Fundamentalists

[dilettante]

The label "fundamentalist" (or "fundie") gets a decent amount of use these days, generally regarding "Christian fundamentalists," and seems to generally be a pejorative. It has occurred to me that I'm not entirely sure what the term means. At the most basic level, it seems a fundamentalist must be one who advocates or embraces (a return to) "fundamental principles" of some sort. But I suspect that in common usage, there's more to it than that.

So my questions are 3:
1) What does it mean to be a "fundamentalist"? And specifically what makes a Christian fundamentalist a Christian fundamentalist?
2) What can people be fundamentalist about? Is it inherently tied to religion? Can there be political fundamentalists? "Liberal fundamentalists"? "Marxist fundamentalists"? "Scientific fundamentalists"? Can everything be said to have "fundamental principles"?
3) Is being a fundamentalist necessarily a bad thing? Or is it dependent on what your fundamental principles are?

[partofme]

I think of a fundamentalist as somebody that believes The Bible is literally true word for word despite all evidence to the contrary. Many I know believe the earth is only 6000 years old and humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. They believe Noah actually got a male and female of every species on the planet and put them in places they now populate. I view believing that in the face of what we now know is a form of self deception or at least putting on blinders to ignore certain facts. I wouldn't say it is absolutely a bad thing in terms of a objective truth or anything but I do see it as a negative attribute personally.

[partofme]

I would like to add that Fundementalists themselves do not bother me. You can't live in Kentucky and not at least learn to live with them. I have had many friends that think this way although we do get in heated debates from time to time. I really think people should be respected in believing whatever they wish despite my feelings on it personally. What bothers me is that they feel the need to push their thoughts on others. Evolution is a great example. Here it is still something that is taboo to talk about. In high school the subject was tap danced around in biology and the main chapter on it was never covered at all. It was in the book but we skipped it and I understand why. If one kid has religious parents and he tells them it was covered then a shit storm would start that no teacher would feel like putting up with. Even college it was only really talked about indirectly even though it's the foundation of modern biology. Where I live evangelical or fundamentalist thinking is very mainstream and while many are tolerant you have to feel people out before telling them that is not what you think. As an atheist I'm only really open about it with people I am friends with or people I know will not be too put off by it. Here not being a Christian is something most people stay in the closet about just as homosexuals do about their orientation. The thing is that many Christians only feel they need to believe in God and that Jesus is his son to be a Christian and not worry about all the details. For others they feel like if any one part isn't completely accurate then the whole thing falls apart which is why they put so much effort into challenging evolution or looking for remains or Noah's Arc.

Anyway this got me to thinking about a bumper sticker I saw the other day. It said: The Big Bang. God said it and bang it happened.

[Michael]

The label "fundamentalist" (or "fundie") gets a decent amount of use these days, generally regarding "Christian fundamentalists," and seems to generally be a pejorative. It has occurred to me that I'm not entirely sure what the term means. At the most basic level, it seems a fundamentalist must be one who advocates or embraces (a return to) "fundamental principles" of some sort. But I suspect that in common usage, there's more to it than that.

So my questions are 3:
1) What does it mean to be a "fundamentalist"? And specifically what makes a Christian fundamentalist a Christian fundamentalist?
2) What can people be fundamentalist about? Is it inherently tied to religion? Can there be political fundamentalists? "Liberal fundamentalists"? "Marxist fundamentalists"? "Scientific fundamentalists"? Can everything be said to have "fundamental principles"?
3) Is being a fundamentalist necessarily a bad thing? Or is it dependent on what your fundamental principles are?
Excellent questions! :)

1. I believe the term applies to those who take an absolute and literal devotion to any given ideology. In the case of Christian fundamentalists, the term references those who are 'bible literalists' (they who believe the earth is some 6,000 years old, etc.).

2. I believe fundamentalism requires a clearly recognized 'sacred text' to get all fundamentalist about. That means yes, I think you can have a Marxist fundamentalist, but not scientific, liberal or political fundamentalists.

I don't think it is accurate to speak of 'fundamentalist principles' of politics, science or liberalism because they are not constituted by a single authoritive text, only just a 'set' of fundamental principles. Certainly science includes some 'fundamental principles' - but these only refer to the definition of the enterprise. One can't do actual science without applying the fundamental principles of science (i.e. the scientific method, verification).

3. Good or bad is always relative to one's perspective. ;)

That being said, I don't like fundamentalists because I don't like any extremist types.

[partofme]

And yes you can be fundamentalist about just about anything. When it comes to politics and philosophy there seem to be many people that think that way about Ayn Rand. I have met people that treat objectivism as absolute truth and when it comes to politics anarcho-capitalism is their bible. She didn't lay everything out in one text but she did write two long books and a shorter one that pretty much outline her ideology through characters. And her followers have gone on to put her philosophy into book form outside of storytelling.

[dilettante]

I think you guys are probably right about the essential principle of Christian fundamentalism being that the Bible is to be taken as literally true.

However, I'm not entirely sure having a written text really matters, since there is only a questionable link between what any given text actually says and what fundamental principles are derived from it. For example, nowhere does the Bible assert that it is a literal script from God; in fact it does not (and could not) ever refer to itself as a whole since it was compiled well after all its various components were written. Nor do all of the various books therein assert their own divine origins; many do not. So the most fundamental principle of Christian fundamentalism is not actually contained within the "sacred text."

Michael mentioned that "science includes some 'fundamental principles' - but these only refer to the definition of the enterprise." But surely a Christian or Marxist fundamentalist would assert that their fundamental principles were also "the definition of the enterprise"; i.e. they define Chistianity/Marxism as the by principle X and Christians/Marxists as those who belief/practice principle X.

