What is fundamentalism?

[madmusic]

Main Entry: http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=fundamentalism">fun·da·men·tal·ism

1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs

2 a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

[lvx35]

1. I think of it as self worship.

the worship of man, the church of man. The fundamentalist believes in his own perfect understanding of scripture, which he refers to as "literal". In worhshipping his own understanding, and assuming himself infallible, the fundamentalist replaces God with himself, and stands at the pulpit presuming to speak for God.

This is how I view them, anyway.

[madmusic]

7. A need to be right...

We all need that sometimes in many ways. No one likes to be wrong. It's the absolute need to be right absolutely that might make the leap of faith into "prefect understanding." I think you're onto something there. If someone is right all the time, that means someone else must be wrong all the time.

[lvx35]

10. right, totally...

Its almost like a prison in some ways...One gets so locked down in fear they fail to acknowledge that there is something bigger than themselves out there, which the rest of us accept and enjoy... It must be terrible to be a fundamentalist. It makes me kinda sad. :(

[Selatius]

2. The definition is missing the vital component of intolerance.

Intolerance is much more than a rejection of differing views. Intolerance means that one also seeks to silence or destroy differing views.

[madmusic]

4. Wouldn't that be a "strict and literal adherence"?

With a denial of every other view?

[Selatius]

5. Denying ever other view is not the same as trying to make every other view disappear.

You can vote for the Democrats, but that's different from trying to ensure the Republican Party is wiped out of existence.

[Ron Green]

3. I think it's an inability to see beyond a child's concrete world

into abstraction, allegory and symbolism.

[madmusic]

6. Really? Fascinating possibility...

My first thought was, "Does a child live in a concrete world?" It is highly imaginative for them, but I suspect you mean a child can't perceive, for example, the allegories and symbolism in the Bible. On the other hand, are the fundies terrified of being childlike? What I mean is, they seem to want to control everything and can't let go like a child can, and can't imagine what could be or might be like a child can. As someone once said, "A Christian is someone who is terrified that someone somewhere is having fun." (Bad paraphrase?)

[Ron Green]

9. A child thinks in literal ways (e.g. God must be a big powerful man somewhere),

and fundamental religious people seem not to have successfully advanced to an understanding that what's written in scripture might not be exactly as it reads. The imagination of a child who believes in Santa Claus is quite different from the imagination of an adult who believes in Santa Claus, as I do. I know he doesn't exist as I once thought he did, but over the past few decades of my life I've come to believe in him again, if you know what I mean. I think my "fundy" phase, regarding Santa, was when I knew only that he didn't exist, and I had not yet seen the need for him to exist in myth and legend and in my own heart.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

8. The term refers to all forms of religious beliefs, find me a faith that

doesn't have a fundamentalist element.

What I find so peculiar, is the believers and non believers views in fundamentalism.

I take for instance, Atta, he drank and visited strip joints etc., which are violations of fundamental Islamic law. Take a look at the Royal family, and their violations of fundamental Islamic law.

Take for ex., Robertson, Falwell etc., "Thou shall not kill". Thou shall not covet", the abortion clinic killers, they violate their own preaching.

I could list almost any prominent religion and point examples to those that tell others how to live, and what is sin, and completely do the opposite.

What I can't, and we need to figure out, is how to show these intolerant (except of themselves), their hypocrisy of talk vs. the walk.

It's the followers we need to focus on, how can they, for example tithe their 10%, have their water shut off, while their preacher is earning from their donations x's more?

I get the exploitative, (preacher mentality), but, the followers being exploited, I just can't get that!

[bananas]

11. Fred Hoyle: Scientific Fundamentalism

http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/hoyle/hoyle_sci_fund.html

"Scientific Fundamentalism"
According to Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe

