundamentalist” to non-Christian groups, something I only addressed in passing at the end there.
I use the word “fundamentalist” to describe people whose religious beliefs make the world a worse place to live in. It’s a fairly broad definition.
Unfortunately, Kalt, a lot of atheists fit that description. Or do you suppose that there are “fundamentalist atheists”? What would they believe in ? The literal word of No One?
not to threadjack, but in response to pseudotriton ruber ruber, I don’t think there can be such a thing as a fundamentalist atheist as they don’t have religious beliefs. Is it possible for a person to make the world a worse place through their lack of religious beliefs? I can’t think of an example really. Not to say there aren’t bad/evil/horrible atheists out there.
Well, IIRC the (former) government of Albania officially adopted an atheist position and, on foot of that, persecuted all forms of religious organisation and religious practice, sometimes viciously. Would that count?
(Others have persecuted religious practice and religious organisations before and since, of course, but not expressly out of atheism.)
UDS: just because a nonreligious person does mean things to religious people doesn’t mean those mean things were done in the name of atheism. Maybe religious people molested him when he was a kid, or brutally murdered his parents. Revenge would be the (improper) motive, not atheism. Since atheism doesn’t “teach” anything (it’s just the refusal to believe in any religion) it is not possible for atheism to be responsible for behavior. The problem is simply symantic… “atheism” is an -ism word which makes it sound like something which exists. It’s simply the name religious people call nonbelievers. It’s not just another religion.
Just to be clear, i’m not saying or even implying that atheists are incapable of doing bad, immoral things.
Kalt: I use the word “fundamentalist” to describe people whose religious beliefs make the world a worse place to live in. It’s a fairly broad definition.
So broad as to be useless, I’d say. Just about any religious belief or lack thereof could be described as “making the world a worse place to live in” in some way or other from somebody’s point of view.
Well, atheism can be positive, as it was in the Soviet Union, for example. The official position of the Soviet Union was “No gods or supernatural beings exist. Any belief in a god or supernatural being is wrong, uneducated, and immoral.” So, in that framework, when people who did believe in a god or supernatural being suffered prejudice and discrimination, how is that different than when a state like rennaisance Spain, says “The Catholic God exists. Lack of belief in the Catholic God is wrong, uneducated, and immoral”, and discriminated against people who failed to believe in Catholicism?
I don’t know about that, Kimstu. Sure, we could disagree on whether or not Bob (random name) is a “fundamentalist” … but I don’t think that defeats my definition or makes it impractical to use.
I should be a little more clear though. By “religious beliefs” I really mean “actions caused by (their) religious beliefs.” You can believe whatever you want - the mere idea in your head can’t make the world a worse place. When you act upon it, however…
In my mind, fundamentalism means something like a misreading of sacred texts as if they were historical accounts of facts and/or events, which amounts to a negation of the concept of faith. I think that fundamentalism is basically a refuge for small minds that cannot comprehend how to read texts, hence cannot formulate a conviction in spiritual matters, and for these reasons, find that politics is a valid expression of religious belief.
Perhaps the spirit of scientific inquiry has had the unintended result of vastly overestimating the importance of empirical facts (i.e., a compulsive need to “verify” propositions that are grammatically (in Wittgenstein’s sense) unrelated to verification generally) in our lives, so that fundamentalism – with all of its hysterical, strident, destructive and mindless political expressions – has all but muted genuine religious feeling, regardless of denomination. This ought to be frightening to sane people.
In addition to Buck’s rather brilliant assessment of the situation, may I recommend searching for Duck Duck Goose’s enlightening statement of what fundamentalism originally meant (and why she calls herself a “fundamentalist” though she is by no means a fundaloonie or a literalist) and what has happened to the term since.
Incidental question: is the use of “Islamic fundamentalists” to describe Al Qaeda and the Wahhabis an accurate parallel? Do they consider that they’re defending a literally understood Truth from corruption by more liberally oriented groups? Or is it merely the idea that they’re radical religious conservatives with a political agenda, à la the Religious Right here in America?
I always took the term “fundamentalist”, concerning a religious group, to be synonymous with “literalist”, meaning that they have a religious text which is their sole source of guidance (sola scriptura as mentioned by MEBuckner) and that every word in the scripture is supposed to be literally true. Whereas a non-fundamentalist would look at their scripture and be able to say “this commandment / rule / pronouncement was relevant to the time at which it was written, but no longer applies.”
My definition would seem to be different than MEBuckner’s definition which is more accurate historically, or Polycarp’s definition, since Polycarp draws a distinction between fundamentalists and literalists.
But isn’t being theologically radical go hand in hand with a political agenda?
The Religious Right seems to fit the definition provided by MEBuckner for fundamentalism with a capital F, and clearly they have a political agenda that involves considerable social implications.
Arnold, “classic” fundamentalists (like our Triune Waterfowl) draw the distinction – I merely reported it. The problem is that the literalists have coopted the term to the extent that people who are classic fundamentalists are forced to draw the distinction (something like the distinction between a “computer programmer” who can write a little Basic and the man who understands machine and assembler language, if you will).
litost wrote:
You’d think that, from a look at the last 25 years or so. But actually fundamentalists (and Christian social activists on the other extreme) did not as a rule historically have a political agenda, but rather a non-political vision of what the world ought to be like and what they needed to do, individually, to help get it there.
