Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

The Fundamentalist in All of Us

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 4:23:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I believe, for most of us, we fault others for the very things we do, ourselves.

For instance, while leading a discussion at church last Thursday night on "Six Characteristics of Fundamentalism", the participants, in expressing their displeasure for fundamentalists, displayed the very characteristics describing fundamentalism.

To illustrate, in response to one of the characteristics, exclusivity, most of the group said they refused to associate with fundamentalists; while discussing bias as a characteristic of fundamentalism, they refused to even consider the notion fundamentalists could be right in anything they said, saying they would never listen to them, in the first place; and, in discussing the characteristic, us versus them, they simply concluded they were right and fundamentalists were wrong.

My intention for the worksheet was to demonstrate fundamentalism not only existing among certain groups but as a universal phenomenon, and, at least, with our group of religious liberals, I think I succeeded even without their being aware.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 7:37:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 4:23:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
For instance, while leading a discussion at church last Thursday night on "Six Characteristics of Fundamentalism", the participants, in expressing their displeasure for fundamentalists, displayed the very characteristics describing fundamentalism.
You didn't list the characteristics your group used for reference, Anthony, but ideological zealotry is common in both sectarian and secular ideologies. You can find it readily in politics, sports and religion for example. It's also visible in pseudoscientific ideas like 'paleo' dieting, astrology, homeopathy, and numerous self-help movements. You can also find it in nationalistic ideologies, and tribalism of all kinds.

I've been interested in the pathology of such thought for over a decade. I think it devolves to what novelist Chimamanda Adichie describes as the Single Story. [https://www.ted.com...] Fundamentalism is at core the zealous embrace of the Single Story -- turning such embrace into psychosocial identity (and thus producing the kinds of psychosocial effects you mentioned.) But so too is nationalism, political zealotry, Crossfit cultism and so on. Any thought which reduces broad problems to the self-sufficient frame of a single ideological solution and binds that to our sense of self-worth, damages our capacity to think.

But what I think your group has started to realise is that fundamentalism isn't a category so much as a degree. Whenever ideology gets entangled with identity, you're somewhere on the scale. At the fanatical end, the private becomes public, and your own life itself becomes propaganda. But at the entry end, you're still a subscriber-zealot whose self-examination is corrupted by the implict conflict between identity and independent inquiry.

I can understand the appeal of faith-groups, but I think that very appeal is their own vulnerability.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 7:03:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 4:23:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I believe, for most of us, we fault others for the very things we do, ourselves.

For instance, while leading a discussion at church last Thursday night on "Six Characteristics of Fundamentalism", the participants, in expressing their displeasure for fundamentalists, displayed the very characteristics describing fundamentalism.

To illustrate, in response to one of the characteristics, exclusivity, most of the group said they refused to associate with fundamentalists; while discussing bias as a characteristic of fundamentalism, they refused to even consider the notion fundamentalists could be right in anything they said, saying they would never listen to them, in the first place; and, in discussing the characteristic, us versus them, they simply concluded they were right and fundamentalists were wrong.

My intention for the worksheet was to demonstrate fundamentalism not only existing among certain groups but as a universal phenomenon, and, at least, with our group of religious liberals, I think I succeeded even without their being aware.

You mean humans beings may not be perfect robots of unbiased/objective analysis ? Say it isn't so.............
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 10:33:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 4:23:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I believe, for most of us, we fault others for the very things we do, ourselves.

For instance, while leading a discussion at church last Thursday night on "Six Characteristics of Fundamentalism", the participants, in expressing their displeasure for fundamentalists, displayed the very characteristics describing fundamentalism.

To illustrate, in response to one of the characteristics, exclusivity, most of the group said they refused to associate with fundamentalists; while discussing bias as a characteristic of fundamentalism, they refused to even consider the notion fundamentalists could be right in anything they said, saying they would never listen to them, in the first place; and, in discussing the characteristic, us versus them, they simply concluded they were right and fundamentalists were wrong.

My intention for the worksheet was to demonstrate fundamentalism not only existing among certain groups but as a universal phenomenon, and, at least, with our group of religious liberals, I think I succeeded even without their being aware.

