How the atheists fell for fundamentalism

[Hygro]

I am quoting the whole article because I know who publishes it.

Link to the original

According to recent Gallop polls, 9 out of every 10 Americans believe in God and nearly 3 out of every 10 Americans take the Bible literally. Only the world’s Muslim communities can boast similar figures. And, yet, my interest is in the 1 out of every 10 Americans who either do not believe in God or whose spiritual beliefs are so undefined as to defy any meaningful description. My fear is that it is these Americans who have most thoroughly succumbed to fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism arose in the United States toward the close of the last century in response to what conservative religious leaders saw as the spread of liberal religion. Liberal religion, in their view, referred to (largely) mainstream Protestantism’s acceptance of the academic critical literary, historical, and social apparatus. Thus, for example, mainstream Protestants were likely to take the side of historians, paleontologists, anthropologists, and linguists on matters such as the authorship of the books of the Bible, the age of the earth, and human origins. When sociologists explored the complex social arrangements displayed in biblical texts or when psychologists sought to analyze the prophets, apostles, or church fathers, mainstream Protestants were inclined to listen, learn, and update their personal beliefs to conform with this research.

But, of course, it did not end there. As scholars learned more about the social and historical formation of other faiths, mainstream Protestants (along with their liberal Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu counterparts) were inclined to look for and find similarities as well as differences between their own practices and those of other faith communities. Liberal religion, in general, was coming to occupy its own place in the history of religions. Liberal Protestants may or may not believe in the Trinity. They may or may not believe in the divine inspiration of scripture. They may or may not believe in a literal, bodily resurrection of the dead. And so on, and so forth.

So by what stretch of the imagination were these mainstream Protestants Christians at all?

Fundamentalism stepped into this breach claiming that it would defend the fundamentals of the Christian faith against what they saw as mainstream Protestantism’s complete abandonment of fundamentals.

But, as I said, my fear is that Fundamentalism has won over the 10%. How? Well, by embracing the 90%’s definition of what constitutes “true” or “authentic” religion.

Fundamentalists accuse mainstream, liberal Protestants of embracing an ersatz religion, a made up religion. And, I am afraid that the 10% are inclined to agree. After all, once I have subjected the biblical texts to the apparatus of higher textual criticism; once I have reduced the prophets and apostles, and even Yahweh and Jesus himself, to social actors who lived within their own limited socio-historical horizons; and once I have reinterpreted the leading symbols and practices of my faith in light of broad social-psychological or even narrowly psychoanalytic categories—what else is left of my so-called religion?

But, isn’t this just sour grapes? Was religion ever a body of revealed truth delivered by transcendent beings from outside the socio-historical horizon? Nothing to my knowledge fits this description. Were not the biblical actors and agents always embedded, just as we are embedded, within a complex web of social, psychological, economic, and political forces? Yes. Would this not suggest then that when I embrace this embedded religion (or any other equally embedded religion) I am embracing what is most authentic and historically grounded about that religion?

But, say the 10%, is this how the biblical actors and agents, the prophets and apostles and church fathers—is this how they understood themselves? Should we not be concerned about accurately reflecting their faith and understanding and practice?

This, however, is exactly the same question that the Fundamentalists raised toward the end of the nineteenth century. So you can see my concern. It is as though the 10% will only be satisfied if religion actually does fit the understanding of religion entertained by end of the nineteenth century fundamentalists. And, since religion cannot fit that description, they would just as soon reject religion entirely.

This rejection strikes me as specially odd, however, because late nineteenth century fundamentalists do not accurately reflect the actual fluidity, the internal dynamism, the syncretism, the polytheism, the multi-layered character of actual existing faith over the centuries. Theirs is a caricature, a flat, clownish, comical simulacrum of religion.

Of course, I can well appreciate why non-believers might prefer this flat, clownish, comical portrayal of religion over the rich, complex, multi-layered religions that we actually find in and through history. Religion is by far among the most complex things that human beings do; on whatever scale we wish to view religion, through whatever lens—sociology, psychology, history, anthropology, archaeology, medicine—religion displays a richness and complexity to which other human phenomena do not come close. Far simpler then to set it aside and focus on simpler, more straightforward, things that we do.

