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]

[Replying to post 20 by Mithrae]
Even conservative/evangelicals and agnostics can apply biblical criticism so this is hardly limited to "liberal Christianity". That's why there are evangelicals who are also biblical scholars, as well.


From your source, there's also this:

Liberals abandoned or reinterpreted traditional doctrines in light of recent knowledge. For example, the traditional doctrine of original sin was rejected for being derived from Augustine of Hippo, whose views on the New Testament were believed to have been distorted by his involvement with Manichaeism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

I admit, much of my understanding of Liberal Christianity comes from debating liberal Christians but I've gathered quite a bit about their conclusions and tactics. But again at the end, it all boils down to proof. Liberal Christians have not proven the divinity of Christ, objective morals, salvation, etc. Some of the liberal Christians accept the divinity of Christ and salvation. I question how did they use "reason and empirical evidence" as your article mentions, to reach this conclusion or is this yet another inconsistent use of their standards and conclusions. Perhaps Dios9 can shed some light on this by putting forth any biblically-based supernatural claims that can be backed up with scientific evidence.

[Mithrae]

Liberal Christians have not proven the divinity of Christ, objective morals, salvation, etc. Some of the liberal Christians accept the divinity of Christ and salvation. I question how did they use "reason and empirical evidence" as your article mentions, to reach this conclusion or is this yet another inconsistent use of their standards and conclusions. Perhaps Dios9 can shed some light on this by putting forth any biblically-based supernatural claims that can be backed up with scientific evidence.

"Some" and "accept" are quite important qualifiers, aren't they? I accept that Yarrawonga (possibly misspelled) is a real place in Australia; but I've never been there, never heard from anyone I personally know that they've been there, never looked it up in a map or encyclopedia and I wouldn't know anything whatsoever about the author/s of those sources even if I had. Heard it in a Slim Dusty song - 'Going back again to Yarrawonga,' have a listen, it's got great lyrics - and presumably he's not singing about a mythical location.

To greater or lesser extents, something very similar could be said about ~99.9% of the places whose existence I accept, and ~99.9% of the events whose occurrence I accept, and for that matter ~99.9% of the scientific claims I accept. I've never had the inclination, nor the resources, time and know-how to confirm the speed of light or wave/particle duality or cellular mitosis, and as far as I know nor has anyone that I'm personally acquainted with. (Actually I've got an aunt who's a doctor, so she might know something about mitosis, but I've never asked her.) If it one day turns out that I'm wrong in my acceptance of wave/particle duality, so what? What have I lost? And if those liberal Christians you've met are wrong in their acceptance of Jesus' divinity, what have they lost?

To be fair I'm not quite sure what you mean by a standard of "scientific evidence," but perhaps more importantly I'm not quite sure why that even enters the equation. Did they condemn you to Hell unless you repent your wicked ways? I can understand why you'd want a pretty high bar for evidence in that case... but in that case I'd also question whether they're liberal Christians at all

[Edit: It might help to remember that the "presumption of atheism" approach (or indeed any attempt to extrapolate academics' abstract null hypothesis into everyday beliefs) is an artificial epistemic construct of debatable rationality and extreme impracticality; in virtually all cases, our normal approach going into adulthood, or into adolescence, or into late childhood, is to use existing beliefs as a framework for interpreting and incorporating new information unless and until those beliefs are shown to need adjustment. By implication therefore, maintaining a childhood acceptance of Jesus' divinity could be perfectly reasonable, if and to the extent that it does not pose any intellectual or pragmatic difficulties; for those so inclined the various apologetic arguments supporting that view need only rise to the level of making it a feasible conclusion.]

[AgnosticBoy]

delete

[AgnosticBoy]

If it one day turns out that I'm wrong in my acceptance of wave/particle duality, so what? What have I lost? And if those liberal Christians you've met are wrong in their acceptance of Jesus' divinity, what have they lost?

How is this better than evangelical belief? If evangelicals believe in Jesus's divinity what do they lose?