I agree. Thats why the concept of sin applies to everyone. It also means anyone can do evil, even the evil they judge people about.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 3:16:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You didn't list the characteristics your group used for reference, Anthony,

Opposed to change, exclusivity, bias, authoritarian, us versus them, absolutism.

but ideological zealotry is common in both sectarian and secular ideologies. You can find it readily in politics, sports and religion for example. It's also visible in pseudoscientific ideas like 'paleo' dieting, astrology, homeopathy, and numerous self-help movements. You can also find it in nationalistic ideologies, and tribalism of all kinds.

I agree.

But what I think your group has started to realise is that fundamentalism isn't a category so much as a degree. Whenever ideology gets entangled with identity, you're somewhere on the scale. At the fanatical end, the private becomes public, and your own life itself becomes propaganda. But at the entry end, you're still a subscriber-zealot whose self-examination is corrupted by the implict conflict between identity and independent inquiry.

At least, that was the intention of the discussion; but, the brick wall was their inability to see they too had the same characteristics in which was used to define the fundamentalist, so much so they were demonstrating these characteristics in defending themselves.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 3:20:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 10:33:44 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 11/15/2015 4:23:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I believe, for most of us, we fault others for the very things we do, ourselves.

For instance, while leading a discussion at church last Thursday night on "Six Characteristics of Fundamentalism", the participants, in expressing their displeasure for fundamentalists, displayed the very characteristics describing fundamentalism.

To illustrate, in response to one of the characteristics, exclusivity, most of the group said they refused to associate with fundamentalists; while discussing bias as a characteristic of fundamentalism, they refused to even consider the notion fundamentalists could be right in anything they said, saying they would never listen to them, in the first place; and, in discussing the characteristic, us versus them, they simply concluded they were right and fundamentalists were wrong.

My intention for the worksheet was to demonstrate fundamentalism not only existing among certain groups but as a universal phenomenon, and, at least, with our group of religious liberals, I think I succeeded even without their being aware.

I agree. Thats why the concept of sin applies to everyone. It also means anyone can do evil, even the evil they judge people about.

Agree.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 3:27:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 3:16:27 AM, s-anthony wrote:
You didn't list the characteristics your group used for reference, Anthony,

Opposed to change, exclusivity, bias, authoritarian, us versus them, absolutism.

Thank you for the list.

But are those characteristics specific to religious fundamentalism? It seems to me that any entrenched, privileged group -- colonist landholders, slave-owners, citizens of an imperial metropole, publishers, movie producers, newspaper owners, railroad barons, executives at 'head office' as opposed to workers at a 'branch office' -- might exhibit the same.

What's the source of this list?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 4:12:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 4:23:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I believe, for most of us, we fault others for the very things we do, ourselves.

For instance, while leading a discussion at church last Thursday night on "Six Characteristics of Fundamentalism", the participants, in expressing their displeasure for fundamentalists, displayed the very characteristics describing fundamentalism.

To illustrate, in response to one of the characteristics, exclusivity, most of the group said they refused to associate with fundamentalists; while discussing bias as a characteristic of fundamentalism, they refused to even consider the notion fundamentalists could be right in anything they said, saying they would never listen to them, in the first place; and, in discussing the characteristic, us versus them, they simply concluded they were right and fundamentalists were wrong.

My intention for the worksheet was to demonstrate fundamentalism not only existing among certain groups but as a universal phenomenon, and, at least, with our group of religious liberals, I think I succeeded even without their being aware.

A fundamentalist is simply a Christian that takes the bible literally and believes It is the absolute authority and is uncompromising to liberal translations.
But religion is steeped in dogma. With 40,000 denominations of Christians. They all cannot be fundamentalists.
What you are describing is really immaturity or it's darker side, ignorance.
Spiritual quest will help you transcend these human frailties and pave a path to enlightenment. You have to accept we are all at different stages of development and religion is no exception.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 2:45:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thank you for the list.

You're welcome.

But are those characteristics specific to religious fundamentalism? It seems to me that any entrenched, privileged group -- colonist landholders, slave-owners, citizens of an imperial metropole, publishers, movie producers, newspaper owners, railroad barons, executives at 'head office' as opposed to workers at a 'branch office' -- might exhibit the same.