CHAPTER TWELVE:
How much of evolution has really happened

"It was unfortunate that the genuinely difficult problem of the origin and evolution of living organisms became bound up in the nineteenth century with a cultural struggle which, being a human affair, had no relation at all with the world of objective scientific reality. It was because Darwin's book the Origin of Species came to be regarded as the declaration of war between a new culture and the old Judaeo-Christian culture, with science, industrialism and socialistic concepts of the organization of society as its main threads, that the book became historically famous, rather than because it contained anything new. In fact, the Origin of Species was put together very largely from the already published work of other men, its subsequent fame resting far more on liberalistic thinking than on its original scientific content. From the Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, it is clear that he saw the great issue of the last decades of the nineteenth century to be one of replacing prevailing Judaeo-Christian dogma with new ideas. There was hardly any examination at all of the relevant scientific questions and problems by those who became embroiled in an acrimonious battle between church and science. Every scientific issue was dealt with by the claim that the answers were all 'in Darwin', a kind of scientific fundamentalism not greatly different in its philosophy from that we associate today with religious fundamentalism. All hope of improving our understanding of the origin and evolution of living organisms thus became blocked, and it is quite likely to remain so for some time to come because of the extent to which it has become diffused throughout the education system."

[trotsky]

12. There are no scientific fundamentalists.

It's a made-up term by those who don't like what science has had to say about their pet beliefs, and so were looking to brand scientists as closed-minded as religious fundamentalists. Merely for holding the position that hypotheses should be supported by evidence to be taken seriously. BAM! You're a scientific fundamentalist, and now I don't have to pay attention to what you have to say.

[madmusic]

15. Yes, there are, and there was...

Galton had no inkling of the horrific dangers posed by racist eugenics in decades to come. In 1905, he wrote about the three stages of eugenics as he conceived the new order. At first eugenics would be, Galton supposed, an academic affair; then it would a practical policy; and finally "it must be introduced into the national consciousness as a new religion." In his will, Galton endowed a chair called the Foundation Professor of Eugenics at the University of London.

edit: http://www.huxley.net/contexts/index.html

Protestants embraced this new religion and preached it. Only later did the Southern Baptists embrace it. But nearly every stripe preached it: the religious, the conservatives, the socialists, the liberals. Only libertarians and Catholics opposed it.

[trotsky]

16. Say what?

"Protestants embraced this new religion and preached it." Eh? One of the biggest preachers (and practitioners) of it was a bona fide and never-excommunicated Catholic, Adolph Hitler.

Why don't you first define what YOU mean by "scientific fundamentalism" and go from there?

[madmusic]

18. a scientific attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Even if eugenics comes to be a proven fact scientifically, it can still be fundamentalist.

[trotsky]

19. So is an orbital engineer a scientific fundamentalist?

I mean, their whole job is about strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles, namely gravity. Should they be lauded for creative approaches to orbital insertion, like hoping for an unseen force to grab a satellite and place it into a perfect orbit?

Seems you're taking a very generic definition and looking to apply it to people you don't like. Liberal Christians usually get very upset when people do that to them - why do you think the reverse is OK?

[beam me up scottie]

24. Then name the principles that are being strictly and literally adhered to in eugenics.

[beam me up scottie]

22. The religious people who "preached" eugenics were practicing a new religion, not science.

The info in the stub you link to doesn't even fit the definition you used in the op:

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism

1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs

2 a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Early efforts to breed better human beings have not been uniformly successful. Darwin's half-cousin, the English scientist Francis Galton, is widely regarded as the founder of eugenics. "Eugenics", a term Galton coined, comes from the Greek roots for "good" and "generation" or "origin". Eugenicists seek methods to improve the hereditary characteristics - both physical and mental - of the human species. However, eugenicists have not agreed upon which heritable traits should selected - nor by whom. Nor have they agreed on whether to use encouragement or coercion.

You'll have to do better than that if you want to equate science and religion.

Perhaps you'll find what you're looking for at the http://www.discovery.org/">Discovery Institute.

[nashville_brook]

34. actually, there are plenty examples of scientists who cling to a principle beyond

the ability of the data to support it. it's called bad science.

likewise, there are plenty examples of scientists who DISMISS phenomena regardless of the supporting data. they are also bad scientists, but the culture of science applauds these creatures.

[trotsky]

35. Such scientists are laughed out of their profession.

"there are plenty examples of scientists who DISMISS phenomena regardless of the supporting data"

Oh I know what that's all about. You believe in your heart of hearts that you have EVIDENCE that you can communicate with lizards or that astrology is really really REAL or whatever it is you believe in. But those closed-minded scientists won't accept your say-so, and thus they're to blame. They're evil fundamentalists. Right?

[nashville_brook]

36. actually i'm more on the side of Kuhn, but enjoy your lizard fantasy.