To be fair I'm not quite sure what you mean by a standard of "scientific evidence," but perhaps more importantly I'm not quite sure why that even enters the equation. Did they condemn you to Hell unless you repent your wicked ways? I can understand why you'd want a pretty high bar for evidence in that case... but in that case I'd also question whether they're liberal Christians at all

[Edit: It might help to remember that the "presumption of atheism" approach (or indeed any attempt to extrapolate academics' abstract null hypothesis into everyday beliefs) is an artificial epistemic construct of debatable rationality and extreme impracticality; in virtually all cases, our normal approach going into adulthood, or into adolescence, or into late childhood, is to use existing beliefs as a framework for interpreting and incorporating new information unless and until those beliefs are shown to need adjustment. By implication therefore, maintaining a childhood acceptance of Jesus' divinity could be perfectly reasonable, if and to the extent that it does not pose any intellectual or pragmatic difficulties; for those so inclined the various apologetic arguments supporting that view need only rise to the level of making it a feasible conclusion.]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you making an argument for liberal Christianity being better than evangelical Christianity? Or are you making an argument for liberal Christianity being a true picture of reality? If the latter can you prove your case starting with the Christian God and morality.

I will also say the way you've described liberal Christianity is no different than a "historian" or biblical scholar. So I'm not sure what's the difference between a liberal Christian and a historian unless there's more to liberal Christianity, and if so, please share. And do you accept the areas where they differ as being reasonable, as well? 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.

[AgnosticBoy]

Mithrae,

Evangelical biblical scholars also apply critical methods:

Continental Europeans (of which we had several) distinguish evangelisch, which means “Protestant,� from evangelical, which connotes hard-right fundamentalist. The latter may correlate with the way the North American media and politicos view “evangelicals,� but few, if any, at the table, are comfortable with that position—including the North Americans

Fifth, while not becoming a slave to any single method, evangelical scholars utilize responsibly whatever hermeneutical strategy may clarify biblical texts: source, redaction, form, tradition, lexical, literary, rhetorical, historical, and cultural analyses, as well as speech act theory. These are not methods to be feared, but rather to be harnessed in the pursuit of meaning in biblical texts.

Sixth, evangelical scholars base their conclusions on evidence, which means they treat alternative interpretations with respect (rather than disdain), and they repudiate ad hominem arguments.

Source: article

Some notable evangelical biblical scholars are Dr. Craig A. Evans, N.T. Wright, F.F. Bruce, etc.

[Mithrae]

Evangelical biblical scholars also apply critical methods:
. . . .

Source: article

Yes, and...? There's a pretty clear distinction between the groups. Liberals, involved in a community and lifestyle from which they derive social, cultural and existential value, are characterized by an aim of trying to use an approach of objectivity and reason to understand how earlier generations of that community lived and expressed their own faith and experience. They might gain insight or inspiration from Jeremiah of Anathoth or Paul or Tarsus or Francis of Assisi... or they might not: The benefits that liberal Christians gain from their lifestyle needn't depend at all on earlier theists being correct in their views or the stories about them being true.

Evangelicals by contrast are defined in part by their acceptance of doctrines such as “the unique divine inspiration, integrity, and authority of the Bible.� I'm sure many evangelicals would claim that's a conclusion they've reached rather than a dogma, and we can only speculate on how any given evangelical would respond to a decision that it's actually not true, so it might not be fair to say that their religion depends on such doctrines; but they certainly play a central role. Optionally, some evangelicals might decide to apply elements of objectivity and reason to the task of expanding and defending their perspective on the bible; those tools are more of a means to an end, rather than a process which is important and valuable in and of itself. Still, evangelicals are often fairly reasonable. As you've quoted, it's not the same thing as (Christian) fundamentalist, though many evangelicals do have a fundamentalist approach.

If it one day turns out that I'm wrong in my acceptance of wave/particle duality, so what? What have I lost? And if those liberal Christians you've met are wrong in their acceptance of Jesus' divinity, what have they lost?

How is this better than evangelical belief? If evangelicals believe in Jesus's divinity what do they lose?

