Fundamentalist Atheists?
Brian Flemming writes:
Rev. Joseph Phelps, a liberal Christian (who does, by the way, believe Jesus actually rose from the dead and is capable of saying so in as casual a manner as this parenthetical), dealt with my critique of his brand of Christianity in the easiest--and most empty--manner: by accusing me of being a “fundamentalist” atheist. I’m getting so tired of this line that I usually just ignore it, hoping the audience will simply see through it. But sometime I suppose I’ll have to come up with a pithy way of explaining that a person who believes that 1 plus 1 equals 2 is not embracing “fundamentalist” math. He’s simply rejected 1 + 1 = 3 as flawed.
The idea of “fundamentalist” atheism doesn’t make a lot of sense if you seriously consider what the concept of “fundamentalism” is supposed to mean. Even taken loosely, fundamentalism has to be about relying on basic, fundamental beliefs. How can that possibly apply to atheism?
When it’s used, it seems to be some sort of short-hand for unreflective, unquestioning dogmatism. It is possible to be a dogmatic atheist who doesn’t reason well, doesn’t listen to others’ arguments, and doesn’t adjust their ideas as new data comes in. If this is what people mean, though, then why not simply say “dogmatic atheist” instead of “fundamentalist atheist”? It’s as if they are trying to draw an inappropriate parallel with religion.
This, by the way, was Flemming’s critique of liberal Christianity referenced above:
Liberal Christianity, despite being non-hateful and on many issues even ethical, is hopelessly incoherent, however. Liberal Christianity says a perfect God wrote a perfect book--but he made mistakes. Or, alternately, liberal Christianity says the book is an extremely flawed and even disgusting work written by men--but special attention should still be paid to it. Liberal Christianity says religion shouldn’t stand in the way of science--but a dead man did really rise from the dead. Probably. Or, at least, it’s not unreasonable to believe that he did (or that he turned water into wine and walked on water). Liberal Christianity says the love of Jesus is the only way to Heaven--but if some people don’t believe that, it’s fine to let their deluded souls go off to Hell without even trying to stop them. Or maybe Heaven and Hell don’t exist at all--but it’s still very, very important to praise this figure called “God.” For some reason.
Liberal Christianity wants to drink the Kool-Aid but pretend there’s no cyanide in it. And nothing pisses off liberal Christians more than having the incoherence of their beliefs laid bare.
Brian Flemming makes some very good points here. We can certainly agree that the social and political positions of liberal Christians are (at least for the most part — exceptions exist) less threatening, dangerous, and hateful than many of those so often adopted by conservative and fundamentalist Christians. This is undeniably a good thing, but the fact that their conclusions are good doesn’t mean that the means by which they arrived at those conclusions are sound.
Christianity is an absolutist religious system, but it’s common for liberal Christians to try to adopt its premises without also accepting its conclusions. They haven’t come up with a way to dismiss the absolutism of Christianity while still making it something relevant and worth considering.
Read More:
Comments
Their fundamental belief is that there is NO God… Duh!? It doesn’t get any more fundamental than that.
Except that this not a belief held by all atheists.
Who said that *all* atheists are “fundamentalist atheists”? No one as far as I can see. . . The whole point of referring to some atheists as a “fundamentalist atheists” is to distinguish the hard-core dogmatic amilitant atheists from the more moderate atheist just as on uses the word “fundamentalist” to distinguish dogmatic Christians, Muslims and Hindus etc. from their more moderate coreligionists.
There definitely are atheists that can be quite justifiably described as being “fundamentalist atheists”. There are in fact essential or “fundamental” beliefs for an atheist to be “fundamentalist” about. Specifically the belief that God does not exist. The belief that people who do believe in God are delusional or stupid. The belief that religious beliefs are nothing more than “superstition” and that religion is responsible for all the ills of the world. I could go on but I think that my point has been successfully made. . .
:I usually just ignore it, hoping the audience will simply see through it.
Well they might not see through it if you do come across as a “fundamentalist atheist”. . .
:The idea of “fundamentalist” atheism doesn’t make a lot of sense if you seriously consider what the concept of “fundamentalism” is supposed to mean. Even taken loosely, fundamentalism has to be about relying on basic, fundamental beliefs. How can that possibly apply to atheism?