For me, fundamentalism looks at the world in absolutes; something is either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. This allows the individual to feel morally superior, giving way to elitism. I believe elitism, like fundamentalism, transcends any belief system. It's the idea a person is morally superior in thought or in person or both.

What's the source of this list?

I was inspired by a list found at this web address: http://www.ehow.com.... The list I used was abridged and modified.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 2:55:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A fundamentalist is simply a Christian that takes the bible literally and believes It is the absolute authority and is uncompromising to liberal translations.
But religion is steeped in dogma. With 40,000 denominations of Christians. They all cannot be fundamentalists.
What you are describing is really immaturity or it's darker side, ignorance.

Fundamentalism is not particular to any group. For me, at its core is the focus on absolutism; in other words, the belief in absolute rightness and absolute wrongness.

Spiritual quest will help you transcend these human frailties and pave a path to enlightenment. You have to accept we are all at different stages of development and religion is no exception.

I agree completely.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 10:11:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 2:45:16 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What's the source of this list?
I was inspired by a list found at this web address: http://www.ehow.com.... The list I used was abridged and modified.
A more widely recognised list is from an eight-year study (1987 -- 1995) called The Fundamentalism Project, sponsored by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and producing a number of reports and monographs. [http://www.press.uchicago.edu...]

Originally described as 'militantly anti-modern Protestant evangelicalism', the meaning of fundamentalism was widened to include other conservative, anti-modernist religious idealism.

The study concluded that, regardless of religion, fundamentalism shares several key qualities [https://en.wikipedia.org...]:

* Men are to lead and women and children follow. Wives are to be subservient to their husbands. Often, this subservience applies to sisters toward their brothers. A woman's role in life is to be a homemaker.
* The rules of their religion are complex and rigid and must be followed. Therefore, to avoid any confusion, children of fundamentalists must be sequestered in an environment of like-minded adherents to the corresponding fundamentalist religion. Especially so in their schooling.
* There is no pluralism. Their rules apply to everyone everywhere.
* There is a distinct group of insiders and all others are outsiders. Insiders are nurtured and cared for. Outsiders are cast off and fought.
* They pine for an older age and a past when their religion was pure, as largely they no longer see it as such. Often, this time never truly existed, but they have a nostalgic view of a Utopian past and they long to acquire it.

I hope that may be useful.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 11:34:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 10:11:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:45:16 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What's the source of this list?
I was inspired by a list found at this web address: http://www.ehow.com.... The list I used was abridged and modified.
A more widely recognised list is from an eight-year study (1987 -- 1995) called The Fundamentalism Project, sponsored by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and producing a number of reports and monographs. [http://www.press.uchicago.edu...]

Originally described as 'militantly anti-modern Protestant evangelicalism', the meaning of fundamentalism was widened to include other conservative, anti-modernist religious idealism.

The study concluded that, regardless of religion, fundamentalism shares several key qualities [https://en.wikipedia.org...]:

* Men are to lead and women and children follow. Wives are to be subservient to their husbands. Often, this subservience applies to sisters toward their brothers. A woman's role in life is to be a homemaker.

Even though most fundamentalists are patriarchal, not all fundamentalists are, and neither are all fundamentalist denominations. Among Christian denominations, this is especially true with nondenominational churches in which women perform leadership roles, such as pastoring and co-pastoring churches.

* The rules of their religion are complex and rigid and must be followed. Therefore, to avoid any confusion, children of fundamentalists must be sequestered in an environment of like-minded adherents to the corresponding fundamentalist religion. Especially so in their schooling.

Authoritarian and exclusivity.

* There is no pluralism. Their rules apply to everyone everywhere.

Absolutism.

* There is a distinct group of insiders and all others are outsiders. Insiders are nurtured and cared for. Outsiders are cast off and fought.

Exclusivity and us versus them.

* They pine for an older age and a past when their religion was pure, as largely they no longer see it as such. Often, this time never truly existed, but they have a nostalgic view of a Utopian past and they long to acquire it.

Opposed to change.


