Blaming "Fundamentalism"

[Jagella]

I've noticed that "fundamentalism" has turned into apologists' and many others' favorite bug-a-boo. While Christian fundamentalism is no doubt harmful like many other varieties of religion, I think it's safe to say that it is no worse. Or to put it another way, liberal Christianity and religion is no better than fundamentalism. In some ways liberal Christianity may be worse than fundamentalism because it hides behind a cloak of presumed intellectual respectability while at its core it is the same irrational sideshow. At least Christian fundamentalists are open about what they believe and actually seem to know what they believe while liberals are wishy-washy often "reinterpreting" or outright denying the doctrines of Christianity to save face.

The reason I'm raising this issue is because many apologists are quick to blame fundamentalism for Christianity's ill effects. The message is that if something goes wrong with Christian faith or practice, then it's fundamentalism's fault! The "true" Christianity is nothing like that, of course. One apologist here goes as far as to say anything based in fundamentalism is by necessity "invalid and unconvincing"--no exceptions. For anybody who knows anything about logic, that's a blatant "against the man" argument and a mistake in logic. It's faulty reason to conclude that an argument must be wrong based on the religious beliefs of the person making that argument.

Question for Debate: Can anybody here successfully argue that liberal Christianity and religion is any better or truer than fundamentalism?

[Mithrae]

Again, some atheists and agnostics hold wildly irrational or ill-informed views, so by your logic we cannot say that atheism or agnosticism are better or more reasonable than fundamentalism.

There are many facets to liberal Christianity than what you've explained in your definition. I already acknowledged that Liberal Christianity is not dependent on Church dogma but that doesn't mean that it does not have other types of dogma or other beliefs. Just because they embrace biblical criticism does not mean that they don't also embrace other approaches, as well. You're simply using only the good pieces to make a good impression of Liberal Christianity. But in reality, when you actually debate them, you get to see what their views are made out of.

You keep talking about these liberal Christians you've debated as if you've gained some privileged insight into the subject that "just reading articles" cannot provide (and apparently under the misapprehension that I've never done so, despite explicitly naming several former members of the forum earlier in the thread). Exactly how many self-described liberal Christians have you debated? Three hundred? Five hundred, maybe? It's not a very large percentage of the world's liberal Christians, is it, and almost certainly not a representative sample even if you had debated that many, which I'm guessing you haven't So exactly what point do you think you're proving by repeatedly mentioning these debates of yours? That some liberal Christians hold views you disagree with, or maybe even seem obviously incorrect? I already agree that's bound to be the case even without any anecdotal reports: Just as some atheists, some agnostics and some members of any large and diverse group will have some wildly irrational or ill-informed opinions.

I already acknowledged that Liberal Christianity is not dependent on Church dogma but that doesn't mean that it does not have other types of dogma or other beliefs.

Yes, it does mean that liberal Christianity does not have other types of dogma, in the same way that agnosticism does not have dogma. Individual agnostics can be dogmatic about certain beliefs they hold, and obviously so can individual liberals, but those individual instances of dogmatism are not characteristic of agnosticism or liberalism themselves; quite the opposite, dogmatism runs contrary to the implicit spirit of agnosticism, and explicitly contrary to liberalism.

Since you've mentioned it a couple of times perhaps this is one of the things weighing on your mind:
"I wish statements like the following from your article, "the Christian experience of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and universal human experience." was fleshed out more because it seems highly subjective." (From post #24)

But if you had quoted more than a half-sentence, you'd already have a pretty good idea of what it means:
"For liberal Protestants, there were two ultimate sources of religious authority: the Christian experience of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and universal human experience. In other words, only an appeal to common human reason and experience could confirm the truth claims of Christianity." (Wikipedia)

Far from being subjective, that is an explicit criterion of objectivity. The original source cited by Wikipedia is even clearer:
"The issues thus raised by liberal Protestantism can be settled today only by maintaining: (1) that it is not Scripture as such but the earliest stratum of Christian witness " the so-called Jesuskerygma of the Synoptic tradition " that is the real canon of the Christian community; and (2) that the only sufficient warrant for the truth, as distinct from the Christianness, of theological claims is our universal experience and reason simply as human beings." (Ogden, 1976)

