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?

[AgnosticBoy]

The values of movements like secular humanism, environmentalism and so on are not "proven," nor are the metaphysical claims of positions like naturalism, materialism or determinism. But those are not necessarily unreasonable positions, because the epistemic approach of scepticism which you are advocating is not proven either.

We have methods or approaches and then we have views that are derived from them. I tend to disagree with liberal Christians on the latter - their views. Furthermore, I tried to point out to you that liberal Christians accept some of the supernatural details on the Bible, things that "hermeneutics" would not prove. So in these cases, liberal Christianity are not at all proven to be true or reasonable. Take it from someone who has actually debated the liberal variety of Christians as opposed to just reading articles about them.

In fact as I've argued twice now, the suggestion that we refrain from holding positions for which some (rarely-clarified) standard of "proof" is lacking is really quite unreasonable in itself, because not only does it lack its own proof as the appropriate or best way to form opinions, but quite the opposite it is both impractical and contrary to how our minds naturally tend to operate.

Surely you're not advocating for an anything-goes approach or that I should accept "hermeneutics" or "historical/critical methods" as evidence for God or any other theological concept. If there's even question on the type of evidence needed then that's actually a problem for liberal Christians to resolve, as well ,...if they want to claim truth on these matters.

As an agnostic, It's very practical for me to remain neutral in areas where there's a lack of certainty. I tend to think of each of my views as falling on a continuum line that has varying degrees of certainty. My approach is dogma-free (unless you consider the axioms of logic to be dogma).

You no longer seem to be disputing my answer to the OP question; that liberal Christianity is unequivocally better than fundamentalism intellectually and in most if not all other regards also. Whether or not we could find any other group or ideology which is better than liberal Christianity intellectually or pragmatically is a different question. But I'm not really aware of any which are unequivocally better; there's quite a few movements which are more or less on par with each other as having some obvious positives with few if any inherent problems.

Since anyone, including evangelicals, apply the same "process" that liberal Christians accept, I can only answer the OP on a case-by-case basis and only on one aspect as opposed to all aspects. I say this because not all of their approaches are objective nor are the views derived from their approaches always the most reasonable. Like I said before, try reading up on their actual views or debate a few of them instead of just reading articles.

[dio9]

[Replying to Jagella]

We have to decide for ourselves. All i can do is frame the positions. As I see it Fundamentalists are generally grouped together with conservative thinkers. Some more reactionary and unfortunately politically in the same boat with alt right types. In short looking backwards . While progressive Christianity is looking forward. Both are Christians though, brothers and sisters in Christ. One body, as Paul said different parts but the same body. Radical left and alt right are just different parts. So blaming is out of the question whether a deprogram the gays literalist of a gay Methodist bishop. Same body of Christ, Progressives must love fundamentalists and vise versa. Who can love the most is the bottom line criteria. That's all I have to say about that.

[Elijah John]

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.

You see no difference between a version of religion that considers others who do not agree with them worthy of torture forever in the flames of hell, vs those who do not?

Or to put it another way, liberal Christianity and religion is no better than fundamentalism.

Really? What makes you say this?

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.

In what ways, please demonstrate with examples. Also, if you are saying that the only "intellectually respectable" worldview to take is atheism, that is pretty arrogant, don't you think?

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.

Sounds like an unmerited blanket statement to me. In my experience, liberal Christians are open about what they believe as well. Have you ever read "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by Bishop John Shelby Spong?

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!

Could be "Fundamentalism's fault" as you say. Or it could be the simple fact that people don't always life up to the ideals of the religion in question. Or one's personal ideals as well. But when was the last time you were oppressed by a liberal Christian, or were threatened with violence because you were an "infidel" by a liberal Christian?

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.

And your post here is full of blanket statements and generalizations. Are you sure you are not making some "against the man" arguments yourself? Against the liberal Christian?