[trotsky]

39. If you're on the side of Kuhn,

you're greatly misstating or misunderstanding what he said.

[nashville_brook]

40. are you are the only person on this board capable of understanding Kuhn?

that says a lot about you.

[trotsky]

41. Nope, didn't say that.

But I do think you're stretching and/or re-interpreting what he said. Please try not to make this so personal, just defend your position if you care to.

[nashville_brook]

43. i don't go in for pig wrestling...

[trotsky]

45. Classy!

But if that's how you have to bow out, so be it.

[Odin2005]

51. Kuhn is the philospher most abused by you postmodernist, anti-science idiots.

[beam me up scottie]

38. "the culture of science applauds these creatures." ?

"culture of science"?

Give me a break, the only time I've ever seen that term used is when the idiots at the Discovery Institute whine about how the mean old evolutionists reject their "theory".

They probably have it trademarked.

[nashville_brook]

42. sociology of science is an interesting field...

and has been on the table for discussion at least since Aristotle.

[trotsky]

44. Certainly it is, and has been.

But you don't have to refer to it in such snide terms. You reveal your own prejudices in that way.

[beam me up scottie]

46. I'm trying to picture hordes of uppity scientists sneering at scientific evidence.

And I can't do it.

[Odin2005]

50. It's sad how much postmodernist BS people use to attack science they don't like.

[Evoman]

13. Maybe if there was such a thing as "scientific fundamentalism", it should be something we aspire to.

Not that there is such a thing, mind you. People who say shit like that don't understand what science is, nor how it is done. When I go to the university and look around at my colleagues, I can't imagine anybody calling any of them something like fundamentalist. Its crazy to me.

But if there was a science fundamentalism...some sort of state of mind where you got rid of every last bit of magical thinking, and became a person who needed evidence for every hypothesis or position you hold. But there is not....scientists are highly creative people. You need to think up a hypothesis, before you can even start finding evidence for it. I think people see a rigidity in science, or a close-mindedness, that isn't there.

[cosmik debris]

14. A significant difference between science and religion

Is that science changes instantly when new facts come to light. Religion may or may not change, but it certainly will not change rapidly.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

30. Science changes instantly?

Give me a break. There are many scientific discoveries that are considered controversial, with demands on having more people do experiments, etc. Otherwise when initial experiments showing that prayer is a factor in healing came to light, all scientists would have agreed.

I know of scientists at UCLA who are doing research on the subtle bodies eminating from the body--the energy fields around the body--they've been doing this for over 20 years--and many scientists still dismiss the findings, even when they have been replicated.

Science isn't a simple field where facts are discovered, proven, and everyone agrees instantly with the new findings. Experiments can be manipulated so that certain outcomes are assured, data can be forged (what about that chap from Asia who claimed to have cloned a dog?), and mistakes can be made.

Don't get me wrong, I admire scientists on the cutting edge of discovery, but I'm also aware that they are humans, and as such can make mistakes, either accidentally or deliberately. They also can have certain prejudices in regards to certain fields of research that makes them critical of other scientists and what they are doing.

[beam me up scottie]

31. "research on the subtle bodies eminating from the body" ??? What are you talking about?

What study? What scientists dismissed the evidence?

Science, unlike religion, is self-correcting, frauds are discovered and discredited through peer review.

Too bad we can't say the same for religion, since it requires people to take everything on faith.

[cosmik debris]

33. I can't imagine any scientist who would ignore facts.

That sorta takes away the mantle of science doesn't it?

[SidDithers]

47. I'd like to read the peer-reviewed papers...

of those scientists from UCLA. Who did the research, and where can I find the papers? And the papers with the replicating studies?

Thanks in advance.

Sid

[beam me up scottie]

20. Scientific fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism, liberal fundamentalism, etc etc etc...

The Moral Majority called, they want to thank you for helping to spread their memes. :patriot:

[charlie]

21. It's not likely Hoyle would've written that

if he hadn't spent much of his life at odds with other scientists over his theory of panspermia. He didn't like Darwin and instead held that not only did terrestrial life originate from space, but large evolutionary mutations were caused by cosmic virii. Panspermia was so dear to him that he once posited that we evolved nostrils facing downward so they wouldn't act as a trap for space pathogens. He was also one of the holdouts for the steady state theory of the universe.