It's quite remarkable that you managed to read something "highly subjective" into such an unmistakable criterion of objectivity. Of course, it's probably not always the case that even those liberal Christians who share Ogden's assessment are entirely consistent or accurate in applying that criterion (any more than scientists always adhere to criteria of falsification and repeatability). But that unequivocally anti-dogmatic principle falls very much in line with the evolution of what became liberal Christianity as a consequence of rejecting the primacy first of church authority in the Reformation and then of scriptural dogma in line with Enlightenment ideals. As such - while it is an analytic and descriptive assessment rather than prescriptive - it's a concept which is surely shared by many if not most liberal Christians.

You're simply using only the good pieces to make a good impression of Liberal Christianity.

Whereas you are apparently taking those few folk you have debated with and absurdly extrapolating to the hundreds of millions of liberal Christians as a whole.

As I've clearly stated, I see no obvious reason to suppose that liberal Christianity is any better or any worse than groups/movements like secular humanism, environmentalism, agnosticism and so on. They all have philosophical and cultural underpinnings open to debate and they all have their warts and bad apples, but they each serve their various social, cultural or philosophical functions without being obviously harmful or egregiously/demonstrably wrong. You definitely haven't provided any good reasons to suppose that there's anything particularly wrong or harmful about liberal Christianity: As I have repeatedly noted (and I don't want to say you've dodged, but certainly haven't refuted or clarified) by your reasoning we couldn't say that agnosticism or atheism are any better than fundamentalism either except "on a case-by-case basis." But that's clearly absurd; even strong atheism is intellectually superior to fundamentalism (provided it's not a fundamentalist belief itself), despite very plausibly being an incorrect picture of reality and in some cases based on wildly irrational grounds.

Intellectually speaking, systemic dogmatism is pretty much the lowest of the low - opinions which are not only unjustified, and not only probably/more commonly incorrect because unjustified, but also impervious to learning and correction - and practically speaking the 'us versus them' mentality which usually if not inevitably accompanies such certitude that everyone else is so obviously wrong is often tremendously harmful too. The question as far as I'm concerned is not whether liberal Christianity is pragmatically better, more reasonable and less prone to error than fundamentalism; it obviously is, in terms both of defining characteristics of the two groups and of general characteristics (or extreme stereotypes, for that matter) of their members. The question, the real puzzle, is the kind of faulty reasoning that gets deployed in an attempt to avoid acknowledging the obvious!

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 38 by AgnosticBoy]

Liberal (theologically liberal) Christianity is more rational than Fundamentalist Christianity for several reasons.

For one thing, Liberal Christianity has fewer (if any) irrational claims to defend.

For instance, many of us see Bible miracles as literary inventions or exaggerations of natural occurances. We realize the spectacular miracles that defy natural order probably never really happened "once upon a time" because they just do not happen today, in any observable way. Things like talking snakes, a universal, simultaneous flood, walking on unfrozen water, talking donkeys, the sun standing still, etc, etc.

Yes, those things are in the Bible, and though we take the Bible seriously, we don't take everything literally. We realize the Bible is not perfect nor is it infallible.

And for similar reasons, liberal Christianity is far more morally sound because we do not have to defend the atrocious passages of the Bible. We realize the Bible is not perfect, though inspired, it still contains primitive human bias and contamination. For example, Exodus 21.21-21. A passage where Moses gives tacit permission to keep slaves, and explicit permission to beat them half to death, because they are "property".

The Fundamentalist has to defend that passage and others like it, because they are part of a "perfect" Bible. We liberal Christians are free to reject such atrocious passages for the primitive vestiges that they are.

Also, Fundamentalists often take the Pauline/Calvinist view that human reason is "fallen", and therefore they tend to distrust it. We liberal Christians, by contrast, see reason as a gift from God, and an important tool to employ when sifting through the Bible, or even when sorting out Church doctrines. The discernment provided by the gift of reason restrains the rational Christian from the dangerous practice of snake-handling and similar rituals. The God-given gift of reason also prevents us from waging "holy war", jihads, witch burnings or inquisitions. Those were (and are) Fundamentalists who did those things.