However, either in setting religion aside or in ceding the right to define religion to the fundamentalists, do we not risk closing ourselves off to a large swath of what is happening, both in the past and in the present, in our world?

Have the fundamentalists won? I hope not. But I fear that they have.

The above is why I can never read a debate between atheists and religionists, because it's always debated on the terms of fundamentalism. The atheists tend to view all religion as shades of whatever orthodoxy is presently popular and argue against that.

As someone with more complicated agnostic but still faith-infused spirituality, I cannot tell you the amount of times I have bowed out of a discussion on religion when every counter argument to my claims is repeatedly an argument against Biblical fundamentalism--something that is always entirely irrelevant to my own faith and arguments.

And it is equally impossible to discuss religion with those very fundamentalists because they cannot see religion outside of the precise and limited authority they cling to so as to give justification for their faith. I remember a faithful person once trying to argue that his faith was rational because it came from the Bible, but mine could never be because it came from no everlasting, unchanging (lol) authority.

But as Joseph Lough points out, religion is one of the most complex things we humans do. And that religion is richly embedded in the actual lives of the people who practice it.

And thus the religious debate becomes a useless argument full of either extremists or strawman stuffers and the rest of us suffer from what might as well be CNN's Crossfire rather than a good reading of the New York Times.

 

[plarq]

I only subscribe to scholar circles' knowledge bases. Don't teach me about conspiracy theorist and end-of-the-world crap.

That being said, Midwest is swarmed with fat people and inbred idiots. I've found that in a week!

 

[Behind The Mask]

When I debate religion I prefer to focus more upon the issue of the 'nature of god' as opposed to the infallibility of the bible or any other texts.

I find it better to view ones faith as ones dedication to an idea rather then ones adherence to some dogma or literature.

I of course factored in that the person may hold these texts dearly but I never assume any two people adhere to it in the same fashion, and indeed, they may have widely varying positions.

People need to open up to the idea that other people might be open to other ideas instead of believing them to be of some hive mindset...

 

[Cato the Elder]

I agree wholeheartedly with this article. My university has formulated such an approach to cultural liberalism that essentially tries to give us freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion, and it's a development I've found most disturbing. To realize that the notion of debating religion as if the other side was indeed, a hive mind, really is unpopular is quite comforting.

 

[Winston Hughes]

As someone with more complicated agnostic but still faith-infused spirituality, I cannot tell you the amount of times I have bowed out of a discussion on religion when every counter argument to my claims is repeatedly an argument against Biblical fundamentalism--something that is always entirely irrelevant to my own faith and arguments.

As a life-long atheist who lacks any sense of faith or spirituality, my experiences are remarkably similar to yours. I'm endlessly fascinated by religion, and love to discuss it with believers and fellow non-believers alike. However, all too often such debates turn into little more than slanging matches between fundamentalist zealots on the one hand, and crusading atheists on the other. It doesn't matter to either side whether the other is actually present - those are the people their arguments are aimed at, and anyone who isn't 100% on their side is necessarily on the side of their enemy.

 

[timtofly]

It is slightly harder to describe God from thin air than through the lens of who man thinks God is, if there is, or even if there is not a God to begin with. Either God is man made or He is not. It is more comforting in an "artificial" age to think that He is man made. If He is man made, then He does not exist any more so than any other tool that man has fashioned.

 

[peter grimes]

I don't agree at all with the claim that religion is the most complicated thing, by far, that humans do.

Or at least, I reject that claim until someone figures out how to evaluate the complexity of a behavioral tendency.

 

[Maniacal]

This article could be applied to almost any debate on the internet.

 

[Lillefix]

Religion is by far among the most complex things that human beings do; on whatever scale we wish to view religion, through whatever lens—sociology, psychology, history, anthropology, archaeology, medicine—religion displays a richness and complexity to which other human phenomena do not come close.