[partofme]

I think you guys are probably right about the essential principle of Christian fundamentalism being that the Bible is to be taken as literally true.

However, I'm not entirely sure having a written text really matters, since there is only a questionable link between what any given text actually says and what fundamental principles are derived from it. For example, nowhere does the Bible assert that it is a literal script from God; in fact it does not (and could not) ever refer to itself as a whole since it was compiled well after all its various components were written. Nor do all of the various books therein assert their own divine origins; many do not. So the most fundamental principle of Christian fundamentalism is not actually contained within the "sacred text."

Michael mentioned that "science includes some 'fundamental principles' - but these only refer to the definition of the enterprise." But surely a Christian or Marxist fundamentalist would assert that their fundamental principles were also "the definition of the enterprise"; i.e. they define Chistianity/Marxism as the by principle X and Christians/Marxists as those who belief/practice principle X.

I don't think many people realize that the whole Bible as we know it today wasn't completely put together in it's current form until just a few hundred years ago.

[Michael]

I think you guys are probably right about the essential principle of Christian fundamentalism being that the Bible is to be taken as literally true.
Yes, fundamentalism clearly requires a strict literal interpretation of the Bible as the 'word of God'.

However, I'm not entirely sure having a written text really matters, since there is only a questionable link between what any given text actually says and what fundamental principles are derived from it.

The questionability of the linkage is only of interest to logicians. Fundamentalist Christians don't normally trouble themselves over that aspect.

Fundamentalist Christianity is fundamentalist in that it ascribes to that which is textually supported in the bible (nothing more, nothing less). That seems to be a key characteristic of fundamentalism.

And I do think the 'authorative text' is of critical importance in supporting the concept of 'fundamentalism'. Without an authorative text, there is nothing to be fundamental about. Fundamentalists need a 'foundation' that forms the definition of their enterprise. There is no subjectivity involved here - to be a Christian fundamentalist, one has to hold ALL of the text of the bible as the literal word of God.

For example, nowhere does the Bible assert that it is a literal script from God; in fact it does not (and could not) ever refer to itself as a whole since it was compiled well after all its various components were written. Nor do all of the various books therein assert their own divine origins; many do not. So the most fundamental principle of Christian fundamentalism is not actually contained within the "sacred text."
Not true.

The fundamental principle of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of God, who died for our sins and rose again (immortal soul). That concept is clearly asserted in the bible.

I think the actual historical authorship of the bible is mostly irrelevant. Fact is, Christians generally do hold the bible to be a sacred text that contains the word of God. It is a single text and it is held to be authorative for Christians. That enables 'fundamentalism'. With no single authorative text there is no grounds for 'fundamentalism' to stand on (though extremism would still be possible).

Michael mentioned that "science includes some 'fundamental principles' - but these only refer to the definition of the enterprise." But surely a Christian or Marxist fundamentalist would assert that their fundamental principles were also "the definition of the enterprise"; i.e. they define Chistianity/Marxism as the by principle X and Christians/Marxists as those who belief/practice principle X.
I think there is a real difference here.

Science holds that all theories must be falsifiable, and that results are rationally derived from careful observation of experimental data. This is what I meant when I refered to 'principles that define the enterprise'. One must follow these principles in order to engage in science. Ignore those principles and one is not doing science. Yes, this is 'fundamental', but it is impossible to do science without following these particular principles.

This is very different from Christianity or Marxism. Both of these ideologies contain literally hundreds of principles - specifically deliniated in a particular text. One can certainly still be considered a Christian or a Marxist even if you ignore a half-dozen of these principles. But a Christian or Marxist fundamentalist cannot permit any principle cited in the holy text to be ignored.

Scientists cannot ignore the 'definitional' principles of science. Christians and Marxist can and often do ignore or overlook particular elements they don't accept and focus on other parts that they do accept. Thus, the term 'fundamentalist' can only be applied in a meaningful way to Christians and Marxists (and perhaps some others), but not to scientists or liberals.

With a Christian (for example) they may accept that Jesus is the son of God, who died for our sins and rose again on the third day. But they may also accept homosexuality. I think they still can be correctly called Christians (since they ascribe to the 'definitional' principle, but choose to ignore some particular biblical injunction). Fundamentalist Christians can never accept homosexuality and still be 'fundamentalists'.

Btw, I think divorce is probably the most clear-cut example of Christian fundamentalist hypocrisy. The bible is fundamentally very clear that it is not to be accepted at all (no wiggle room is granted in the bible). Fundamentalism is a 'high hurdle' and really opens one up to accusations of hypocrisy very easily.

[SMadsen]

I'd define fundamentalism as an adherence to the absolute truth of a particular tenet.

How bad that is is of course always subjective but the tendency of fundamentalism to install intolerance of opposing views rarely leads to anything productive when the various views, including those of the fundamentalist, confront.

So I'd say that the 'badness' of fundamentalism is proportional with the grievance that the intolerance it brings can cause.


As for the scope of fundamentalism, it can occur whenever a truth can be taken as absolute. There are of course exceptions to this, namely axioms where the truth must be postulated in order for the axioms to work as intended.

A field like science where truths by definition can't be absolute, except for axioms, is automatically abscent from the scope of fundamentalism.

[Michael]

I'd define fundamentalism as an adherence to the absolute truth of a particular tenet.
I think this is an excellent definition.

[SMadsen]

I think this is an excellent definition.
Thanks.


By the way, I forgot to add things like narrowmindedness and ignorance as entries on the 'badness' chart; as such traits are also potential products, or, at least, potential companions, of fundamentalism and can also cause certain grievances.