See above. Fundamentalist atheists do have basic fundamental beliefs about the non-existence of God, the stupidity and foolishness of God believing people, the harmfulness of religion etc. etc. etc.
:When it’s used, it seems to be some sort of short-hand for unreflective, unquestioning dogmatism.
And some “fundamentalist” atheists are in fact guilty of “unreflective, unquestioning dogmatism” in their belief that God does not exist etc. etc.
:It is possible to be a dogmatic atheist who doesn’t reason well, doesn’t listen to others’ arguments, and doesn’t adjust their ideas as new data comes in. If this is what people mean, though, then why not simply say “dogmatic atheist” instead of “fundamentalist atheist”? It’s as if they are trying to draw an inappropriate parallel with religion.
Not really. The word “fundamentalist” can be used quite broadly and be applied to beliefs that have nothing to do with religion. Also it is by no means an “inappropriate” parallel to label “dogmatic” militant atheists as “fundamentalist atheists”. Au contraire, I believe that it is entirely appropriate to point out the irony that these atheist are every bit as guilty of unthinking “blind faith” in their dogmatic militant brand of atheism as the worse “fundamentalists” of Christianity and Islam etc.
No one did, you completely misunderstand the point. Unless there is some belief that is “fundamental” to atheism, and therefore held in some manner by all atheists, there is nothing for atheists to be “fundamentalist” about.
There is no such belief; ergo, there is nothing for atheists to be “fundamentalist” about and the label “fundamentalist atheist” is a misnomer. One might be thinking about annoying or intolerant atheists, but there is no such thing as “fundamentalist” atheists.
Being dogmatic or intolerant isn’t the definition of “fundamentalist.” Pretending otherwise misrepresents everything involved.
Only if there are beliefs necessary to atheism, but there aren’t any.
You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting fundamentalism. A fundamentalism has to be based on beliefs which are considered necessary for the category in general — a fundamentalist Christian, for example, focuses strongly on beliefs which they believe are “fundamental” to Christianity. That’s Christianity in general, not “to fundamentalist Christianity.”
If your purpose is to communicate the idea that certain atheists are dogmatic, then you should actually say that they are dogmatic. Saying that they are “fundamentalist” misrepresents both the atheist and fundamentalism.
True - but they have to be about beliefs which are considered fundamental to the system in question. Atheism doesn’t have any beliefs at all, much less beliefs which can be considered “fundamental” to it.
So… if I insist that Santa Claus does not exist and that adults who believe in elves are delusional or stupid and that flying reindeer is superstition and that Santa’s workshop is not the source of all the toys in the world… does that make me a fundamentalist asantaclausist?
Another use of this term appears here:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part3.htm#Note1
Note 1: “Fundy atheists”
Though I don’t think I am the first to use the term “fundy atheist”, I created the term after I was threatened with hell-fire for not believing that the Bible was literally true… by an atheist! As a moderate Christian myself, I have debated both fundamentalist theists and “fundy atheists”, and ironically, I have been threatened with hell-fire more often from the fundy atheists. (Obviously, they didn’t believe in hell-fire, but they genuinely appear to have believed that I should have been concerned by the idea).
Fundamentalist Christians affirm a “fundamental” set of Christian beliefs, including the inerrancy of the Bible. “Fundy atheists” don’t have these beliefs, of course, but “Fundy atheists” and “Fundy theists” do share these three core attributes:
A belief that the Bible is either the literal word of God or it is rubbish. It has to be one or the other.
Moderate Christians are wishy-washy hypocrites.
A strong conviction that science/modern scholarship supports their position. But if it doesn’t support their position, it is because those scholars have some kind of agenda, or they are somehow “threatened” by the fundy’s position.
One of the more amusing traits of fundy atheists is that they will produce rants that are often indistinguishable from fundy Christians. And Flemming doesn’t disappoint. In his documentary, he says:
“And if [the Bible] is wrong, 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?” [34:00]
A fundamentalist Christian reviewer of Flemming’s movie, having slammed the movie for its erroneous content, notes Flemming’s comment above. Calling it a comment of “merit”, the reviewer says approvingly “I couldn’t agree more”.
Enough said.