I hope that may be useful.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 6:36:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 11:34:02 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/18/2015 10:11:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:45:16 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What's the source of this list?
I was inspired by a list found at this web address: http://www.ehow.com.... The list I used was abridged and modified.
A more widely recognised list is from an eight-year study (1987 -- 1995) called The Fundamentalism Project, sponsored by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and producing a number of reports and monographs. [http://www.press.uchicago.edu...]
Originally described as 'militantly anti-modern Protestant evangelicalism', the meaning of fundamentalism was widened to include other conservative, anti-modernist religious idealism.
The study concluded that, regardless of religion, fundamentalism shares several key qualities [https://en.wikipedia.org...]:
* Men are to lead and women and children follow. Wives are to be subservient to their husbands. Often, this subservience applies to sisters toward their brothers. A woman's role in life is to be a homemaker.
Even though most fundamentalists are patriarchal, not all fundamentalists are, and neither are all fundamentalist denominations. Among Christian denominations, this is especially true with nondenominational churches in which women perform leadership roles, such as pastoring and co-pastoring churches.
Do you have an example of a literalist church where women lead men in worship, and where a woman's interpretation of the Bible would be considered more authoritative than a man's?

* The rules of their religion are complex and rigid and must be followed. Therefore, to avoid any confusion, children of fundamentalists must be sequestered in an environment of like-minded adherents to the corresponding fundamentalist religion. Especially so in their schooling.
Authoritarian and exclusivity.
More than that, Anthony. A fundamentalist community is paranoid, embattled, and terrified of intellectual and social contamination. All fundamentalists are effectively at war -- a war of attrition, if not always aggression. Among Christian fundamentalists, this war began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as secular inquiry began to move modern thought away from dogmatic literalism, while liberal Christianity became less confident in its dogmatic authority, and grew more invested in questions of social welfare, and being Christian-in-spirit. The fundamentalist swing was quite abrupt, and took place over a period of thirty years or so.

* There is no pluralism. Their rules apply to everyone everywhere.
Absolutism.
It's more than absolute, Anthony. Conservative fundamentalism is literalist in nature, so all questions are answered by dogma. Thus, any question not answered dogmatically isn't a legitimate question -- and in fact, any ideas not appearing in dogma aren't even legitimate ideas, and any language capturing those ideas are meaningless words. So a fundamentalist world is actually a much smaller world than the one most other people live in. It's restricted in ontology, language, questions, methods, validation and verification.

It's almost impossible to explain science to a fundamentalist, for example, because the only things he'll believe in are either seen with his own eyes, or else written about in the Bible. As an example, to a fundamentalist, species are categories of creation: fish are animals created to live in the sea, while fowl are animals created to live in the air, and both are created in service to man. Unless a fundamentalist can see a fish become a bird, fish cannot become birds because that would overthrow their ontological function. It's baffling to a fundamentalist why anyone would believe that they could or would do that. Evolution must therefore be a delusion arising from belief in magic. It doesn't even need further investigation, because it cannot be credible, because it doesn't work with any ontology that could ever support Biblical literalism.

* There is a distinct group of insiders and all others are outsiders. Insiders are nurtured and cared for. Outsiders are cast off and fought.
Exclusivity and us versus them.
More than that, Anthony, fundamentalism is inescapably paranoid and millennial in nature.

The cognitive pressure of living an idealised ancient life in a modern world is enormous. There's very little respite from the constant pressure to think differently, act differently, deal with issues things for which fundamentalism has no language or methods. Every fundamentalist I've ever talked to needs a holiday. They can't wait for the End Times when complex modernity will disappear (hopefully in cathartic finality), and life will become simple and peaceful. In the meantime, life is a war and they daren't drop their guard, so they take the war to their opponents, even though it exhausts them to do so.

* They pine for an older age and a past when their religion was pure, as largely they no longer see it as such. Often, this time never truly existed, but they have a nostalgic view of a Utopian past and they long to acquire it.
Opposed to change.
It's more: it's reductionist idealism. The religion they pine for often never existed. Fundamentalism isn't just revisionist about world history; it's revisionist about the history of its own thought and traditions. The ontology of literalism doesn't fit the world, yet literalism can't be abandoned, so the only answer must be that mankind is on a moral, intellectual and social slide.