If a person lumps all of us believers together in a negative way, that is dismissive and lazy thinking, don't you think?

[Mithrae]

For instance, many of us see Bible miracles as literary inventions or exaggerations of natural occurances. We realize the spectacular miracles that defy natural order probably never really happened "once upon a time" because they just do not happen today, in any observable way. Things like talking snakes, a universal, simultaneous flood, walking on unfrozen water, talking donkeys, the sun standing still, etc, etc.

Talking snakes and donkeys seem quite frivolous and silly, a global flood or stationary sun would presumably leave clear geological evidence, and all those stories from the Tanakh have very poor and uncertain attestation in any case. But there are innumerable observational reports from medical professionals of unexplained, apparently miraculous healings today; those investigated by the international commitee of Lourdes are probably the most thoroughly-documented tip of the iceberg. We might speculate without evidence that those reports are simply mistaken, or that all such healings are simply 'natural' bodily recoveries which are as-yet poorly understood, but I don't see any sound reason for eliminating the 'miracle' explanation.

Walking on water seems quite frivolous also, but at least it's attested both by the potentially-identifiable author of Mark and by disciple John; rather weak evidence, even weaker than there is for the miracle of Calanda, so I would suppose something like a 10-20% plausibility that Jesus actually walked on water. Very similar to how AgnosticBoy earlier described his views as falling along a continuum of un/certainty, in fact; but I wouldn't begrudge anyone the opinion or belief that it didn't happen, despite that uncertainty.

[AgnosticBoy]

Exactly how many self-described liberal Christians have you debated? Three hundred? Five hundred, maybe?

I've debated at least 5 liberal Christians. I've watched dozens more debate others, especially on specific moral issues. I questioned if you had actually read their views (which reflects how they apply their approach or methods, etc.) as opposed to just reading about their approach since you seemed unaware of their modernist interpretations which again is a very common part of their views.

So exactly what point do you think you're proving by repeatedly mentioning these debates of yours? That some liberal Christians hold views you disagree with, or maybe even seem obviously incorrect? I already agree that's bound to be the case even without any anecdotal reports

As I mentioned before, when you debate an issue or a position, you force the sides to go into details on their position, to get into the implications, to understand their logic and how they apply it. Just in my short exchange with Elijah John, some two posts here, I've learned some key things about his rationale. If you're only interested in listening and reading from only their side (of course they'll make their own position sound good as they won't attack their own view) then you won't notice the things that I brought up.

You call the liberal Christians who believe in supernatural stuff or for various reasons that you don't approve of as being "ill-informed". That's a cop-out. Those beliefs and the rationale that I've exposed are part of their beliefs, part of their approach, etc. Liberal Christians accept "experience" as evidence and they also accept much of Christ's teachings (which involves some supernatural aspects) so this should be expected. You need to take the good with the bad.

Just as some atheists, some agnostics and some members of any large and diverse group will have some wildly irrational or ill-informed opinions.

Agnostics by definition do not accept things based on "experience" unless there is an objective means to confirm it. That's why many atheists and agnostics always ask believers for verifiable evidence. I'm not claiming that "experience" is always false either but I certainly won't call it "reasonable" or "objective".

Yes, it does mean that liberal Christianity does not have other types of dogma, in the same way that agnosticism does not have dogma. Individual agnostics can be dogmatic about certain beliefs they hold, and obviously so can individual liberals, but those individual instances of dogmatism are not characteristic of agnosticism or liberalism themselves; quite the opposite, dogmatism runs contrary to the implicit spirit of agnosticism, and explicitly contrary to liberalism.

Liberal Christianity contains "beliefs". They may not be as dogmatic with their beliefs as some evangelicals, but they nonetheless accept many things about Christ's message and the Christian experience, which just happens to involve supernatural stuff. That's part of their identity. The only near-objective/reasonable aspect of Liberal Christianity that I see is only their acceptance of biblical criticism.