None of them are beliefs that are “fundamental” to either theism or atheism (note how the author acts like “theists” are all only concerned with Chritianity — that’s amazing egotistic).
The author is using the label “fundy” not as an adjective that actually describes anything relevant, but merely as an epithet. It appears here as an attempt to insult and attack those whom the author doesn’t like. This means the entire passage is just an attempt to attack others masked as a serious engagement with others’ beliefs. If the person disagrees with those they label as “fundy,” why just attack and not engage their views in a substantive manner?
A person who substitutes attacks with vague, meaningless epithets for serious discussion is not one who likely has anything worth contributing to the discussion.
I agree with the first comment. Atheists can keep dodging terms all they want, but find me one atheist who admits there is a God or that there may be. If they do, they’re not an atheist anymore.
I’m tired of the rants coming from these people about the inquisition, I’m tired of being accused of being a fundamentalist Christian, told how many gay people I hate, and told that I might as well believe in Santa Clause or the Flying Spaghetti monster.
Atheists if you want respect, give it. There are plenty of theists out there who would stand side by side with you on issues of social justice, but you spit upon us. So is it no wonder that you’re a whining minority?
Well, of course a person who says that there is a god is not an atheist — the definition of atheism is lacking belief in gods. A person who says there is a god must, necessarily, not lack belief in gods.
Your second condition is mistaken. Allowing for the possibility of the existence of something that warrants the label “god” doesn’t contradict the definition of atheism. The first comment that you agree with is based on a false notion about the definition of atheism.
Why?
Who accuses you of that?
Do you? Do you, for example, demonstrate the least bit of respect here?
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you aren’t able to show respect for atheists when you presume to know more about the very definition of atheism than atheists do.
Criticism of religion and theism isn’t the same as spitting on you. So, who specifically has spit on you and how?
Atheists have always been an minority and, in fact, were hated even more in the past than they are today. So it doesn’t look as though anything atheists are doing has made matters worse.
I & many freethinkers I know work with political and social action groups founded by Monotheists and Polytheists.
Now I know it’s near the knuckle, but perhaps the problem is your own prosyletizing. I realize it’s a tenet of many people’s faiths, but nobody likes to be told (often repeatedly) what to think. A little tolerance goes a long way.
I’m not a whiner. I’m a 72 year-old Atheist; and thank god every day that I am one.
You christians are silly people who do not know what you are talking about. Get your heads out of stone-age belief systems and grow up.
- Former Baptist pastor who took his own advice and “grew up” by rejecting former silly beliefs.
This Lifelong octogenarian Atheist doesn’t really mind the adjective “Fundamentalist”
The Christian and Islamic ones don’t seem to mind either.
I respect my religious friends as do they me. They do not seem to mind that I believe their religions are only superstitious childish beliefs from early indoctrination and for which I have no respect whatsoever, firmly believing that historically and to the present day that fundamentally most wars and hatred are religion based.
Since when did one religion have respect for the beliefs and practices of another
persons religious philosophy. Show me a Christian, a Muslim, Hindu, or any other and I will show you the hatred & lack of respect and fear of one for the other, sometimes even within the particular religion. Hindu One Caste to another. Muslim Sunni v Shiite,Christian, Catholic v Anglican. The list is endless
All without exception will unite against the Atheist. There has never been an Atheist led persecution of religious believers regardless of the false propaganda of those pointing to Russia, Germany et al.
Respect is a two way street. Religionists please tell me why I should respect RELIGION when I hold it in contempt. I will respect you personally and your right to be, to my mind, wrong.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
Fundamentalist Atheists do exist and I would identify as one. I am a fundamentalist atheist because I deeply believe that no god exists and no amount of argument or reason will ever convince me otherwise. Sure, I have my own reasons for not believing in the existence of god, but, the step into fundamental atheism is still a profound leap of faith. I find that most “atheists” that I communicate with that are aghast at such a viewpoint are in fact not atheists but agnostics. Atheism is all about getting off of the fence and embracing a belief system; just because the belief system does not have an absolute head, written constitution or guiding body does not mean it is not a belief system!
There is nothing “fundamentalist” about that.
Prove it.
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.
What belief system? Is it Objectivism? Humanism? How about Buddhism? Maybe Raelianism? Or perhaps atheistic Judaism?