In that specifically, nothing. But are you disputing it is better to prioritize reason rather than prioritize doctrine? Paul wrote that "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. . . . If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." Most if not all evangelicals would agree with that (because of "the unique divine inspiration, integrity, and authority" of Paul's letters), while I imagine that most if not all liberals would vehemently disagree. If one supposes that a doctrine is the really important thing to focus on, that what it's all about is having some grand Truth about reality, that's going to both bias one's thinking and decisions while accepting that doctrine and possibly shatter one's hopes and purpose if that doctrine is ever falsified or rejected. By contrast if one supposes that the process is the thing to try and get right first and foremost - both intellectually (reason etc.) and pragmatically (community etc.) - one will be a little less prone to bias and error as a result, but also less dependent on particular opinions or devastated by them if they turn out to be incorrect.

[AgnosticBoy]

There's a pretty clear distinction between the groups. Liberals, involved in a community and lifestyle from which they derive social, cultural and existential value, are characterized by an aim of trying to use an approach of objectivity and reason to understand how earlier generations of that community lived and expressed their own faith and experience. They might gain insight or inspiration from Jeremiah of Anathoth or Paul or Tarsus or Francis of Assisi... or they might not: The benefits that liberal Christians gain from their lifestyle needn't depend at all on earlier theists being correct in their views or the stories about them being true.

It seems as if you're equating 'liberal Christians' with 'biblical scholars" or historians in the sense that they apply an objective process. If this is all liberal Christianity involves then I have no objections to it as being the best tool we have to understand ancient texts. But anything beyond that, such as inspiration, accepting supernatural stories (including God's very existence), you should expect skepticism to the fullest extent until proof (something beyond historical methods) is offered.

Evangelicals by contrast are defined in part by their acceptance of doctrines such as “the unique divine inspiration, integrity, and authority of the Bible.� I'm sure many evangelicals would claim that's a conclusion they've reached rather than a dogma, and we can only speculate on how any given evangelical would respond to a decision that it's actually not true, so it might not be fair to say that their religion depends on such doctrines; but they certainly play a central role. Optionally, some evangelicals might decide to apply elements of objectivity and reason to the task of expanding and defending their perspective on the bible; those tools are more of a means to an end, rather than a process which is important and valuable in and of itself. Still, evangelicals are often fairly reasonable. As you've quoted, it's not the same thing as (Christian) fundamentalist, though many evangelicals do have a fundamentalist approach.

I can agree that evangelical Christians have some dogmatic 'religious' beliefs, but don't expect me to believe that liberal Christians would not have any dogmatic secular beliefs. We can even say that some liberal Christians are biased by current politics/ and current cultural norms when it comes to their understanding of morality. Even scientists tend to have dogma, like adherence to materialism, etc.

But are you disputing it is better to prioritize reason rather than prioritize doctrine?

It is better to prioritize reason, but I also accept that reason alone may lead someone to believe that God exists and therefore to show some reverence in the Bible. Reason as applied by historians is very limiting. In the field of 'history', oftentimes you're left with mere words of writers who may themselves be biased. Even the historical methods have been called into question as they relate to the Bible, which explains the vast differences in historical Jesus studies - just compare the 'first quest' and 'no quest' periods to the 'third quest'.

The first quest for the historical Jesus attempted to discredit the gospels as either intentionally false or accidentally false, and claimed that Jesus was simply a moral, mortal teacher

Many scholars began to adopt a pessimistic attitude toward Jesus studies, claiming that almost nothing could be known about the historical Jesus. Gospel studies entered what is sometimes called the period of “no quest,� when radical skepticism dominated the discussion.

The contemporary scene: a third quest?

After gaining such little ground, the so-called “new quest� had mostly died down by the 1970s. Since then, advances in biblical and archeological studies, new methodologies, and a group of scholars known as the Jesus Seminar have sparked a flurry of new research to uncover “the real Jesus.�

While the second quest for the historical Jesus gained little ground, it did provide scholars with the foundation they needed to develop a criteria of authenticity, which many scholars use today.

Source: The 3 Quests

History is far from any observational science.