When I think of the Church of Norway, it doesn't strike me as one of the most complex things in human history.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the quoted sentence. They follow a handful of books and do certain rituals every Sunday. I don't see the complexity.

 

[Hygro]

When I think of the Church of Norway, it doesn't strike me as one of the most complex things in human history.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the quoted sentence. They follow a handful of books and do certain rituals every Sunday. I don't see the complexity.

Because you are looking at the narrowest view of religion. Religion is much broader and deeper than that. Also the author claimed it to be "one of", sort of like how we arrange our social order or how our economy works to be one of the most complex things.

 

[peter grimes]

Religion is by far among the most complex things that human beings do; on whatever scale we wish to view religion, through whatever lens—sociology, psychology, history, anthropology, archaeology, medicine—religion displays a richness and complexity to which other human phenomena do not come close.

Sorry, Hygro, but you can't claim that we're restricting Religion to too narrow a definition when the OP makes this wildly unsubstantiated claim.

I think that education is vastly more complex than religion. How much more? I'd peg it at 5 oliphants more. But that's just me. I'm sure someone else will have a different measure of the complexity of both religion and education...

See the problem?

He want to think religion is some awesome human achievment. So his essay is written under that presumption.

Likewise, when you read the Gallup analysis that his based his essay on, you come across this:

Given the ability to express doubts about their beliefs, the percentage who stick to a certain belief in God drops into the 70% to 80% range.

Claiming that 9 in 10 americans believe in god is not at all the whole story. Plus, they have a breakdown by age and educational attainment. Also, the sampling error is +/- 4%, which should be taken into consideration.

Overall I disagree with the main thrust of the OP.

 

[Leoreth]

The alleged complexity of religion comes from the fact that it, as a phenomenon, is comprised of thousands of different disagreeing ideas and opinions which are thought to be absolute truth by their respective supporters. I fail to see how this can be a good thing.

 

[lovett]

The author, in my opinion, deeply misses the point.

His argument is that atheists and fundamentalists both have the same attitude towards 'mainstream' religion. They both believe that it is made-up. The fundamentalists believe that a mainstream understanding of religion is thoroughly detached from anything actually in the bible and thus is, in some substantive way, false. It is not quite clear what he thinks atheists believe. But at the very least, atheists ignore the multi-layer complexities of religion in the same way as do fundamentalists. They ignore that religion is an embedded social practice with a rich and varied history. They depict religion in the same 'flat, clownish' way that fundamentalists depict religion.

This argument misses the point. It misses what makes atheism atheism and theism theism. It misses the fundamental disagreement behind atheist and fundamentalism prima facie agreement. He may be right that atheists forgot the social complexity of religion. He may be; it is a claim I find deeply dubious. It is, in fact, incompatible with his assertion that atheists have attempted to asses religion with sociological, psychological and historical methods. But more importantly it is a tangential part of atheism. Whether an atheist sees religion as a simple or complex phenomena is at best incidental on their atheism.

Atheism and theism are theories regarding the truth of a certain set of propositions. The most basic religious propositions; 'God Exists', 'God created the world', 'God is Eternal'. No theist thinks all such propositions are true; the propositions 'There are many Gods' and 'There is one God' are incompatible. Polytheism is inconsistent with monotheism. But theists believe some, at least one, religious proposition is true. For Deists, this may simply be 'God exists'. Atheists deny this; the (strong) atheist position is that 'No basic religious propositions are true'. Most importantly, it is not the case that God exists. This is the central distinction between atheism and theism and provides a core characterization of each ideology.

Now, according to the author, Fundamentalists are a subset of theists. They affirm some basic religious propositions, namely those encapsulated by 'The fundamentals of Christianity are true'. However they all believe 'Mainstream Christianity is false'. Here, the agree with atheists.

