Fundamentalism?
Das Kapital
'Bible' of Fundamentalists on Marxist Left
(Image from Wikipedia)
Yesterday, invited by Professor Kim Chae Young, I went to Sogang University to hear a talk on Bernard Lonergan by John Dadosky of Regis College in Toronto. I knew of Lonergan, of course, but I didn't know much, so I learned a bit about his ideas on "religious knowing."
Tomorrow, I return to hear Dadosky talk on "Sacralization, secularization and religious fundamentalism," a paper published in Studies in Religion (Volume 36/3-4, 2007, pp. 513-529). I've already read this paper and thus have some preliminary remarks to post here about the following couple of passages on fundamentalism -- the first pertaining to the Fundamentalism Project undertaken by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, the second pertaining to the views of Karen Armstrong on fundamentalism -- both purporting to treat fundamentalist patterns across religions:
Some of the traits observed in the Fundamentalism Project identify the following patterns within fundamentalism existing across religious traditions: a religious idealism that emphasizes transcendence and forms an "irreducible basis for communal and personal identity"; a depiction of revealed truth as "whole, unified, and undifferentiated"; an adherence to religious identity that is "intentionally scandalous" in its attempts to separate "true believers from outsiders"; a rejection of multivalent interpretations regarding sacred texts in favour of their own literal interpretations, which they believe are absolutely correct; "dramatic eschatologies" that shape their identity and behaviour; a mythologization of enemies; the establishment of sharp boundaries in order to protect themselves from "contamination, and preserve purity"; and an intense missionary fervour. Fundamentalists emerge in response to an "actual or perceived" crisis, where the crisis is a threat to their identity. (Dadosky, pages 514-515, citing Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, "Conclusion: An interim report on a hypothetical family," Fundamentalism Observed, (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pages 817-823)Somehow, to me, this seems to include too much . . . though it does get at the issue of identity that I find central to fundamentalism. And I've never been comfortable with definitions of fundamentalism that emphasize "literalism" with regard to a text, for the term is not well-defined and does not characterize how fundamentalists read foundational texts (nor does one need a text to be a fundamentalist). But more problematic, I think, is Karen Armstrong's view, which Dadosky summarizes:
Armstrong's work (written before 9-11) understands fundamentalists as those religious individuals/groups who "have no time for democracy, pluralism, religious toleration, peacekeeping, free speech, or the separation of church and state." (Dadosky, page 515, citing Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God (New York: Ballantine, 2000), page ix)This seems to exclude almost every Christian position but to include nearly all of Islam! I therefore suggest the following as a rule of thumb for labeling a viewpoint as a type of fundamentalism:
Fundamentalism is an ideological attitude manifesting itself in an unwillingness to reflect critically upon the foundation of one's self-identity.I wouldn't claim that this 'definition' is flawless, but I do think that it gets at the rigidity and intolerance found in fundamentalists. The problem is not necessarily the religious views that one holds but the inflexibility of thought, the refusal to see an opinion from the point of view of another. That, anyway, has been my experience.
In fact, fundamentalist attitudes are not confined to religious beliefs. At Berkeley, I met plenty of Marxist fundamentalists, and American readers of this blog have probably all met fundamentalists in both the Democratic and Republican parties. One can be a fundamentalist nationalist, and I've met a number of these here in Korea.
Conversely, I've met Creationists whom I wouldn't characterize as fundamentalists because they were reasonable individuals willing to discuss their beliefs in a way that demonstrated their ability to see things from another person's perspective.
But perhaps some of my readers would disagree.
Labels: Comparative Religion, Ideology
posted by Horace Jeffery Hodges @ 9:11 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
I am a fundamentalist in the sense of believing the basic doctrines of the Bible commonly held through the years, in particular, my training at Faith Baptist Bible College in Ankeny, IA. A belief in a literal interpretation takes into account that there are parables, metaphoric language, visions, etc. One instructor made the comment that "If the normal sense makes real sense, look for no other sense." I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the original scriptural documents. I also believe that the Bible we have today is a trustworthy rendering of the original, with a very few questionable verses.
If I have trouble with a particular passage, I feel the problem is my limited knowledge. When I get to heaven, I hope to sit under the teaching of the various writers of the Old and New Testament and have my questions answered as to what they really meant.
Cran
Uncle Cran, I think that by "literal," you mean not interpretation but inspiration, namely, that God inspired every letter (which is how we derive the term "literal," i.e., from the alphabetical term "letter").