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

Yes, for the simple reason that liberal Christians usually do not believe that people from other faith traditions are consigned to eternal torture of hell just because they are not Christians, or because they are the "wrong kind of Christians". Even the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, (though not usually considered "liberal") make more allowances for God's expansive mercy than does the average Fundamentalist. It is the teaching of the RCC, for example, that people are judged according to the light they are given. While the RCC claims they have the "fullness of revelation" they do not preclude the possibility of others going to Heaven as well. This under the umbrella of the "baptism of desire".

Christian Fundamentalists, by contrast, pretty much all believe that Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists, Deists, atheists and agnostics are all destined for the eternal flame of hell, unless they come to believe like they do, and "accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior".

Fundamentalists believe that God tortures people in the afterlife for getting their theology "wrong". Liberal Christians believe that God is far more merciful than that.

SO I ask you again, what harm has the Liberal Christian ever done to you?

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

You see no difference between a version of religion that considers others who do not agree with them worthy of torture forever in the flames of hell, vs those who do not?

Being less "harmful" to non-believers should not be what determines if the Liberal view is the correct view of Christianity. Logic and evidence should determine this. If I were to follow your logic, then I would say God creating people who would only do good or a religion that advocates that would be better than yours eventhough I just made it up (i.e. without logic and evidence).

What rational basis do you have to support your claim that non-believers escape punishment?

[Mithrae]

The values of movements like secular humanism, environmentalism and so on are not "proven," nor are the metaphysical claims of positions like naturalism, materialism or determinism. But those are not necessarily unreasonable positions, because the epistemic approach of scepticism which you are advocating is not proven either.

We have methods or approaches and then we have views that are derived from them. I tend to disagree with liberal Christians on the latter - their views. Furthermore, I tried to point out to you that liberal Christians accept some of the supernatural details on the Bible, things that "hermeneutics" would not prove. So in these cases, liberal Christianity are not at all proven to be true or reasonable. Take it from someone who has actually debated the liberal variety of Christians as opposed to just reading articles about them.

Some liberal Christians accept some of the bible's unusual claims (claims which, yes, violate the tenets of naturalism). Some of those views are presumably incorrect. I'd even hazard a guess that all liberal Christians have some incorrect views. All atheists and agnostics have some incorrect views, too, some of them being wildly irrational or ill-informed. Does that mean that atheism and agnosticism are no better or more reasonable than fundamentalism, that we can only judge that question on a case-by-case basis? That seems to be the argument you are making

[AgnosticBoy]

The values of movements like secular humanism, environmentalism and so on are not "proven," nor are the metaphysical claims of positions like naturalism, materialism or determinism. But those are not necessarily unreasonable positions, because the epistemic approach of scepticism which you are advocating is not proven either.

We have methods or approaches and then we have views that are derived from them. I tend to disagree with liberal Christians on the latter - their views. Furthermore, I tried to point out to you that liberal Christians accept some of the supernatural details on the Bible, things that "hermeneutics" would not prove. So in these cases, liberal Christianity are not at all proven to be true or reasonable. Take it from someone who has actually debated the liberal variety of Christians as opposed to just reading articles about them.

Some liberal Christians accept some of the bible's unusual claims (claims which, yes, violate the tenets of naturalism). Some of those views are presumably incorrect. I'd even hazard a guess that all liberal Christians have some incorrect views. All atheists and agnostics have some incorrect views, too, some of them being wildly irrational or ill-informed. Does that mean that atheism and agnosticism are no better or more reasonable than fundamentalism, that we can only judge that question on a case-by-case basis? That seems to be the argument you are making

By definition, an agnostic has no dogma. By definition, liberal Christians accept BOTH reasonable methods (those accepted by biblical scholars) and unreasonable/non objective methods (modernist interpretations, accepting "experience" as evidence for Christ , etc.). And of course, there are those unreasonable views and inconsistencies that they are capable of. Read Elijah John's rationale for considering liberal Christianity to be better than evangelicals Christianity. I responded to him in my last post and his reason is very common among liberals that I've debated.

[Elijah John]

What rational basis do you have to support your claim that non-believers escape punishment?