In contrast, Agnosticism is not based on "beliefs". Even if we hold beliefs we certainly don't mistake it for knowledge or for reason and objectivity. As such, I dismiss all of Christ's teachings. I don't dismiss that a 1st century man taught those things but I dismiss or remain neutral as to their validity.

Since you've mentioned it a couple of times perhaps this is one of the things weighing on your mind:
"I wish statements like the following from your article, "the Christian experience of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and universal human experience." was fleshed out more because it seems highly subjective." (From post #24)

But if you had quoted more than a half-sentence, you'd already have a pretty good idea of what it means:
"For liberal Protestants, there were two ultimate sources of religious authority: the Christian experience of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and universal human experience. In other words, only an appeal to common human reason and experience could confirm the truth claims of Christianity." [(Wikipedia)

The parts you quoted confirms my point that liberal Christians "believe" in God and that they accept "experience". So even if being undogmatic was objective and reasonable, but here we see that doesn't apply across the board when they accept God's existence (out of the many thousands proposed by mankind) and experience.

Far from being subjective, that is an explicit criterion of objectivity. The original source cited by Wikipedia is even clearer:
"The issues thus raised by liberal Protestantism can be settled today only by maintaining: (1) that it is not Scripture as such but the earliest stratum of Christian witness " the so-called Jesuskerygma of the Synoptic tradition " that is the real canon of the Christian community; and (2) that the only sufficient warrant for the truth, as distinct from the Christianness, of theological claims is our universal experience and reason simply as human beings." (Ogden, 1976)

It's quite remarkable that you managed to read something "highly subjective" into such an unmistakable criterion of objectivity.

"Unmistakable criterion of objectivity"?? Really? First off, the subject matter is far from objective because you're dealing with 1st century teachings/beliefs and experience which themselves are not proven to be true. Liberal Christians assume that they are true. Scholars have historico-critical methods to understand Greek thought, does that make Greek mythology and philosophy true or reasonable?

As for #2, I question what universal human experience is being referred to. All humans experience emotion, are we going to use that as proof of God? That would be superfluous to even propose God since biology is an adequate explanation. I see nothing across the board in human experience that would objectively point to a Christian God as opposed to the thousands of other proposed gods or to some yet to be understood natural phenomenon.

As I've clearly stated, I see no obvious reason to suppose that liberal Christianity is any better or any worse than groups/movements like secular humanism, environmentalism, agnosticism and so on.

Agnosticism makes no assumptions and has no beliefs so by default it trumps everything else as an objective approach. All that matters to an agnostic when they're assessing validity is logic and scientific evidence.

[AgnosticBoy]

For one thing, Liberal Christianity has fewer (if any) irrational claims to defend.

For instance, many of us see Bible miracles as literary inventions or exaggerations of natural occurances. We realize the spectacular miracles that defy natural order probably never really happened "once upon a time" because they just do not happen today, in any observable way. Things like talking snakes, a universal, simultaneous flood, walking on unfrozen water, talking donkeys, the sun standing still, etc, etc.

There are two problems that I have with your logic here:
1. It conflicts with what the writers and ancient Jews believed. The ancient Jews believed in the supernatural so I find it hard to believe that every single instance of a supernatural occurrence in the Bible was simply a "literary invention". I believe some were, but not all, but most importantly I won't apply such an absolute standard without logic and evidence that it should apply in all cases. Do you also reject God's existence since He is supernatural?

2. Supernatural things not happening today does not prove that supernatural occurrences can't happen or never happened. That's an argument from ignorance - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! So this certainly can't be the logical standard that you and Mithrae keep alluding to. And I'm saying this as an agnostic - I'm open to the supernatural. I assume you also reject all of your fellow Christians who have claimed to experience the supernatural in some way, shape, or form. On another thread, Mithrae defended God-consciousness and NDEs. Do you accept that NDEs happen?

And for similar reasons, liberal Christianity is far more morally sound because we do not have to defend the atrocious passages of the Bible. We realize the Bible is not perfect, though inspired, it still contains primitive human bias and contamination. For example, Exodus 21.21-21. A passage where Moses gives tacit permission to keep slaves, and explicit permission to beat them half to death, because they are "property".