Metaphorical language is not what is commonly meant by "literal," and since most fundamentalists acknowledge nonliteral meanings, then I don't see the usefulness of calling such individuals "literalists."
Anyway, I wouldn't label you a fundamentalist, for you're too flexible in your thinking.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I agree, the definition of fundamentalism presented is pretty self-serving, and seems designed to address all of the complaints commonly addressed to Muslims.
Have you met fundamentalist atheists? I take atheism to mean, not bothering with the whole "god" crap at all unless new evidence emerges. I specifically DON'T include that to be those that militantly oppose theism.
Dawkins would be the first candidate, but I always thought of his anti-religion books as being a "get off my case already" thing rather than a real attack on theism. That may be read differently by less sympathetic readers.
Sam Harris is another candidate, but there are a number of logical flaws in his works, making it difficult to present him as "the voice of rationality".
John B, I haven't read the atheist books of either Dawkins or Harris, so I don't have a personally informed opinion.
From what I've read about Dawkins, however, he seems to use a lot of ad hominem attacks of the sort that boil down to a single one: anybody who believes in God must be stupid, so theistic arguments are also stupid and not worth wasting one's serious time on.
But that's just my distant impression of the man's views on theism.
Have I met any militant atheists? Probably, but I don't think that I've ever discussed theological issues with them.
On Karen Armstrong's definition, which "seems to exclude almost every Christian position but to include nearly all of Islam," the irony is that she has usually gone to great lengths to exculpate Islam for the acts of Islamists, so I found her definition of fundamentalism rather out of character. Perhaps I'd need to see the context rather than just the quote.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Fundamentalism as a dimension of identity is fetching and makes me think of Eric Hoffer's book The True Believer. Perhaps the old boy was onto something afterall.
Anonymous, thanks for the comment.
I suppose that one question to consider is whether or not an unwillingness to question is fixed in one's character.
Does Eric Hoffer address that issue?
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
"From what I've read about Dawkins, however, he seems to use a lot of ad hominem attacks of the sort that boil down to a single one: anybody who believes in God must be stupid, so theistic arguments are also stupid and not worth wasting one's serious time on."
I first heard of Richard Dawkins after that anti-evolution documentary came out. I followed up on some claims made in online articles and Youtube clips and found him and other evolutionists were misquoted or quoted out of context. If you read or listen to his actual words, you will see that you have mischaracterized his arguments against religion. He specifically addresses passages from religious texts, beliefs, and acts of believers. In addition to publishing books, Dawkins participated in a TV documentary called "The Root of All Evil?" It's available on Youtube and Wiki has a decent write-up with quotes. I think Dawkins is wrong in asserting that, "Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's divisive, and it's dangerous." I don't agree with Dawkins' overall negative evaluation of religion, but I understand why he's an outspoken atheist.
Thanks, Sonagi, I'll have to look into what Dawkins says . . . in context.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
In declaring oneself as an athiest, he or she is inadvertantly claiming one of the attributes of God, that being omniscience, or all knowledge, in the sense that they know God doesn't exist. At least they don't claim omnipotence, or omnipresence.
It would be more logical to claim to be an agnostic -- doubt as to whether God does or does not exist.
The Bible has an interesting comment, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalm 14:1a). Perhaps it is an inner decision, rather than an intellectual one.
Cran
Uncle Cran, some atheists think to perceive a contradiction among the attributes of God, seeing incoherence among God's supposed omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence and the fact of evil.
This used to be the major argument for atheism (or for a flawed God), but the argument has recently fallen into disfavor among philosophers because no one can be sure that an omniscient God lacks a good reason for allowing evil.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I had another look at the "Root of All Evil?" after I posted. I had forgotten how polemic Dawkins is in his attacks on religion. He is strongest when he counters specific religious passages, beliefs, and practices and weakest when he paints all religions and religious believers with the same tar brush, ignoring how faith and a community of believers enhances people's lives and instead seeing only the wicked abuses.
As for the atheist versus agnostic, Dawkins addresses the argument that we cannot know for sure that God does not exist through an analogy. Suppose someone told you that there was a teapot orbiting the Sun. There is no way to disprove this since even the strongest telescopes could not detect such a small object. However, there is no evidence to support the existence of a teapot, either. Likewise, he asserts that there is no evidence of the existence of God, apart from compilations of ancient texts written by numerous authors. He notes that humans used to worship the Sun as a god until we came to understand that the Sun is a giant nuclear reactor. Likewise, there are many other natural and physical phenomena that humans used to ascribe divine status until science developed an explanation.