Regarding your thesis, there are liberal fundamentalists too, but they tend to believe that nature is both benign and infinitely abundant, that man's nature is fundamentally benign too, and that the only reason men harm one another is that they are 'out of touch' with nature and their 'true selves'. This arises largely from the deceit and manipulation of greedy hegemonists: big corporates and power-hungry governments. Like conservative fundamentalists, they have in-group and out-group language, and are permanently at war over the language used, because language that doesn't fit naive naturalism is too complex for their ontology. Liberal fundamentalists are also pining for a history that never existed, where nature never harms man, and man never harms man because everything works in a primal harmony that historically, has never actually occurred. :)

I can't say whether your church group are liberal fundamentalists, Anthony, but you yourself hold one of the key tenets of liberal fundamentalism: the idea that God speaks through the subjective, because the subconscious is 'natural' and therefore 'good'. :)
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 8:22:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do you have an example of a literalist church where women lead men in worship, and where a woman's interpretation of the Bible would be considered more authoritative than a man's?

No. Because, if Christians took the Bible literally, they would live more like first century Jews, not twenty-first century Westerners.

The fundamentalist is not so because he, or she, is a literalist but because the fundamentalist believes his, or her, interpretation of one's own dogma is the only right one.

I grew up in a Christian fundamentalist church. I know full well most fundamentalists believe the entire Bible is sacred. However, they will often argue most precepts in the Old Testament and certain precepts in the New Testament are no longer valid. The selected precepts they do observe (like for instance, the tithe) are not kept in accordance with the manner prescribed by Judaism.

However, whichever interpretation they choose is, definitely, the right one.

It's more than absolute, Anthony. Conservative fundamentalism is litenost in nature, so all questions are answered by dogma. Thus, any question not answered dogmatically isn't a legitimate question -- and in fact, any ideas not appearing in dogma aren't even legitimate ideas, and any language capturing those ideas are meaningless words. So a fundamentalist world is actually a much smaller world than the one most other people live in.

You're speaking of fundamentalism as a collective phenomenon. I'm speaking of fundamentalism as both collective and individual phenomena.

The fundamentalist, as collectivist, agrees with the group; the fundamentalist, as individualist, does not. This is made apparent by the fact among fundamentalists there is disagreement of interpretation. Like with politics, fundamentalists argue, incessantly, about religion (at least, the one's I know do.)

However, that which sets the fundamentalist apart is he, or she, is right and the one who disagrees with him, or her, is wrong.

It's restricted in ontology, language, questions, methods, validation and verification.

I agree completely.

It's almost impossible to explain science to a fundamentalist, for example, because the only things he'll believe in are either seen with his own eyes, or else written about in the Bible. As an example, to a fundamentalist, species are categories of creation: fish are animals created to live in the sea, while fowl are animals created to live in the air, and both are created in service to man. Unless a fundamentalist can see a fish become a bird, fish cannot become birds because that would overthrow their ontological function. It's baffling to a fundamentalist why anyone would believe that they could or would do that. Evolution must therefore be a delusion arising from belief in magic. It doesn't even need further investigation, because it cannot be credible, because it doesn't work with any ontology that could ever support Biblical literalism.

Sorry. You need to revisit the term fundamentalism. Fundamentalism might have started out as a religious term, particularly Christian, but words evolve in meaning; and, today's usage is much more inclusive. Not all fundamentalists are Christians or even religious.

It's more: it's reductionist idealism. The religion they pine for often never existed.

The religion exists in the minds of its adherents.

Fundamentalism isn't just revisionist about world history; it's revisionist about the history of its own thought and traditions. The ontology of literalism doesn't fit the world, yet literalism can't be abandoned, so the only answer must be that mankind is on a moral, intellectual and social slide.

Literalism is not essential to fundamentalism. The literalism of the Middle Ages is not the literalism of today. Christian fundamentalists use to take the allegorical depictions in the Apocalypse literally; however, today, among fundamentalist denominations, in most cases, that's no longer true. There is much debate among Christian fundamentalists as to which stories in the Bible are to be taken literally and which are not. The one thing that holds true of all fundamentalists (at least, the ones I've encountered) is a belief in absolutism.