By contrast if one supposes that the process is the thing to try and get right first and foremost - both intellectually (reason etc.) and pragmatically (community etc.) - one will be a little less prone to bias and error as a result, but also less dependent on particular opinions or devastated by them if they turn out to be incorrect.

I don't consider the process to be anything objective like science but it is the best tools we have to examine historical text. As for the pragmatic aspect, I don't disagree with it in terms of validity until someone claims that it is valid, including saying that it is more valid than evangelical Christianity.

[Mithrae]

There's a pretty clear distinction between the groups. Liberals, involved in a community and lifestyle from which they derive social, cultural and existential value, are characterized by an aim of trying to use an approach of objectivity and reason to understand how earlier generations of that community lived and expressed their own faith and experience. They might gain insight or inspiration from Jeremiah of Anathoth or Paul or Tarsus or Francis of Assisi... or they might not: The benefits that liberal Christians gain from their lifestyle needn't depend at all on earlier theists being correct in their views or the stories about them being true.

It seems as if you're equating 'liberal Christians' with 'biblical scholars" or historians in the sense that they apply an objective process. If this is all liberal Christianity involves then I have no objections to it as being the best tool we have to understand ancient texts. But anything beyond that, such as inspiration, accepting supernatural stories (including God's very existence), should expect skepticism to the fullest extent until proof (something beyond historical methods) is offered. The latter part is where I will have some disagreement with liberal Christians.

I'm not equating the two; most liberal Christians are not scholars of any sort, many historians and bible scholars are not Christians of any sort, and as you've pointed out many Christian bible scholars are evangelical or otherwise conservative. Liberal Christians are simply Christians (that is, they identify with and belong to a Christian religious tradition/community) who accept the comparatively 'liberal' approach of prioritizing objectivity and reason over doctrine.

As I suggested in post #22, this presumption of extreme scepticism that you're advocating is an artificial epistemic construct of debatable rationality and extreme impracticality; in virtually all cases, our normal approach is to use existing beliefs as a framework for interpreting and incorporating new information unless and until those beliefs are shown to need adjustment. Hence for example believing in the real existence of God can be a perfectly rational perspective for someone raised in a theist culture, even in the absence of conclusive proof... at least until God's existence is disproven or shown to be vastly inferior to some more plausible metaphysical framework. That said, some liberal Christians don't necessarily believe in the existence God or the literal resurrection of Jesus, perhaps viewing them as possibilities or perhaps even rejecting them outright, but either way seeing those ideas as having worth in terms of thematic and existential values irrespective of literal fact.*


Edit: *If you're interested, I wrote some thoughts on that kind of approach to religion in another topic a while back, for example:

• The simple fact is that aside from vague notions of 'feeling God's presence,' the actual existence of a deity has basically zero relevance to our day to day life; overt miracles or the like are pretty rare, to say the least! In fact in all probability, if a god exists it would be simply impossible for human minds to have anything even remotely approaching a conception of what that entity is really like; to imagine otherwise is to commit the 'sin' of dragging the Ultimate Reality down to our meagre level and reconstructing 'God' in our own image. So from that perspective perhaps even more traditional Christians might be able to acknowledge that 'God' as we conceive it probably doesn't exist. Yet the concept of god, however far removed that may be from the reality, is one which provides us with a potential sense of place in the world, some imagination of what might be a purpose to existence, and perhaps even hope for the future. The concept of god is a mere placeholder for something which our minds probably can't even come close to comprehending, but that concept represents an overarching story or metanarrative about our world which arguably serves us much better than a bleak deterministic materialism.

Evangelicals by contrast are defined in part by their acceptance of doctrines such as “the unique divine inspiration, integrity, and authority of the Bible.� I'm sure many evangelicals would claim that's a conclusion they've reached rather than a dogma, and we can only speculate on how any given evangelical would respond to a decision that it's actually not true, so it might not be fair to say that their religion depends on such doctrines; but they certainly play a central role. Optionally, some evangelicals might decide to apply elements of objectivity and reason to the task of expanding and defending their perspective on the bible; those tools are more of a means to an end, rather than a process which is important and valuable in and of itself. Still, evangelicals are often fairly reasonable. As you've quoted, it's not the same thing as (Christian) fundamentalist, though many evangelicals do have a fundamentalist approach.