"In declaring oneself as an athiest, he or she is inadvertantly claiming one of the attributes of God, that being omniscience, or all knowledge, in the sense that they know God doesn't exist. At least they don't claim omnipotence, or omnipresence. "
Then aren't deists also claiming omniscience by asserting that God does exist?
"It would be more logical to claim to be an agnostic -- doubt as to whether God does or does not exist."
Agreed. I consider myself agnostic. To me, the most compelling evidence of a higher power is not the Bible or other religious books or unexplainable events and phenomena but the fact that the belief in a higher power or powers is found in all cultures.
"The Bible has an interesting comment, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalm 14:1a). Perhaps it is an inner decision, rather than an intellectual one."
My path to doubt was intellectual. In college, I made friends with international students from non-Christian backgrounds. I wondered if I would have chosen to become Christian if I had not been raised in that faith. While people convert to many religions for a variety of reasons, most believers follow the faith in which they were raised. Thus, a child born in a Christian family has a head start over a child born in a non-Christian home. Inequality in body and material wealth I can accept, but inequality in the chance for salvation I cannot. I also find the fundamental tenet of Christianity - salvation through Christ's death and resurrection - very, very, very hard to believe. Moreover, the existence of extreme evil, like torture and murder, make me wonder how a sentient, omniscient being could listen to human cries of anguish and not act. Counterarguments about God's will fall flat because they presume the existence of God.
I consider myself agnostic, not atheist, because I do hold out the possibility that there is a oneness, a power to the universe. I do not believe in a sentient diety because evidence and logic weigh against its existence. If there is a God who wants my salvation, It will inspire faith, and so far, that has not happened.
Concerning this:
"Dawkins addresses the argument that we cannot know for sure that God does not exist through an analogy. Suppose someone told you that there was a teapot orbiting the Sun. There is no way to disprove this since even the strongest telescopes could not detect such a small object. However, there is no evidence to support the existence of a teapot, either. Likewise, he asserts that there is no evidence of the existence of God, apart from compilations of ancient texts written by numerous authors."
Dawkins's argument here (which I believe he's borrowed from Bertrand Russell) seems rather weak to me. God wouldn't be just another object in the universe; he's supposed to be the ground of all existence, the noncontingent guarantor of all contingent things. How would one find evidence of the sort that Dawkins demands, for the analogy presupposes a scientific kind of empiricism?
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
One argument that has become prominent of late is the proposition of intelligent design. The proponents are not necessarily Biblical creationists. Their thesis is that life in its many forms is so complex that it is impossible for such to form by natural processes. They maintain that there is no such thing as "simple life forms." The simplest life form is so complex, and requires so many interdependent elements that it demands a creator. The non-Biblical creationist merely specifies an intelligent force necessary without naming this. The Biblical creationist believes that the Bible reveals the creator.
Every "believer" of whatever viewpoint has to exercise faith in something, whether his ability to reason, or some kind of revelation from a source, scientific of supernational. I do believe the Bible, and place my ultimate destiny on that faith. I will mention two Bible verses that deal with this.
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handywork Psalm 19:1
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Everyone has a right to their own opinion. But ultimately we all face the consequences of our choice. If there is no God to whom we will give account, then five minutes after we die, it will make no difference what we previously believed. If however there is a creator, to whom we will give account, and have denied, it affects our eternal destiny. I may be naive in my belief, but I am convinced in my own mind that I will be ultimately vindicated.
Cran
Regarding fundamentalism, I so like your definition of it:
".....Fundamentalism is an ideological attitude manifesting itself in an unwillingness to reflect critically upon the foundation of one's self-identity.........".
I wonder whether Karl Popper's Principle of Non-Falsifiability can be applied to fundamentalism as you define it, whereby a belief is irrationally held if it cannot be falsified, regardless of the facts?
Caroline, thanks for the comment.
Nonfalsifiability might be a different category.
A concept might be falsifiable by empirical means (what Popper meant, I think) or by logical means (contradiction, which may go beyond Popper's specific point).
A concept might be coherent logically but of metaphysical status and thus beyond empirical falsification. That puts it beyond science but not beyond our epistemic rights.
I don't see how God, properly defined, could be a falsifiable concept, but one might or might not be fundmentalistic about the concept.
I have to rush off, so I can't refine this sufficiently. Sorry.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Post a Comment
<< Home