How the atheists fell for fundamentalism

[ParkCungHee]

Honestly, it's an American regional thing.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

In that case, what do you mean by "transcendent purpose", and how do you understand that as being fulfilled by religious practice and belief in Western society?

It's rather non-specific. It can be whatever someone does which allows them to feel as though their existence is somehow relevant beyond their own life. This can extend to the people around them, or some far-reaching aspiration like a worldly legacy or a belief in the afterlife. The alternative is to take the Philistine approach (Kierkegaard's term, IIRC) and focus on the here and now. On second thought, that seems to be the more common method of dealing with death anxiety (rather than or perhaps alongside aspiring to immortality in some form). The whole point is for people to deal with and distract themselves from their own self-conscious dilemma: the realization that they will die someday.

 

[innonimatu]

I don't see how an objection to believe in unproven and unprovable dogmas can be constructed in any way as "fundamentalism".

 

[Souron]

First "Ancestor Worship" is an outdated and inaccurate term. No such practice exists in China. Second, these practices pre-date Confucianism. Confucius was specifically asked about the truth of them, and the existence of the soul after death, and described them as irrelevant.
Now, at this point, many, many problems arise for the theory that Religion exists only to provide a "fantasy" of immortality.
First, if Confucianism does a bad job providing such a fantasy, why did it become so successful as a religion?
Second, if this is the basis of religion, why did Confucianism ever form in the first place, since the assumption of people already was of immortality? Why did we see a flowering of religious practices during this period, and an influx of other religions (Buddhism, Islam, etc.) later, if they had nothing new to offer, and if the people's concern for their mortality was already cared for?

To the first, you'll have to explain yourself before I can start to believe you. To the second, It is my impression that Confucianism and and "Ansester worship" coexisted as a set of beliefs. Or course it's all a bit mushy with eastern religions, so if you wanna define Confutionism as the preserved teachings of Confucius, then your point is valid. To the last I agree. Only Christianity and Islam have such a focus on death. Even Judaism doesn't.

 

[El_Machinae]

To directly answer the OP article.

I don't care about people's "nuanced, complex faith". Those tend to be fine. Hey, we're all human. Enjoy your life.

The faiths I am trying to battle are the ones that objected to stem cell research, who teach governor Quirinus was a contemporary of King Herod to children, who preach that Moses made Israel spiritually important, who preach that people deserve their lower-station because of previous lives, that apostasy is death-worthy, that some people are worth less than others because of their race or faith, or that prayer is better than medicine.

Objecting to stem cell research killed people with opportunity cost. Thinking that Israel is 'important' has caused decades (centuries) of violence, the caste system delayed anti-poverty actions.

God made the Universe and loves you? Yeah, sure, fine. That's not what I care about. Thinking 2 Peter disproves evolution IS something I care about.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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

This is basically what I came here to say. American atheists are playing the Protestant ball game.

 

[GoodGame]

@Hygro, I see your point (e.g. read about the history of the Catholic Church's standson the theory of evolution) however you ignore that arguing against fundamentalism is very "fundamental" to athiests with a strong interest in defending science education and scientific pursuit. Fundamentalism is that politically pervasive in the USA, and has had that significant of an impact to warrant the most attention.

EDIT: and basically what El Mach said.



In a perfect world with purely academic debate, Hygro, you are correct. In a world (context: USA politics) where man is a political animal with a complex set of beliefs and behaviors (of which religion is just one), then I completely understand why the fallacy exists.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think the OP suffers from selection bias. There have been quite a few debates I've had with religious people talking about religion in a non-offensive manner. In other debates I could see eye to eye with some believers while being completely annoyed by others.

edit: In fact I can think of 3 or 4 threads I started about God or Religion which were unlike the OP describes.

Most of the time, you'll see the more ... spirited ... debate is when one's faith is used to push morality (abortion debates) or is trotted out on par with Science (Creationism debates).

Lastly, I was lucky enough to be raised by religious but moderate parents, who never thought less of me for my believes, and in turn they're the most wonderful people on Earth. So I'd have to be a complete moron to equate all Christianity with Biblical Fundamentalism.


edit: The article concludes: "Have the fundamentalists won? I hope not. But I fear that they have."

I completely disagree with that. Fundamentalism is gown down kicking and screaming. It is making a lot of noise at the moment, but that is to be expected of a fatally wounded animal.

 

[timtofly]

Unless Plato was a fundamentalist who was protesting religion?

It does become more vocal when people's toes, rights, ideologies are being trampled on. You have the die hard traditionalist, and the upstart thinkers, who do not want to conform.