The author tries to parlay this agreement into something significant. But it is clearly a superficial agreement, as both sides recognize distinctly. That is because atheism does not just attack mainstream Christianity, it attacks fundamentalist Christianity. It contends both are false. To equate this superficial agreement with anything substantive would require one to say that Atheists also agreed with Hindus, Jews, Muslims and many more beside. This idea is a little laughable, indeed it is the impetus behind the oft-repeated semi-joke 'You don't believe in all the other Gods, I just take away one more'.

So this superficial agreement will not support the authors claims of parallel between atheism and fundamentalism. He is left with his rather dubious sociological claim; his claim that all or most atheists do not recognize the social complexity of religion (just like fundamentalists). I suspect he believes this because he thinks religion is far more complex than the 'caricature' attacked by atheists. That is, atheists dispute propositions like 'God is real' and 'God created the world' and these propositions do not begin to capture the aforementioned complexity of theism. But if this is his point it goes quite wide of the mark. The point is that some such propositions are at the core of any theistic religion and thus atheism must attack them. This is not attacking a caricature, it is attacking the central principles of the belief structure. If atheists are the same as fundamentalists in this regard (which I do not believe they are) it is a parallel so weak to be not worth remarking upon.

 

[Leoreth]

Great posts such as this one make me miss a +1 option in CFC.

 

[timtofly]

Sorry, Hygro, but you can't claim that we're restricting Religion to too narrow a definition when the OP makes this wildly unsubstantiated claim.

I think that education is vastly more complex than religion. How much more? I'd peg it at 5 oliphants more. But that's just me. I'm sure someone else will have a different measure of the complexity of both religion and education...

See the problem?

He want to think religion is some awesome human achievment. So his essay is written under that presumption.

Likewise, when you read the Gallup analysis that his based his essay on, you come across this:


Claiming that 9 in 10 americans believe in god is not at all the whole story. Plus, they have a breakdown by age and educational attainment. Also, the sampling error is +/- 4%, which should be taken into consideration.

Overall I disagree with the main thrust of the OP.

I do find it odd that kids "come by" the belief and then "loose" it. Is this saying that even non-religious people are telling their kids that the Bible is God's Word? Figuring this out seems to me a little more complicated than a man in a red suit coming once a year and bringing presents. It is either that, or much learning makes one "crazy". God only shows up once every several thousand years, if He even exist. Religion is sometimes hard pressed to get any one to follow nothing?

@ lovett

Or he is pointing out that the athiest have adopted the same arguments as fundamentalist because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I think that I have stated here many times, that religion has nothing to do with God, and most think that I must be crazy. For some reason, they cannot conceive that a "fundamentalist" would go against religion. From studying history though, it seems that a group who starts out with simple core ideologies, tends to, over time, either become corrupted, or things are added in that drastically change the whole view from the original intent. It is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. Both represent the people, but a democracy more than likely will change over time. The Republic has to be discarded and started over anew. Religion is not a governing authority unless the people allow it to become one. It is very adaptable and can change on a whim, by force instantly, or over time. Governments do not define a person, but religion can.

 

[peter grimes]

...this superficial agreement will not support the authors claims of parallel between atheism and fundamentalism. He is left with his rather dubious sociological claim; his claim that all or most atheists do not recognize the social complexity of religion (just like fundamentalists). I suspect he believes this because he thinks religion is far more complex than the 'caricature' attacked by atheists. That is, atheists dispute propositions like 'God is real' and 'God created the world' and thus propositions do not begin to capture the aforementioned complexity of atheism. But if this is his point it goes quite wide of the mark. The point is that some such propositions are at the core of any theistic religion and thus atheism must attack them. This is not attacking a caricature, it is attacking the central principles of the belief structure. If atheists are the same as fundamentalists in this regard (which I do not believe they are) it is a parallel so weak to be not worth remarking upon.

Amen, brother.

I do find it odd that kids "come by" the belief and then "loose" it. Is this saying that even non-religious people are telling their kids that the Bible is God's Word?