What you see as being more "morally sound", I see as being a cop-out. I say this because your personal decision to not accept the moral atrocities in the Bible does not prove that they did not happen. NOr does it prove or mean that the ancient Jews did not accept it as literal (if they did accept it as literal, then they saw it as moral, and that reflects God's morality).

For now, all it seems that you're doing is imposing your current day values (as if they themselves are justified in any objective sense) on the culture of the ancient Jews. And the most unreasonable part of this seems to be that it's done with a motivation to paint Christianity in a good light as opposed to accepting it as it is which would be the more objective thing to do. Do you really expect me to believe that everything part of ancient Jewish belief, Christianity included, is all rosy and peaceful? I can make up a religion like that for you if you'd like? Have you considered Buddhism?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 43 by Mithrae]

I think we are on the same page regarding the extraordinary, natural-order-defying epic type Bible miracles.

The healings, on the other hand, are a little more difficult to dismiss. Inexplicable healings sometimes occur even today, and we believers see them as evidence of Divine activity in our lives.

Some historical-Jesus scholars such as John Dominic Crossan believe that the real historical Jesus was some kind of healer, as well as preacher and apocalyptic prophet.

And regarding the other types of Bible miracles, scholars such as John Shelby Spong attribute them to the primitive world view and cosmology of the Ancients, and explanations of phenomena during a pre-scientific era. As well as the limitations of an oral tale telling culture.

Some things were never meant to be taken literally, but were told for the sake of the morals they convey. Granted, though, the "moral of the story" in Bible tales is not always as clearly distinguishable as they are in an Aesop's fables. And that blurring leads the literal minded to believe some pretty absurd things.

And the literal minded skeptic to dismiss religion as a whole. To paraphrase Thomas Paine, "the Bible has succeeded in producing only atheists and fanatics".

Paine's statement seems a bit hyperbolic, but his points and observations are valid in spite of his literary style.

[Tcg]

And the literal minded skeptic to dismiss religion as a whole. To paraphrase Thomas Paine, "the Bible has succeeded in producing only atheists and fanatics".

Paine's statement seems a bit hyperbolic, but his points and observations are valid in spite of his literary style.

I think Paine was spot on, literally, just as he was when he said this:

• "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pa ... ious_views"

Tcg

[Elijah John]

1. It conflicts with what the writers and ancient Jews believed. The ancient Jews believed in the supernatural so I find it hard to believe that every single instance of a supernatural occurrence in the Bible was simply a "literary invention".

Why would the modern believer be obliged to believe everything the Ancients did?

I believe some were, but not all, but most importantly I won't apply such an absolute standard without logic and evidence that it should apply in all cases.

Agree. It's not an "all or nothing" proposition.

Do you also reject God's existence since He is supernatural?

Not at all. I believe in God, but see Creation as evidence for His existence. Moreso than the tales of the Ancients.

2. Supernatural things not happening today does not prove that supernatural occurrences can't happen or never happened. That's an argument from ignorance - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! So this certainly can't be the logical standard that you and Mithrae keep alluding to. And I'm saying this as an agnostic - I'm open to the supernatural.

I'm open too, but am highly skeptical of some of the Bible accounts. As I mentioned to Mithrae, inexplicable things do happen, even today. But things like talking snakes and talking donkeys just do not happen today, and I doubt very much they ever did.

I assume you also reject all of your fellow Christians who have claimed to experience the supernatural in some way, shape, or form.

Not at all. See above.

On another thread, Mithrae defended God-consciousness and NDEs. Do you accept that NDEs happen?

What's an "NDE"? Near Death Experience? No I do not reject those either. I do believe in God and the afterlife.

What you see as being more "morally sound", I see as being a cop-out. I say this because your personal decision to not accept the moral atrocities in the Bible does not prove that they did not happen. NOr does it prove or mean that the ancient Jews did not accept it as literal (if they did accept it as literal, then they saw it as moral, and that reflects God's morality).

Yes, I accept that stonings of Sabbath breakers did occur in Ancient Israel. So what? That they happened does not make them any less atrocious. Nor does it mean the Ancients were not barbaric at times.