Regarding your thesis, there are liberal fundamentalists too, but they tend to believe that nature is both benign and infinitely abundant, that man's nature is fundamentally benign too, and that the only reason men harm one another is that they are 'out of touch' with nature and their 'true selves'.

That's not necessarily true; in fact, most of the people who go to church with me do not believe the world is inherently bad or good; they believe value is subjective.

This arises largely from the deceit and manipulation of greedy hegemonists: big corporates and power-hungry governments. Like conservative fundamentalists, they have in-group and out-group language, and are permanently at war over the language used, because language that doesn't fit naive naturalism is too complex for their ontology.

I agree with everything you've said except for the assumption all religious liberals subscribe to any particular philosophy. The church I attend is comprised of theists, atheists, agnostics, pantheists, panentheists, religionists, secularists, spiritualists, and materialists, to name a few.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 10:28:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 8:22:34 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Do you have an example of a literalist church where women lead men in worship, and where a woman's interpretation of the Bible would be considered more authoritative than a man's?

No. Because, if Christians took the Bible literally, they would live more like first century Jews, not twenty-first century Westerners.

As I've already stated, modern Christian fundamentalists reinterpret ancient texts and produce an idealised, fictionalised account of how ancient peoples lived -- then they emulate it from within their own social context.

The fundamentalist is not so because he, or she, is a literalist but because the fundamentalist believes his, or her, interpretation of one's own dogma is the only right one.
It's more than that. It's also a static, paranoid and combative stance.

I grew up in a Christian fundamentalist church. I know full well most fundamentalists believe the entire Bible is sacred. However, they will often argue most precepts in the Old Testament and certain precepts in the New Testament are no longer valid. The selected precepts they do observe (like for instance, the tithe) are not kept in accordance with the manner prescribed by Judaism.
Please see my earlier para.

It's more than absolute, Anthony. Conservative fundamentalism is literalist in nature, so all questions are answered by dogma. Thus, any question not answered dogmatically isn't a legitimate question -- and in fact, any ideas not appearing in dogma aren't even legitimate ideas, and any language capturing those ideas are meaningless words. So a fundamentalist world is actually a much smaller world than the one most other people live in.

You're speaking of fundamentalism as a collective phenomenon. I'm speaking of fundamentalism as both collective and individual phenomena.
I am too.

The fundamentalist, as collectivist
Here's the essence of your conflation, Anthony. You want individualism to be opposed to fundamentalism. Yet in fact, Christian fundamentalists rely heavily on individualism to support their platform in a modern world.

The big swing to antimodern Evangelical Protestantism came when conservative Protestants abandoned Christian concerns about social welfare, and embraced individualism as an antivenene to the 'toxin' of secularism. You can see this still in the intersection of Evangelicalism and conservative individualism in the US.

However, that which sets the fundamentalist apart is he, or she, is right and the one who disagrees with him, or her, is wrong.
That's dogmatism. All fundamentalists are dogmatic; all dogmatists aren't fundamentalist.

You need to revisit the term fundamentalism.
I did. I cited one of the most comprehensive studies on fundamentalism ever undertaken in the English language.

You've simply quoted popular usage from a dictionary.

It's more: it's reductionist idealism. The religion they pine for often never existed.
The religion exists in the minds of its adherents.
Irrelevant, since the presumption that it is legitimised by historical tradition is false.

Fundamentalism isn't just revisionist about world history; it's revisionist about the history of its own thought and traditions. The ontology of literalism doesn't fit the world, yet literalism can't be abandoned, so the only answer must be that mankind is on a moral, intellectual and social slide.
Literalism is not essential to fundamentalism.
I think you're quibbling over meanings of literalism, since all modern Bible readings are interpretative.

Regarding your thesis, there are liberal fundamentalists too, but they tend to believe that nature is both benign and infinitely abundant, that man's nature is fundamentally benign too, and that the only reason men harm one another is that they are 'out of touch' with nature and their 'true selves'.
That's not necessarily true; in fact, most of the people who go to church with me do not believe the world is inherently bad or good; they believe value is subjective.
I wasn't speaking about a particular church.