The absence of any beliefs, much less a set of interrelated beliefs, is what means it is not a belief system.
Oh dear. This reminds me of–is it Humpty Dumpty in–Alice in Wonderland. Words mean what I want them to.
Is that Pearl Ostroff of the Australian Skeptics? So succinct. Who cares if somebody thinks I’m a Fundy? If a particular word is used incorrectly does it matter as long you know the intent?
Fundamentalism is the belief in a holy text - usually the Bible. Since the Bible is full of ambiguities, this usually means that a fundamentalist has to take the Bible a la carte (though he would never admit it).
I forgot to mention that Atheists can be blockheads and nit pickers like any theist, but their lack of reference for the Bible as the supreme authority keeps them out of the fundamentalist camp.
John I presume you meant re(v)erence I have equal disdain for the Koran, Gitas and any other religious tome. In modern parlance I contend that the term “Fundamentalist” actually refers to someone with an unswerving allegiance for, and belief in, the absolutism of their particular philosophy.It is a term for which most people have an understanding, and which pedantry shouldn’t be the vehicle for unnecessary dissertation.
My daughter calls me a Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Infidel. Smiles at the same time. She could be right.
Atheists (as in “dawkins-atheism” i guess), pushing atheism as the solution, seems to be very afraid of being called fundamentalistic, so when the term “fundamentalist atheism” pops up, they instantly tries to argue against it themselves by turning to the etymology of the word “fundamentalism” as if words exists only as the one meaning from which it arose. Yes, the word “fundamentalism” begun with litteralists in the states, bravo, your research has convinced us all. But are’nt you turning your blind eye here? Lets be honest instead of being childish and avoid the actual question being raised by users of the term “fundamentalist atheism”, which YOU KNOW is: can the term “fundamentalism” (the practical meaning of it today) be applied to people/movements with atheistic/secular views/worldviews. That is: is there any similarities between fundamentalist religious arguments and the recent more vulgar anti-religion-atheism? Well, one similarity is that you both pick and choose knowledge, terms, and definitions as it fit your already convinced view, insead of challeging your theories (as popper would’ve expected from someone who claims to be scientific). I’m talking about your lack of knowledge about religion, natural scientific studies, social studies, psychological studies, historical studies etc. - of religion. Ex: “Christianity is an absolutist religious system”, though I think I know what that statement is trying to say, it actually does’nt make any sense (except for an atheist with little knowledge about religion), and I have never encountered a sentence like that in all my years of studying religion (try google it). So if you dawkins-atheists insists on using terms and wide definitions as you please to fit your views, you can certainly expect religious people to do the same about you (as with “fundamentalist atheism”).
When it comes to real philosophical, social, psychological etc.- criteria for the term “fundamentalist atheism”, it is not to be solved argued outside the academia by the two counterparts: dawkins-political-atheists with atheistic agenda, and religious people with religious agenda. It’s simply not up to you to decide if you can be considered a fundamentalist or not. You cannot simply “wish away” the fact that the atheistic worldview (as any) probably can be considered fundamentalistic.
Notice how you conveniently switch from talking about “fundamentalist atheism” “fundamentalist atheistic/secular views/worldviews.” I’ll do you the courtesy of assuming that you are capable of comprehending the massive differences between the two and must therefore conclude that you know very well that even if a person is able to be a “fundamentalist” about some atheistic or secular ideology, this doesn’t entail being a “fundamentalist atheist” since it’s not atheism itself that one is being fundamentalist about.
Which, unfortunately, means that you know very well that your comment is wrong. Indeed, it must be a conscious, deliberate misrepresentation of the facts in the service of some ideological goal.
Feel free to support this allegation.
FYI, my describing Christianity as “absolutist” isn’t an example of ignorance on my part unless you wish to contend that Christians regard basic Christian values, principles, and morals as relative rather than an absolute expression of the will of an absolute, sovereign deity. I suppose there may be some Christians like that, but it’s certainly not orthodox Christianity.
Perhaps I was wrong in generously assuming that you knew what you were talking about. Anyone who knows anything about atheism knows that there is no “the atheistic worldview,” since atheism isn’t an ideology, philosophy, or religion. There are many atheistic ideologies, philosophies, and even religions, which means that there are many atheistic worldviews. So if you sincerely think that there is such a thing as “the atheistic worldview,” then it is unambiguous that you are the one suffering here from a “lack of knowledge” about the topic they are trying to pontificate about. I recommend that you spend a little time familiarizing yourself with the basics before trying to continue.