Karen Armstrong’s The Battle for God has some illuminating history on the origin of the alliance between fundamentalists (such as the Shaeffers) and the evangelicals (think Falwell and his ilk) that gave rise to the present-day Religious Right, with a political agenda.
I think so, yes. “Islam Questions & Answers” is a Wahhabite site; rather like a “Fundamentalist Christian” might react to being called a “Fundamentalist”, their answer to a question about Wahhabism includes the assertion that
Many “Christian Fundamentalists” have much the same attitude: We’re not “Fundamentalists”, we’re just “true Christians”, preserving God’s religion from the heretics.
The literalist definition works pretty well for Protestant Christians and probably Muslim “fundamentalists”. I think it sort of breaks down for “Hindu fundamentalists”; there are also very conservative Catholic Christians who don’t accept “sola scriptura”. When used broadly, “fundamentalism” seems to mean something like demanding adherence to traditional (or what are perceived as traditional) religious values, usually seen as divinely revealed, in the face of secular culture and attempts to subject traditional religious beliefs to critical inquiry.
Actually the Religious Right fits my definition of fundamentalism with a small “f”. Some of them are capital-F Fundamentalists, and some come from different theological backgrounds–conservative Pentecostals, for example.
One can be “theologically radical” in various different ways, which may or may not go hand in hand with a political agenda. Some theologically conservative Protestant Christian Biblical literalists believe that all secular power structures are essentially ruled by Satan, that only the supernatural second coming of Christ will rescue the faithful and vanquish the forces of darkness, and that this supernatural conflict will happen very soon. Even if these beliefs are coupled with strong disapproval of homosexuality, the teaching of evolution, feminism, and most of modern culture, this won’t necessarily lead to political activism. As one old saying goes, Why polish the brass on a sinking ship? This particular interpretation of the Bible may well lead to political passivity, political non-involvement, and “separatism” from the mainstream culture, with the group directing its outward proselytizing efforts only to saving individuals (passing out tracts, going door to door, etc.), not to reforming institutions (getting elected to office, passing laws). Worldly institutions will be expected to be (from their point of view) corrupt, and only divine intervention at the end of the world will establish their version of justice. (Actually, I think the SDMB’s beloved Jack Chick really falls in this category. Historically, this tended to be the Fundamentalist (with a capital F) position.
The rise of the various Religious Right organizations marked something of a shift in the way many Fundamentalists and other theologically and politically conservative related to mainstream culture. (Actually, Fundamentalists had battled pretty openly with Modernists and liberals generally around the time of the Scopes trial, but they basically lost, at least as far as mainstream public opinion went, and sort of withdrew for several decades into a separatist attitude.) The most radical Christian Religious Right groups don’t believe that the end of the world is at hand; they come from a different theological tradition (a postmillenial form of Calvinism) which holds that the Second Coming will occur not at the beginning of a supernatural “Millennium” of peace and justice and direct rule on Earth by Christ, but at the end of a “Millennium” of Christian rule on Earth established by human action (though they would no doubt add, human action aided by the power of the Holy Ghost). This group is (fortunately) very small in number. The most visible and successful portion of the Religious Right have been a sort of hybrid: premillennialists who act like postmillennialists–people who profess to believe that the End of the World is just around the corner, but who nonetheless establish television networks, universities (with the explicit purpose of training like-minded Christians for politically and culturally influential positions), political action committees, and who in general seek to influence politics and culture. (Some of these efforts at institution-building might also be done by more old-fashioned separatist premillenialists; televangelism and radio evangelism can be tools to convert individuals; separate schools and colleges can be havens to protect the children of believers from the influence of a secular culture, so they won’t be “lost” before the world can safely end.) Note that both premillenialists and postmillenialists profess to believe in Biblical inerrancy; it’s just that apocalyptic writings are usually sufficiently obscure that they can be interpreted in very different, even diametrically opposite ways.
MEBuckner
From the perspective you have provided, the small f group seems to be a greater “threat” to a secular tolerant culture than the ones with a capital F. That prompts me to ask if you are defining Fundamentalism and fundamentalism as it is normally used and understood in society, or did you try to indicate the degree of fundamentalism within the groups (which was my interpretation)?
You also said that the fundamentalist group is small. But, if I am right in including the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons in it, they sure seem to have a lot of voice in the media.
One thing that still puzzles me is the existence of a thing as, say, Biblical inerrancy. The example you provided (apocalyptic writings) shows us that it all comes down to interpretations despite both groups maintaining their devotion to inerrancy. So, given this, is the Fundamentalist group one that has an unified view while the fundamentalists differ amongst themselves?
Also, could it be that the small f group grew out of the capital F group after what you described as the latter’s failure in capturing mainstream minds?
I would tend to agree with your broad definition of f/Fundamentalism in that it involves some turning back the clock to a (mythical, IMO) “pure” religious society. I know that Hindu fundamentalists speak of a rejuvenation of India into a prosperous Hindu nation, sometimes alluding to “Ram Rajya” – The reign of Ram, a mythological era of prosperity under a king who was an incarnation of a Hindu God. They would fit under the small f definition as they actively seek to “spread” Hindu culture, and have political clout, if not explicit political wings.