[beam me up scottie]

23. Text book use of #29 of the Woo Woo Credo:

29. Keep trotting out the one "respectable" scientist who might possibly have said something that could be construed as perhaps giving a hint that it may theoretically support your position. Even better if said scientist has said it outright. Ignore all complaints that the work is 50 years out of date, the scientist has no experience in the field in question or that other experts in the same field think said scientist is a complete loony (and they can prove it, too).

Hoyle was a flake who got flakier every year. No wonder Dr. Dino and other reality-challenged types love to quote him.

[Odin2005]

49. Hoyle was a crank and the terms "scientific fundimentalism" and "scientism" are postmodernist BS.

Hoyle was angry that sane people laughed at his BS about interstellar dust clouds being made of viruses that call down to earth anf cause mutations and similar BS so he pulled out the "scientific establishment is pursecting me" excuse used by cranks to get sympathy from Postmodernist types whose criticisms of science are based on misunderstandings of Thomas Kuhn.

[kwassa]

17. Origin of the concept of fundamentalism

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html

Origin of the Concept: The term `fundamentalism' has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians. By and large, fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century. This loss of influence, coupled with the liberalizing trends of German biblical criticism and the encroachment of Darwinian theories about the origin of the universe, prompted a response by conservative churchmen. The result was the pamphlets. In 1920, a journalist and Baptist layman named Curtis Lee Laws appropriated the term `fundamentalist' as a designation for those who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

Doctrine
The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals"<3>:

Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillennial second coming)<4>

In particular, fundamentalists reject the documentary hypothesis—the theory held by higher biblical criticism that the Pentateuch was composed and shaped by many people over the centuries. Fundamentalists assert that Moses was the primary author of the first five books of the Old Testament. Some fundamentalists, on the other hand, may be willing to consider alternative authorship only where the Biblical text does not specify an author, insisting that books in which the author is identified must have been written by him.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

27. Just for clarity, it sounds like the isolationism practiced in the US

may have stunted our intellectual growth in the religious environment. I am a Christian, but in no way a fundamentalist. It has always astounded me, how naive the American fundamentalist could be, even when we were at the leading edge of so many many scientific advancements.

I just wanted to know, if that is what was implied in your post, or my misunderstanding.

It just opened my eyes to a new understanding, intended or not!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Karen Armstrong has written about it

She says that modern fundamentalism, whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or Hindu, is appealing to people who have been harmed or left behind by the modern world and who seek a mythical past when everyone lived "right."

[NMMNG]

28. Much like the people who believe

that shows like Leave it to Beaver, My Three Sons, Andy Griffith and the like accurately depicted life at the time (polite children, submissive wives, nearly conflict free lives, no gays, etc.) and want to "go back to" that time.

[Odin2005]

48. That idealization seems to be because the Culture Wariors were kids in the 50s

Right-wing baby boomers have a tendency of idealizing thier childhood

[beam me up scottie]

26. Some idiot is mucking up the Wikipedia page on Fundamentalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundamentalism


Why am I not surprised? :eyes:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. Fundamentalism is rigidity and an inability to be tolerant

which basically fits your definition 2. There can be religious fundamentalists and also atheist fundamentalists, some of whom I have encountered here. Both are hallmarked by their inability to think beyond their own accepted dogma, be it religious or scientific.

[beam me up scottie]

32. Why do religionists always try to redefine the words used to describe them?

And why do they always try to redefine atheism and tell atheists what they believe or don't?

From religioustolerance.org:

Most of the North American public defines an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Most Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief.

Definition of "fundamentalism":
fun·da·men·tal·ism (fŭn'də-mĕn'tl-ĭz'əm)
n.

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

Please explain what fundamentalist principles atheists adhere to, how and why we oppose secularism, what scriptures we use, and what our theology is.

[NMMNG]

52. Funny how you never get an answer to those questions

No matter how many times you ask them.

People like to claim there are "atheist fundamentalists" over and over even though they can never support their claims with any facts. I guess it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside somehow.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Isn't it ironic that the WORST thing they can think of to call us is a believer?

:rofl:

[NMMNG]

54. As usual,

When you're short on facts, resort to name-calling.

[varkam]

37. One answer to the problem of uncertainty. eom