Unless one is blind, history repeats itself over and over again all the time.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If you accept that identifying the category of "religion" necessarily involves generalisation, then why do you also suggest that we should look for some essence? Why not just adopt a fully contextual understanding of religion, as something ultimately inextricable from its human context? I'm not trying to pull some sort of "a-ha!" move, I honestly don't understand why you're accepting what appear to be two distinct premises.

You may as well ask: Why have economic theory in the first place? It always fails to depict reality!
Answer: Because it may improve understanding in an efficient way.

As Park says, this is pretty problematic. Confucianism becomes a mere set of traditions,

I don't find that problematic, I find it problematic to call Confucianism a religion when the term ideology seems to fit way better.

I don't know about Platoism, but if ParkCungHee complains that say philosophy liked to assume a god-given right of equality as its foundation - then yeah, I'd say it is a religion. An yeah, people like it because it offers a special kind of security (this right can not be taken away) and also meaning (you are not scum, but equally important to this world).
Now I realize that all kinds of social institution offer security and meaning (I don't claim a specific definition for religions). Still, metaphysics can offer it in an absolute way others can't, for its unique quality of not caring about what actually can be observed. So that is IMO still its strong suit which differentiates it and hence is its essence.
But I admit, the term religion becomes very far-stretched here and in deed moves far from common understanding. But maybe common understanding sucks?

But what is metaphysical about Marxism? (not that it directly matters [I hope], as I specified that metaphysics must be the very foundation of a Religion, not just a component).

Besides, this is getting away from Whiksey Lord's original claim, which more narrowly suggested that religion could be understood in terms of a "caring universe" and what he above calls the "immortality fantasy". Which is even narrower set of claims with even more specific presuppositions, so demanding even more expansion.

His original argumentation was

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.

Which to me translates into a need for security and meaning in a world that offers none by default. While religion does. So I would say, I defended the by me understood core of his statement and I am not necessarily agreeing with him on any further statements.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Given this new understanding of religion, and given the metaphysical basis of Mathematics, it would seem Math and governance must be separated, lest we have a theocracy.

 

[Traitorfish]

You may as well ask: Why have economic theory in the first place? It always fails to depict reality!
Answer: Because it may improve understanding in an efficient way.

...What does economic theory have to do with anything?

I don't find that problematic, I find it problematic to call Confucianism a religion when the term ideology seems to fit way better.

How are you using "ideology", here? As it's usually used, describing a comprehensive conception of society with an implicit mode of praxis, and that would seem to encompass pretty much any religion that I can imagine. That would make Confucianism is an ideology rather than a religion is rather like saying that a cow is a mammal rather than a bovine, so perhaps you have a different understanding of "ideology"?

I don't know about Platoism, but if ParkCungHee complains that say philosophy liked to assume a god-given right of equality as its foundation - then yeah, I'd say it is a religion. An yeah, people like it because it offers a special kind of security (this right can not be taken away) and also meaning (you are not scum, but equally important to this world).
Now I realize that all kinds of social institution offer security and meaning (I don't claim a specific definition for religions). Still, metaphysics can offer it in an absolute way others can't, for its unique quality of not caring about what actually can be observed. So that is IMO still its strong suit which differentiates it and hence is its essence.
But I admit, the term religion becomes very far-stretched here and in deed moves far from common understanding. But maybe common understanding sucks?

So what you're describing isn't actually "religion" as the term is used, but some new category, for which you have borrowed the label "religion"? Or am I misinterpreting?

But what is metaphysical about Marxism? (not that it directly matters [I hope], as I specified that metaphysics must be the very foundation of a Religion, not just a component).

Materialism.

His original argumentation was

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.

Which to me translates into a need for security and meaning in a world that offers none by default. While religion does. So I would say, I defended the by me understood core of his statement and I am not necessarily agreeing with him on any further statements.

He specifically said that they invented it for that purpose, though, not that it was simply one of its potential purposes. Those are two very different claims.

 

[Leoreth]

Despite my previous objection, atheists actually have a preference to rather attack literalists than mainstream Christians. That is because mosts atheists (at least in my experience) don't want to proselytize. They accept people's personal belief in God as long as it doesn't intrude their private life, or the public. That's not the case with mainstream Christianity on most occasions, as these for example accept scientific progress (which the article points out itself). Bible literalists and their like actually pose a problem because they call rational approaches to the world like the theory of evolution or special relativity into question (in the context of public education, for example, i.e. not only among themselves). This needs to be stopped, because it's no longer a matter of personal belief anymore, but of all of society.