I interpret this to mean that there is, in the USA, a predominantly christian culture that parents by default surround their children with. Take, for example, the common trope of the War on Christmas. You'd have to be wearing a pair of Opposite Glasses to see anything at all like what's claimed to be happening.

But there's a more subtle level of seeping christianity as well. At this lower level even language is infected. For example, I'm a vocal atheist, but I will still admonish my children from saying 'Jesus Foking Christ'. But we won't be having bible study classes every wednesday (Wodin's day ) evening. We won't be saying that one collected set of Bronze Age oral histories is any more sacred than another set.

Once those children are out in the world, they come realize how completely arbitrary are belief systems of all sorts.

 

[Traitorfish]

I've honestly not encountered this. Perhaps Britain is casually ambling down some secularising sonderweg in this regard, but most people here are neither religious nor anti-religious, at least as far as I can tell. (Dawkins, for example, has never been regarded as a spokes-person of the irreligious as he is in the US, he's regarded as someone pushing his own specific philosophical line.) It seems to me that, if he has any validity in his argument (and I share Lovett's reservations on that count), it's as a comment on the extent to which fundamental Protestantism has set the terms of debate in the United States, rather than on any apparently monolithic bloc of "atheists".

 

[timtofly]

Amen, brother.


I interpret this to mean that there is, in the USA, a predominantly christian culture that parents by default surround their children with. Take, for example, the common trope of the War on Christmas. You'd have to be wearing a pair of Opposite Glasses to see anything at all like what's claimed to be happening.

But there's a more subtle level of seeping christianity as well. At this lower level even language is infected. For example, I'm a vocal atheist, but I will still admonish my children from saying 'Jesus Foking Christ'. But we won't be having bible study classes every wednesday (Wodin's day ) evening. We won't be saying that one collected set of Bronze Age oral histories is any more sacred than another set.

Once those children are out in the world, they come realize how completely arbitrary are belief systems of all sorts.

It still does not equate: "Training" your kids to respect, and telling them outright that it is a book of fables are totally different. They both may raise questions in the child's mind, but one is based on a "belief" and the other is based on a "fact". Seems the "belief" one has a stronger effect than the "fact" one. Although I suppose if circumstances change and the child finds out that respect can be different than taking a persons name in vain, you have killed two birds with one stone. I still think though that unless one is taught that the Bible is a fable, they may not state that it is with certainty.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Religion isn't the most complex thing. It's merely a facet of the complex tapestry of human psychology. People invented it because of their want to feel as though they matter in this whole uncaring universe. It's a vital illusion which people cling to in order to relieve their own anxiety about meaninglessness and the oblivion of death. Of course, religion isn't the only thing that can fill this want for a purpose (I don't say "need" because I personally don't feel a need for what religion offers).

I think that many American atheists are also anti-theists in proportion to the perceived threat of fundamentalism to their civil liberties. That the Republican candidates like to cater to the screaming fringe only justifies this perception. I can't offer a solution to this because it seems unfair to demand that moderates try to police the fundies and put them in their place. Ultimately, I blame fundamentalism on the sorry state of education in this country. Anti-theism is just a reaction to a very loud threat, even if it isn't actually a serious threat.

 

[Traitorfish]

Religion isn't the most complex thing. It's merely a facet of the complex tapestry of human psychology. People invented it because of their want to feel as though they matter in this whole uncaring universe. It's a vital illusion which people cling to in order to relieve their own anxiety about meaninglessness and the oblivion of death. Of course, religion isn't the only thing that can fill this want for a purpose (I don't say "need" because I personally don't feel a need for what religion offers).

I don't buy this argument, because you're stripping away the complex history of religious practice, organisation and social function without any apparent justification. If you're going to expect us to accept this metaphysical comfort as the transhistorical essence of religious belief, and that all the rest proceeds from it- every basilica, every psalm, every crusade- then you're going to have to put more effort in that just stating it, because at present we've no more reason to believe you than the contrary (and, frankly, more believable) proposition that metaphysical comfort just happens to be one of the many facets of historical religious practice that has, for whatever reasons, survived into the present day.