I can agree that evangelical Christians have some dogmatic 'religious' beliefs, but don't expect me to believe that liberal Christians would not have any dogmatic secular beliefs. We can even say that some liberal Christians are biased by current politics/ and current cultural norms when it comes to their understanding of morality. Even scientists tend to have dogma, like adherence to materialism, etc.

But are you disputing it is better to prioritize reason rather than prioritize doctrine?

It is better to prioritize reason, but I also accept that reason alone may lead someone to believe that God exists and therefore to show some reverence in the Bible.

I don't think scientists necessarily hold any dogmas, or liberal Christians, and it's theoretically possible that even some evangelicals do not. I would define dogmas as beliefs which are both held on non-rational grounds (eg. taught by authority or simply presupposed) and heavily shielded from questioning. Hence as I noted and as you agree, it's at least theoretically possible that some evangelicals hold their views on more or less reasonable grounds and are relatively open to having them falsified. In general terms liberal Christians are likely to be more reasonable and hold fewer obviously-incorrect opinions than evangelical Christians because the former group is defined (at least in part) by emphasis on reason while the latter group is instead defined (in part) by acceptance of certain doctrines; but odds are there are some evangelicals who are more reasonable and with fewer incorrect opinions than some liberals.

But the question of the OP was about fundamentalism. Many but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists, so are some other traditional/conservative Christians, some Muslims and other religious folk, and some atheists too.

Fundamentalism (whether Christian or otherwise) is definitely much less reasonable and potentially more dangerous than liberal Christianity, because fundamentalism is a highly dogmatic mindset by definition:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
  Fundamentalism usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[1] However, fundamentalism has come to be applied to a tendency among certain groups–mainly, although not exclusively, in religion–that is characterized by a markedly strict literalism as it is applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions,[2][3][4][5] leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group often results from this tendency.[6]

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm not equating the two; most liberal Christians are not scholars of any sort, many historians and bible scholars are not Christians of any sort, and as you've pointed out many Christian bible scholars are evangelical or otherwise conservative. Liberal Christians are simply Christians (that is, they identify with and belong to a Christian religious tradition/community) who accept the comparatively 'liberal' approach of prioritizing objectivity and reason over doctrine.

The response in my last post still applies here. Just as long as liberal Christians stick to what can be determined using reason and objectivity then I have no problems with this.

I'll only have a problem when logic and evidence shows that their interpretation is wrong or unproven (in the case of God's existence and other supernatural related topics). I will also question their moral views. Atheists, agnostics, and evangelicals can also use the same "process" to disprove liberal claims. As an agnostic, I try to apply logic and evidence to everything and not just towards the Bible or certain problematic areas of the Bible!! I know plenty of atheists who do the same. I will also question "liberal Christianity" when I see their "process" being applied inconsistently or unreasonably.

Besides that, even if we accept that liberal Christianity is in some way more rational than evangelical Christianity, that doesn't make either of the two proven. In other words, understanding Christianity and applying it, doesn't mean that Christianity is a true picture of reality. It's just one out of many philosophies and it may even die out in the near future.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 29 by 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.

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. The fact is that in the big picture and in many, many fine details we don't know what the "true picture of reality" is, but as long as our opinions are not dogmatic - if they're reached by rational means and held tentatively, open to questioning or falsification - then adopting positions on questions of values, metaphysics and so on is arguably much more reasonable than trying to maintain a total mental blank in deference to a somewhat arbitrary and highly debatable epistemic principle!

Intellectually, as far as I know liberal Christianity is no more reasonable than secular humanism, environmentalism and so on, but it's no less reasonable either; and pragmatically it has a lot going for it. Indeed as I eventually argued in that thread I linked above, it is arguably essential as one of the biggest movements in society providing a much-needed counter balance to the unrelenting psychological assault of extrinsic-value-oriented consumerist advertising. 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. As you suggest, each is just one out of many valid philosophies... and that's okay.