So it isn't as if "atheists" cherry pick their battles to fight the proverbial strawmen, they actually only fight the battles that need to be fought.

Secondly, there's a difference between fundamentalists and literalists that's overlooked in the article. Literalists are only a subset of fundamentalists, and in my experience, only a very tiny one. Fundamentalists have a firm set of beliefs they find to be justified by religion, literalists further say that this justification can be gained by literal interpretation of the Bible (yes, I'm specifically talking about Christianity here because that's what most of us are dealing with. Call me Western-centric). Now while most fundamentalists like to use arguments that rely on a literal interpretation of certain segments of the Bible, they're hardly consistent in that approach. Personally I've never met a person doing this for whom there is no Bible quote to be found to which he reacts with "but you can't take that literally, it's obviously a metaphor / it's a cultural thing". So they're not genuine Bible literalists.

I think there's a case to be made that atheists like to attack fundamentalists by treating them like literalists. The reason behind that seems to be that most atheists are used to derive their explanations from objective sources like scientific theories. At least a literal Bible text provides a similar objective basis of arguing. As soon as it's down to interpretations or even other aspects like dogma or tradition, things become subjective and, arguably, arbitrary. It's hard to argue with someone on these grounds because the subjectiveness makes it (apparently) easy for the opponent to weasel himself out of a contradiction with semantics and the like.

Is that entirely fair? I don't think so, but again, it's not about picking the opponent to suit someone's needs, but rather about picking the opponent that can reasonably be argued with at all.

PS: To finish these longwinded ramblings with something more lighthearted, here's something that imo very succinctly illustrates the difference between fundamentalists and literalists I've tried to explain before:

Link to video.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Actually guys, scrap metaphysics and replace it with "dogmatic assumption regarding the supernatural". I had this in mind all long, but falsely believed it could be described by metaphysics.
And yes I surely should not have picked up the term without knowing what it actually means. But it doesn't impair my argument, only its understanding by others up to this point (which in this case is bad and embarrassing enough).

...What does economic theory have to do with anything?

It's constitutes a set of theories concerned with social structures.

How are you using "ideology", here? As it's usually used, describing a comprehensive conception of society with an implicit mode of praxis, and that would seem to encompass pretty much any religion that I can imagine. That would make Confucianism is an ideology rather than a religion is rather like saying that a cow is a mammal rather than a bovine, so perhaps you have a different understanding of "ideology"?

To stick with your allegory: I am claiming Confucianism is better described as being a bovine (ideology) rather than a cow (religion).

So what you're describing isn't actually "religion" as the term is used, but some new category, for which you have borrowed the label "religion"? Or am I misinterpreting?

It is religion as the term IMO should be used if is supposed to be founded on systematic attributes rather then the historic era which to me appears to be the prime argument why Confucianism would be religion (and which I find pointless and misleading).

He specifically said that they invented it for that purpose, though, not that it was simply one of its potential purposes. Those are two very different claims.

Whoops true, that slipped my mind in the last post.
I don't claim that, not after further consideration at least (at the start of this discussion, I in deed intended to support that claim, too).
By now I find it a for more easy and plausible explanation that stories not founded in reality are just a very convenient in general and for primitive cultures natural way to deliver messages. And it sure comes in handy to substantiate it with exceedingly far-fetched fairy tales if you are surrounded by people who by default have no reason to disbelief such. And story build up onto story, people consciously or instinctively trying to use it for their agenda... there is religion.
Though I am still tempted to claim that the relative success of religion is founded in what I claim to be its essence.

Link to video.

I got The West Wing since some time on my watch-list, this encourages me to finally get to it.
If head of states only were really as quick-witted, and best in the public.
Concerning the rest of your post: Good points made, nothing to object.
But I want to add that the way Atheists seem to be stigmatized in the US I suspect them to also be more belligerent about general religion in turn.
And of course in private, we have all kinds of people. Here in the former Communist east of Germany, there are plenty of people who like to state how much they look down on religion, which I take as a symptom of being the strong majority, at least in some regions/social circles. But it is not like it is really an agenda of them. Just self-assurance of how intellectual superior they are (I used to be one of them).

 

[Hygro]

There's a lot I would love to answer but am currently focused on other things. I do want to say this thread has intelligent discussion and I have enjoyed reading all your posts.

 

[Winston Hughes]

To directly answer the OP article.

I don't care about people's "nuanced, complex faith". Those tend to be fine. Hey, we're all human. Enjoy your life.

