Fundamentalism, Fundies, and Misnomers

[GakuseiDon]

I started using "fundy atheist" years ago, when I converted from agnosticism to Christianity. As an agnostic, I had never believed the Bible to be the Word of God, that the world had been created 6000 years ago, that there was a Hell full of eternal flames, etc. That didn't change when I became a Christian. When I started posting on these kinds of boards, I suspected that my liberal Christianity and views on the Bible would upset a lot of people. And I found to my great surprise that my liberal Christian views appeared to upset a lot more atheists than it did theists. In fact, I have been accused more often by atheists of being in danger of the fires of Hell than by theists. Of course, the atheists claiming that didn't believe in a fiery Hell, but for some reason they thought I should believe that.

That's when I started using "fundy atheist". It wasn't about atheists holding strongly to atheism, but about them getting upset about a liberal Christianity that denied the Bible was the literal word of God, yet could still call itself "Christian". Let me stress that most atheists aren't like that; but you'd be surprised how many there are.

Here is a list I created from that period. (I gave this list to JP Holding, who expanded on it on his Tektonics website.) The first half of the list was created by me; the second half by an atheist:

You may be a fundy atheist if one or more of the following apply to you...

1. You become upset when a Christian says that s/he doesn't believe the Bible to be literally true.

2. You find you have a grudging respect for fundy theists for 'sticking to their guns' even while complaining they don't think for themselves.

3. You dislike how liberal theists try to interpret the Bible for themselves, while you create your own interpretations of the Bible for yourself. e.g. Jesus asked his disciples to slay all his enemies.

4. 'Thinking for yourself' means adopting an atheist viewpoint.

5. Any scholar who believes in a historical Jesus must be a theist. If they are an atheist, then they haven't been able to escape earlier 'brainwashing' or they are afraid of the 'Christian hegemony'.

6. You demand that theists explain news items where bad things have happened to theists, even though no theists on the board have claimed that belief in God is some kind of a lucky charm that wards off bad luck.

7. You demand that theists explain news items where theists do bad things, even though no theists on the board have claimed that it is impossible for theists to do bad things.

8. You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since.

9. You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.

10. You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't *want* your ice-cream to be extra drippy.

11. When an atheist says "I don't know" they are being brave and honest. When a theist says "I don't know" they are being dishonest and are trying to dodge the question.

12. When your thoughts on any complex matter are sensible and clear, and a theist's thoughts on any complex matter are 'mental gymnastics'.

13. You make a point to cry out 'Oh, Random Universe' during sex.

14. You leave 'freethought' tracts lying around, like the littering missionaries.

15. You have actually calculated an estimate of the number of people drowned in The Flood.

16. If someone says 'God Bless' when you sneeze, you make them 'take it back!'

17. You debate (argue, vilify, etc.) as if every theist was a Jack Chick fan.

18. You know the bible better than most missionaries... at least the parts where someone dies.

19. The only Commandments you know are the ones that are unconstitutional.

20. You can't remember if she was Mother or Sister Teresa, but you can name every pedophile priest listed in the media over the last seven years.

[GakuseiDon]

I almost forgot. Read the comment below. Is it from a Christian or an atheist?

"... what the hell is moderate Christianity? Jesus was only sort of the son of God? He only somewhat rose from the dead? Your eternal soul is at stake, but you shouldn't make a big deal out of it? Moderate Christianity makes no sense. Is it any wonder that so many people choose the Christian leaders who actually have the courage of their convictions?"

It is actually Brian Flemming, from the "The God Who Wasn't There" movie. A fundy Christian reviewer, having slammed the content of the movie itself, notes the comment above and states: "I couldn't agree more."

[lao tzu]

"I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."

I think it means you should be lukewarm if you don't want to be chewed up.

[GakuseiDon]

I think it means if you are lukewarm you are bland, and betray the notions of Hot or Cold. But that is perhaps as a good definition for fundamentalist thinking as any: there is either Hot or Cold! There is no middle without betrayal!

Not that I think liberal Christianity is lukewarm. It isn't faith made tepid with reason, or reason made tepid with faith. You can have a robust and strong liberal Christianity.