The church I attend is comprised of theists, atheists, agnostics, pantheists, panentheists, religionists, secularists, spiritualists, and materialists, to name a few.
I wasn't speaking about your church. i was speaking about you. You worship your subjectivity and intuitions as divine. Do you believe it's evil or amoral? If so, you've never said so.

I think you worship it as your best, highest good.

The rest follows inferentially.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2015 6:14:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As I've already stated, modern Christian fundamentalists reinterpret ancient texts and produce an idealised, fictionalised account of how ancient peoples lived -- then they emulate it from within their own social context.

However, there are disagreements of interpretation among Christian fundamentalists, not, only, among the different Christian fundamentalist denominations but, also, among the fundamentalists within any given denomination.

If the fundamentalist is a literalist, he, or she, is only taking his, or her, one of many interpretations literally.

Now you mention it, I do believe fundamentalists are literalists. They take their subjective interpretation of the world around them literally.

Here's the essence of your conflation, Anthony. You want individualism to be opposed to fundamentalism. Yet in fact, Christian fundamentalists rely heavily on individualism to support their platform in a modern world.

When did I say individualism is opposed to fundamentalism? In fact, I believe most fundamentalists are to a great extent individualists. Saying, "I'm right and you're wrong," is not a collectivist stance; collectivism does not foster disagreement, but agreement; it's individualism that seeks to divide and make distinct.

The big swing to antimodern Evangelical Protestantism came when conservative Protestants abandoned Christian concerns about social welfare, and embraced individualism as an antivenene to the 'toxin' of secularism. You can see this still in the intersection of Evangelicalism and conservative individualism in the US.

Even though I agree Protestantism puts an inordinate amount of its focus on rugged individualism, I do not see secularism as a threat to individualism. In fact, I've met many secularists who identify as libertarians. Ayn Rand, herself, was an avowed secularist.

I wasn't speaking about your church. i was speaking about you. You worship your subjectivity and intuitions as divine. Do you believe it's evil or amoral? If so, you've never said so.

I think you worship it as your best, highest good.

The rest follows inferentially.

No. I see my subjective thoughts as just that, my interpretation of the world around me. I do not idolize my thoughts, ideas, feelings, and imaginings and worship them as though they were objective, and impartial.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2015 8:47:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/21/2015 6:14:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
As I've already stated, modern Christian fundamentalists reinterpret ancient texts and produce an idealised, fictionalised account of how ancient peoples lived -- then they emulate it from within their own social context.
I do believe fundamentalists are literalists. They take their subjective interpretation of the world around them literally.
Precisely.

I wasn't speaking about your church. i was speaking about you. You worship your subjectivity and intuitions as divine. Do you believe it's evil or amoral? If so, you've never said so.
I think you worship it as your best, highest good.
The rest follows inferentially.
No. I see my subjective thoughts as just that, my interpretation of the world around me.
It's not an interpretation, Anthony.

As an understanding of the world, an interpretation is subject to evidence, contest and change. It's influenceable by the objective and accountable to it.

But that's not what you've done. You have adopted a dogma: prescribed what objective study can and cannot do, quarantined your own subjective experiences from objective examinations, denied that your thoughts and and imaginings could possibly arise from objective influence and processes, without ever investigating whether they have.

And then" inside that insular, dogmatic world, you've created a supreme magical authority, and announced that what you imagine to exist is God.

And more than that, you also, in a previous post, announced that it's the same God existing in the hearts of other human beings. You've made it objective, inside a subjective and quarantined dogma.

I do not idolize my thoughts, ideas, feelings, and imaginings and worship them as though they were objective, and impartial.
Really? What does it mean to quarantine a domain from objective critique but to make it sacred, unaccountable? What does it mean to curtail the objective dogmatically but to announce your preferences impartially true?

You too have adopted a dogmatic, literalist position Anthony -- it's literal belief in your own subjective apprehensions, prescriptive of the objective world, and accountable to nothing. And then you've elevated this sanctified conceit into some heroic, pseudo-altruistic us-vs-them war of individualism vs collectivism.