The faiths I am trying to battle are the ones that objected to stem cell research, who teach governor Quirinus was a contemporary of King Herod to children, who preach that Moses made Israel spiritually important, who preach that people deserve their lower-station because of previous lives, that apostasy is death-worthy, that some people are worth less than others because of their race or faith, or that prayer is better than medicine.

Objecting to stem cell research killed people with opportunity cost. Thinking that Israel is 'important' has caused decades (centuries) of violence, the caste system delayed anti-poverty actions.

God made the Universe and loves you? Yeah, sure, fine. That's not what I care about. Thinking 2 Peter disproves evolution IS something I care about.

I'm with you all the way, but it's crucial to pick the right arguments and aim them at the right targets.

It is manifestly the case that some atheists seek to use the all-too-easily ridiculed position of the fundamentalists to 'prove' that "belief in God is a delusion" or "religion is evil". This is not only an example of intellectual dishonesty (or, at the least, bad logic), but it's also deeply counterproductive, presenting the oppositional relationship as being between atheists and believers, instead of secularists and theocrats.

The most effective way to combat the extremists is to target the very things that separate them from other believers: their literalist reading of religious texts, their willingness to ignore empirical evidence, their intolerance of other beliefs, and, most of all, their determination to impose their own views on everybody else. Ultimately, the killer blow against fundamentalism doesn't come from any argument as to the status of God or religion in general, but from the clear demonstration that the extremists are as dangerous to the non-fundamentalist believers as they are to the atheists.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's constitutes a set of theories concerned with social structures.

Ah, I see, sorry. But what does that have to do with favouring a model of "essences" over concious generalisations?

To stick with your allegory: I am claiming Confucianism is better described as being a bovine (ideology) rather than a cow (religion).
...
It is religion as the term IMO should be used if is supposed to be founded on systematic attributes rather then the historic era which to me appears to be the prime argument why Confucianism would be religion (and which I find pointless and misleading).

Would you be able to lay out how the distinction is drawn, in your mind? I don't think that anyone's actually explicitly laid that out yet, because the discussion has mostly been about the definition of religion in itself, rather than its distinction from other/broader categories.

Whoops true, that slipped my mind in the last post.
I don't claim that, not after further consideration at least (at the start of this discussion, I in deed intended to support that claim, too).
By now I find it a for more easy and plausible explanation that stories not founded in reality are just a very convenient in general and for primitive cultures natural way to deliver messages. And it sure comes in handy to substantiate it with exceedingly far-fetched fairy tales if you are surrounded by people who by default have no reason to disbelief such. And story build up onto story, people consciously or instinctively trying to use it for their agenda... there is religion.
Though I am still tempted to claim that the relative success of religion is founded in what I claim to be its essence.

Why are "stories", for you, of such importance? It's obviously true that many religions do place great weight on narratives, to varying extents, but why does it possess this centrality, rather than that being attributed to organisation, practice, or cosmology?

 

[Leoreth]

I got The West Wing since some time on my watch-list, this encourages me to finally get to it.
If head of states only were really as quick-witted, and best in the public.

Yeah, I can't emphasize enough how good this show is, especially because of Martin Sheen. It also explores many issues of American politics from every possible perspective, despite its liberal idealism. Plus, there's a lot of witty dialogue going on!

 

[Algeroth]

But I admit, the term religion becomes very far-stretched here and in deed moves far from common understanding. But maybe common understanding sucks?

Common understanding is good, your urge to define this term in very narrow view, based on very narrow understanding of only a very narrow subset of the discussed phenomenon (i.e. Christianity) is what sucks.

 

[peter grimes]

It is manifestly the case that some atheists seek to use the all-too-easily ridiculed position of the fundamentalists to 'prove' that "belief in God is a delusion" or "religion is evil". This is not only an example of intellectual dishonesty (or, at the least, bad logic), but it's also deeply counterproductive, presenting the oppositional relationship as being between atheists and believers, instead of secularists and theocrats.

The most effective way to combat the extremists is to target the very things that separate them from other believers: their literalist reading of religious texts, their willingness to ignore empirical evidence, their intolerance of other beliefs, and, most of all, their determination to impose their own views on everybody else. Ultimately, the killer blow against fundamentalism doesn't come from any argument as to the status of God or religion in general, but from the clear demonstration that the extremists are as dangerous to the non-fundamentalist believers as they are to the atheists.

Very well put - I must admit I haven't really noticed the distinction (between literalists/funadamentalists versus liberal believers) as being that important. But now that I think about it I agree with you completely.

Thanks!