Here is an interesting blog debate along those lines between Sam Harris and liberal Christian Andrew Sullivan, entitled: "God is not a moderate."
http://www.project-reason.org/archiv...drew_sullivan/

Some comments from Sam Harris:

"Given my view of faith, I think that religious “moderation” is basically an elaborate exercise in self-deception, while you seem to think it is a legitimate and intellectually defensible alternative to fundamentalism..."
...
"First, on my frustration with religious moderates, to which you alluded: It is true that your colleagues in the religious middle have taught me to appreciate the candor and the one-note coherence of religious fanatics... The problem, as I see it, is that moderates don’t tend to know what it is like to be truly convinced that death is an illusion and that an eternity of happiness awaits the faithful beyond the grave."
...
"While religious moderates don’t fly planes into buildings, or organize their lives around apocalyptic prophecy, they refuse to deeply question the preposterous ideas of those who do. Moderates neither submit to the real demands of scripture nor draw fully honest inferences from the growing testimony of science. In attempting to find a middle ground between religious dogmatism and intellectual honesty, it seems to me that religious moderates betray faith and reason equally."

Response from Sullivan:

"In many ways, the source of much of today’s religious moderation is taking scripture more seriously than the fundamentalists. Take the Catholic scholar Garry Wills. Read his marvelous recent monographs on Jesus and Paul and you will see a rational believer poring through the mounds of new historical scholarship to get closer and closer to who Jesus really was, and what Paul was truly trying to express. For me, the deconstruction of a crude notion of Biblical inerrantism is not a path to a weaker faith but to a stronger one, unafraid of history, of truth, of the past, or the inevitable confusion that the very human followers of a divine intervention created after his death and resurrection. I find in this unsatisfying scriptural mess very human proof of a remarkable event - the most remarkable event, in my view - in the history of humankind.

This is a real faith, a modern faith, a mature faith that cannot be dismissed as glibly as you’d like. Going back to Pope Leo XIII struck me as a very weak move. Have you heard of the Second Vatican Council? Are you aware of the development of doctrine, the evolution of theories of ecclesiastical authority that aren’t reducible to some comic-book depiction of nineteenth century papal diktats? You say others cherry-pick the Scriptures, but you have done some of the more egregious cherry-picking in describing the priorities of Christianity."

[shunyadragon]

I started using "fundy atheist" years ago, when I converted from agnosticism to Christianity. As an agnostic, I had never believed the Bible to be the Word of God, that the world had been created 6000 years ago, that there was a Hell full of eternal flames, etc. That didn't change when I became a Christian. When I started posting on these kinds of boards, I suspected that my liberal Christianity and views on the Bible would upset a lot of people. And I found to my great surprise that my liberal Christian views appeared to upset a lot more atheists than it did theists. In fact, I have been accused more often by atheists of being in danger of the fires of Hell than by theists. Of course, the atheists claiming that didn't believe in a fiery Hell, but for some reason they thought I should believe that.

That's when I started using "fundy atheist". It wasn't about atheists holding strongly to atheism, but about them getting upset about a liberal Christianity that denied the Bible was the literal word of God, yet could still call itself "Christian". Let me stress that most atheists aren't like that; but you'd be surprised how many there are.

I would also be very surprised if there were as many atheists that believe the extreme manner you describe as 'fundy.' Yes i know some, but I have been around the world a couple times, and no this view does not represent a significant view among atheists. By far most could care less about such views and simply do not believe because of the lack of evidence.

This list had a touch of humor, but on the whole meaningless as to any relevance as to what atheists actually believe.

[Chrawnus]

I would also be very surprised if there were as many atheists that believe the extreme manner you describe as 'fundy.' Yes i know some, but I have been around the world a couple times, and no this view does not represent a significant view among atheists. By far most could care less about such views and simply do not believe because of the lack of evidence.

This list had a touch of humor, but on the whole meaningless as to any relevance as to what atheists actually believe.

I think you're kind of missing the point. No one is saying that the majority of atheists are fundies.

[Jaecp]

think you're kind of missing the point. No one is saying that the majority of atheists are fundies.

Maybe, but at the same time, Fundy Atheist gets tossed around significantly more often than it should.