What is the rational evidence for you to claim that non believers are punished simply for not believing? If we are speaking of reason here for the moment, that is, and not Biblical evidence.

And besides, I never made the claim that non-believes escape punishment altogether. Only that liberal Christians tend not to believe they are punished forever in the flames of hell. It would not take much imagination to suppose there are degrees of punishment. Or is God an all or nothing, categorical kind of God, incapable of making fine distinctions? Like an evil human judge who has only one remedy for every crime, the death penalty.

And also, there is plenty of Biblical evidence that God punishes the wicked and saves the righteous. The sheep vs the goats, and all that. Wickedness vs righteousness is not always equated with belief vs unbelief in the Bible.

[AgnosticBoy]

What is the rational evidence for you to claim that non believers are punished simply for not believing? If we are speaking of reason here for the moment, that is, and not Biblical evidence.

I have no real world evidence to show that non-believers are punished by some God. My question to you had to do with logic and evidence in terms of what the Bible and Christian tradition says.

And besides, I never made the claim that non-believes escape punishment altogether. Only that liberal Christians tend not to believe they are punished forever in the flames of hell. It would not take much imagination to suppose there are degrees of punishment. Or is God an all or nothing, categorical kind of God, incapable of making fine distinctions? Like an evil human judge who has only one remedy for every crime, the death penalty.

I don't presume for the Bible or God to be consistent, rational, etc. I approach the Bible and God like any other concept, potentially prone to error, false, true, partially true, etc.

So Mithrae, here we see that eventhough Liberals don't consider the Bible to be inerrant, but they still consider God to be infallible, rational, etc. How is this knowledge derived from objectivity, empirical evidence, and reason?

Evangelicals simply make one or two more assumptions than Liberals (i.e. the Bible being inerrant) and suddenly I'm to believe that Liberal Chrsitians are far more reasonable than evangelicals? I can now see clearly why some would want to frame the debate as being which is more "reasonable" as opposed to which is actually TRUE picture of reality. It's of little value arguing which out of two non-sensical systems are more reasonable. This comparison is almost like comparing Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter to see which is more reasonable.

And also, there is plenty of Biblical evidence that God punishes the wicked and saves the righteous. The sheep vs the goats, and all that. Wickedness vs righteousness is not always equated with belief vs unbelief in the Bible.

So for the record, you accept that God exists, you accept as literal those stories of God punishing people, and you accept that God is reasonable. You accept all of these things as a Liberal Christian.

[Mithrae]

Some liberal Christians accept some of the bible's unusual claims (claims which, yes, violate the tenets of naturalism). Some of those views are presumably incorrect. I'd even hazard a guess that all liberal Christians have some incorrect views. All atheists and agnostics have some incorrect views, too, some of them being wildly irrational or ill-informed. Does that mean that atheism and agnosticism are no better or more reasonable than fundamentalism, that we can only judge that question on a case-by-case basis? That seems to be the argument you are making

By definition, an agnostic has no dogma. By definition, liberal Christians accept BOTH reasonable methods (those accepted by biblical scholars) and unreasonable/non objective methods (modernist interpretations, accepting "experience" as evidence for Christ , etc.). And of course, there are those unreasonable views and inconsistencies that they are capable of. Read Elijah John's rationale for considering liberal Christianity to be better than evangelicals Christianity. I responded to him in my last post and his reason is very common among liberals that I've debated.

I also asked about atheists, not just agnostics. In any case liberal Christians have no dogma by definition either, as I've already quoted from Wikipedia: "Liberal Christianity did not originate as a belief structure, and as such was not dependent upon any Church dogma or creedal doctrine."

So Mithrae, here we see that eventhough Liberals don't consider the Bible to be inerrant, but they still consider God to be infallible, rational, etc. How is this knowledge derived from objectivity, empirical evidence, and reason? 

Some liberals surely do; is that distinction really so difficult to grasp? Earlier on you were seemingly chastising me that liberals hold a diverse range of opinions, but now you've apparently forgotten.

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.

[AgnosticBoy]

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.