All that differentiates you from a more conventionally-recognised fundamentalist is that you're not also sexist and antimodernist.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2015 10:03:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No. I see my subjective thoughts as just that, my interpretation of the world around me.

It's not an interpretation, Anthony.

If they're not interpretation, then, they must be absolute objectivity. Correct?

As an understanding of the world, an interpretation is subject to evidence, contest and change. It's influenceable by the objective and accountable to it.

Being no interpretation, it is not subject to objectivity, it is objectivity.

But that's not what you've done. You have adopted a dogma: prescribed what objective study can and cannot do, quarantined your own subjective experiences from objective examinations, denied that your thoughts and and imaginings could possibly arise from objective influence and processes, without ever investigating whether they have.

I have never said one's thoughts and imaginings could not arise from, be influence by, or be the products of the processes of objectivity; but, I have said they are not objectivity.

Arising from, being influenced by, or being the product of something's processes does not make you absolutely one with that from which you came or by which you're influenced. If it did, there would be no distinction drawn between you and it.

I do not idolize my thoughts, ideas, feelings, and imaginings and worship them as though they were objective, and impartial.

Really? What does it mean to quarantine a domain from objective critique but to make it sacred, unaccountable? What does it mean to curtail the objective dogmatically but to announce your preferences impartially true?

I have never said my beliefs are impartial, but, on the other hand, you have said, time and time again, empiricism is objective. Whose experience is objective, and whose isn't? Who deserves the honor of being more dogmatic about his, or her, experience than any other? Would that be you? Would that be your collective, your school of thought, your philosophy? Or, would that be another?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2015 10:19:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/21/2015 10:03:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
No. I see my subjective thoughts as just that, my interpretation of the world around me.

It's not an interpretation, Anthony.

If they're not interpretation, then, they must be absolute objectivity. Correct?

As an understanding of the world, an interpretation is subject to evidence, contest and change. It's influenceable by the objective and accountable to it.

Being no interpretation, it is not subject to objectivity, it is objectivity.

But that's not what you've done. You have adopted a dogma: prescribed what objective study can and cannot do, quarantined your own subjective experiences from objective examinations, denied that your thoughts and and imaginings could possibly arise from objective influence and processes, without ever investigating whether they have.

I have never said one's thoughts and imaginings could not arise from, be influence by, or be the products of the processes of objectivity; but, I have said they are not objectivity.

Arising from, being influenced by, or being the product of something's processes does not make you absolutely one with that from which you came or by which you're influenced. If it did, there would be no distinction drawn between you and it.

I do not idolize my thoughts, ideas, feelings, and imaginings and worship them as though they were objective, and impartial.

Really? What does it mean to quarantine a domain from objective critique but to make it sacred, unaccountable? What does it mean to curtail the objective dogmatically but to announce your preferences impartially true?

I have never said my beliefs are impartial, but, on the other hand, you have said, time and time again, empiricism is objective. Whose experience is objective, and whose isn't? Who deserves the honor of being more dogmatic about his, or her, experience than any other? Would that be you? Would that be your collective, your school of thought, your philosophy? Or, would that be another?

Empiricism is subjective idealism.
If you have to rely on your experience and the 5 senses and knowledge can only be gained from personal experience, observation and experimentation, it is very subjective. The individual interprets the results.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 2:47:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Empiricism is subjective idealism.
If you have to rely on your experience and the 5 senses and knowledge can only be gained from personal experience, observation and experimentation, it is very subjective. The individual interprets the results.

I agree with everything you've said, except I believe in a priori knowledge and posteriori knowledge; I believe knowledge is both dependent on the five senses and independent of them. I believe knowledge is based on personal experience and collective experience.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 3:24:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 2:47:15 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Empiricism is subjective idealism.
If you have to rely on your experience and the 5 senses and knowledge can only be gained from personal experience, observation and experimentation, it is very subjective. The individual interprets the results.

I agree with everything you've said, except I believe in a priori knowledge and posteriori knowledge; I believe knowledge is both dependent on the five senses and independent of them. I believe knowledge is based on personal experience and collective experience.

I see a Kantanian influence.