The whole thing is kind of a stretch, really, and "funday as perjorative to atheist" seems to stem more from wanting to mirror an existing insult than on whether it really makes sense. The big list of "fundy atheist" behaviors serving as post-hoc justifications for an existing "no you" kind of insult.

[Chrawnus]

Maybe, but at the same time, Fundy Atheist gets tossed around significantly more often than it should.

The whole thing is kind of a stretch, really, and "funday as perjorative to atheist" seems to stem more from wanting to mirror an existing insult than on whether it really makes sense. The big list of "fundy atheist" behaviors serving as post-hoc justifications for an existing "no you" kind of insult.

While I do think that the term "Fundy Atheists" get tossed around quite a bit here on TWeb I don't really know if I agree with you that it's too much. In fact I kind of expect a bigger portion than normal of the atheists that come to TWeb to be of the fundy atheist-type, because fundy atheists, more than the "I could care less"-atheists (apatheists?) are usually prone to seek out forums where religion is being discussed/debated in order to be able to "duke it out" with the theists.

And what you perceive to be the motivation for the use of the term "fundy atheist" couldn't be farther from the truth even if you tried, IMO.

[Haven]

Maybe, but at the same time, Fundy Atheist gets tossed around significantly more often than it should.

The whole thing is kind of a stretch, really, and "funday as perjorative to atheist" seems to stem more from wanting to mirror an existing insult than on whether it really makes sense. The big list of "fundy atheist" behaviors serving as post-hoc justifications for an existing "no you" kind of insult.

Yet there are many fundy atheists -- spend 30 minutes on YouTube and you'll realize that. Of course, most atheists don't fit that mold, but some of the most vocal popular advocates of atheism (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, the "YouTube atheists," etc.) certainly fall into the "fundy" category. Like with Christianity and Islam, atheism is plagued by the problem of a very vocal, extremist minority (mis)representing the group as a whole.

[Haven]

In fact I kind of expect a bigger portion than normal of the atheists that come to TWeb to be of the fundy atheist-type, because fundy atheists, more than the "I could care less"-atheists (apatheists?) are usually prone to seek out forums where religion is being discussed/debated in order to be able to "duke it out" with the theists.

I must really be in the minority, then . . . . proud apatheist here :) :).

[GakuseiDon]

I would also be very surprised if there were as many atheists that believe the extreme manner you describe as 'fundy.' Yes i know some, but I have been around the world a couple times, and no this view does not represent a significant view among atheists. By far most could care less about such views and simply do not believe because of the lack of evidence.

This list had a touch of humor, but on the whole meaningless as to any relevance as to what atheists actually believe.

As I stressed above, "most atheists aren't like that", so I agree. When I used the term "fundy atheist", it wasn't used to reflect how extreme the atheist believed anything, but that they seemed to believe that the only Christianity that made sense was the literal kind. Sort of like "If your Christianity doesn't involve an actual talking snake, then it doesn't make sense". As a liberal Christian, some atheists appeared shocked (if not upset!) that I didn't take Genesis literally. It was a strange situation for me.

But then, I am an Australian. While YECs do exist here, they aren't as vocal as they are in the USA, so I naively thought YEC was a small minority view within Christianity. Since many fundy Christians think "True Christianity" includes an inerrant Bible, miracles and a virgin birth, and that moderate Christians are sell-outs, I'm not surprised that those who become atheists keep that attitude (like Brian Flemming above). That to me is what constitutes "fundy atheism": how they view the Bible and what should be "the fundamentals" of Christianity. They agree with fundy Christians on those fundamentals; they just disagree that they are true. My guess is that most such 'fundy' atheists, like fundamentalist Christians, are in the USA.

Note again: I'm just defining what I meant by "fundy atheism". I am not saying that most atheists are like this.

[Chrawnus]

I must really be in the minority, then . . . . proud apatheist here :) :).

That's a real conundrum to me, you know. Why would an apatheist be interested in coming to a theology forum and discuss religion?

[lao tzu]

That's a real conundrum to me, you know. Why would an apatheist be interested in coming to a theology forum and discuss religion?

A couple of billion reasons come to mind.

[Chrawnus]

A couple of billion reasons come to mind.

I suspect you're exaggerating a tad bit.

[Jaecp]

He's actually being practically precise