For now, all it seems that you're doing is imposing your current day values (as if they themselves are justified in any objective sense) on the culture of the ancient Jews. And the most unreasonable part of this seems to be that it's done with a motivation to paint Christianity in a good light as opposed to accepting it as it is which would be the more objective thing to do. Do you really expect me to believe that everything part of ancient Jewish belief, Christianity included, is all rosy and peaceful? I can make up a religion like that for you if you'd like? Have you considered Buddhism?

We moderns extract from the wisdom of the Ancients what we will, and dismiss the rest. We use our God-given gift of Reason in order to do so. Only Puritans look for total purity in a given religion. What is remarkable is not that the ancient Hebrews were barbaric at times, but that they were at times very enlightened, in spite of the primitive and barbaric times from which they emerged. It may not have occurred to them at the time, or may it occored just to the Prophets, but their more enlightened teachings actually indict their atrocious behavior, and barbaric, bloody teachings. (The Golden Rule comes to mind, se also passages like Micah 6.6-8)

No I have not considered Buddhism, though I respect it and believe that God works in all great religions. They all have something to offer. But I see (my version of) Christianity as the best...for me and for like minded people.

[AgnosticBoy]

1. It conflicts with what the writers and ancient Jews believed. The ancient Jews believed in the supernatural so I find it hard to believe that every single instance of a supernatural occurrence in the Bible was simply a "literary invention".

Why would the modern believer be obliged to believe everything the Ancients did?

You don't have to believe everything that the ancient Jews believed but to understand their texts takes understanding their beliefs, culture, and historical context. Not even evangelicals believe you have to accept everything in the Bible, like the historical aspects. But if you are going to follow the religion, then you do have to believe everything that God told them or revealed to them since He is the authority.

Do you also reject God's existence since He is supernatural?

Not at all. I believe in God, but see Creation as evidence for His existence. Moreso than the tales of the Ancients.

Things in creation that we attribute to God are being explained in natural terms. That is the progression so forgive me for not seeing the evidence as clearly as you do. Believing that creation is evidence of God takes some preconceived ideas on your part, like believing that God is eternal, infallible, all-good, and of course that this is all the Christian god as opposed to any number of the proposed gods that are impersonal or personal, all-good or somewhat good, eternal or mortal, one god as opposed to many gods, etc.

2. Supernatural things not happening today does not prove that supernatural occurrences can't happen or never happened. That's an argument from ignorance - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! So this certainly can't be the logical standard that you and Mithrae keep alluding to. And I'm saying this as an agnostic - I'm open to the supernatural.

I'm open too, but am highly skeptical of some of the Bible accounts. As I mentioned to Mithrae, inexplicable things do happen, even today. But things like talking snakes and talking donkeys just do not happen today, and I doubt very much they ever did.

If you're open to the supernatural then what makes talking donkeys hard to believe? God can't do miracles? Are you only against supernatural things when they're in the Bible? Your view seems very inconsistent.

I assume you also reject all of your fellow Christians who have claimed to experience the supernatural in some way, shape, or form.

Not at all. See above.

I fail to see any sound logic in your standard to reject the supernatural claims in the Bible but yet to be open to the supernatural claims of Christians today. I fail to see where do you draw the line in terms of what's possible in terms of the supernatural.

For now, all it seems that you're doing is imposing your current day values (as if they themselves are justified in any objective sense) on the culture of the ancient Jews. And the most unreasonable part of this seems to be that it's done with a motivation to paint Christianity in a good light as opposed to accepting it as it is which would be the more objective thing to do. Do you really expect me to believe that everything part of ancient Jewish belief, Christianity included, is all rosy and peaceful? I can make up a religion like that for you if you'd like? Have you considered Buddhism?

We moderns extract from the wisdom of the Ancients what we will, and dismiss the rest. We use our God-given gift of Reason in order to do so.

Reason by itself tells you little to nothing about reality unless you're dealing with mathematics or logic. If you're dealing with phenomena in the natural world, then you're going to need reason AND empirical/objective evidence. So it seems all you have is an unproven philosophy, sprinkled with selective methods for extracting wisdom (wisdom that tends to vary between liberal Christians in that they hold inconsistent views), etc.