Hm, interesting argument, and I mean in a negative way. You insist on keeping the argument on the lingvistic theoretical level, so lets clear that up first. Yes, I agree on the “massive” difference of what YOU mean by “fundamentalist atheism” and what I mean. But you’re arguing as if it is decided. What you mean by the term isn’t relevent, for many reasons. First, what you say the term is not, is in fact exactly what people probably mean by it. Second, who are you to decide what the term should mean? What you mean by it is also not relevant because even religious fundamentalism does’nt simply mean “a religious person being fundamentalist about their own view”. I would love that kind of fundamentalism since it wouldn’t be noticable to the world, and they would’nt hurt a fly, since they could just kick back and just be fundamentalistic in their own isolated cellar. “Religious fundamentalism” actually HAS a lot of ideoloical, social, paractical meaning, and most definitions are aiming to religious movements RELATIONSHIP to the rest of the society, the world, the non-believers, the threats in the world, evil, and so on. So I guess the question you want to discuss is: how can we keep people from using the term “fundamentalist atheism” in the sense: “a person who is fundamentalistic about atheistic or secular ideology”, meaning: behaving in the same way as a religious fundamentalist, but with their atheism.
So I believe you’re wrong in many ways with your argument “even if a person is able to be a “fundamentalist” about some atheistic or secular ideology, this doesn’t entail being a “fundamentalist atheist..”. How does’nt it entail that? Are you to decide what the actual meaning of the term “fundamenatlist atheism” is, and then argue why such a meaning doesn’t work? I believe people using the term means exactly: “a person who is fundamentalistic about atheistic or secular ideology”, or something similar. That’s why “it’s not atheism itself that one is being fundamentalist about” does’nt make any sense, since it doesn’t really mean anything. Which brings us to the next part about christianity as an “absolutist religious system”, which does’nt really man anything (wich is probably why it’s not supported by any religious scholar/historian). Your attempt of explaining what you meant was a hint of traditional theological thoughts on God, and has nothing to do with the issue. And why you used the term “orthodox christianity” is beyond me, so please don’t try to elaborate what you mean by that term.
You mean, the term “atheism”? I’m not “deciding,” I’m using the standard definitions.
Religious fundamentalism is, indeed, fundamentalism of a particular religion.
Of course it does, because religion has a lot of ideological, social, and practical implications/effects.
Simple: use “fundamentalist X” where X is whatever the ideology in question actually is.
For the same reason that a “fundamentalist Christian” doesn’t entail being a “fundamentalist theist.” The adjective “fundamentalist applies to the ideology, not some isolated feature of that ideology.
I don’t need to. Because there is nothing about atheism alone to be “fundamentalist” about, the term is nonsensical.
Except that usage implies there is but one “atheistic or secular ideology,” which is false. Ergo, the usage is inappropriate.
That’s a convenient excuse for trying to avoid addressing it, but I don’t buy it.
That’s fine, I won’t try to elaborate on subjects that are beyond you.
First of all, don’t change words when you answer my quotes. The fact that you replied my quote about “a religious person being fundamentalist about their own view” with your statement “Religious fundamentalism is, indeed, fundamentalism of a particular religion” either means that you totally misunderstood me, or don’t know the difference between individual religious belief and social and political religion as a movement (to which the latter is what “religious fundamentalism” means). Maybe this is the main issue about our discussion. I’m trying to move away from whether or not atheism or theism is something to be fundamentalistic about in it’s own meaning, since that’s not what either “atheistic” or “religious” fundamentalism refers to. So my sentence “’Religious fundamentalism’ actually HAS a lot of ideoloical, social, paractical meaning” is actually NOT, as you replied, refering to what “religion” includes, I was talking about the fact that the criteria for defining a religious movement as “fundamentalistic”, is in fact its ideoloical, social, political and paractical behaviour and relation to everyone or everything outside the movement.
So again, just as much as “religious fundamentalism” simply doesn’nt refer to an individuals level of theological conviction (that’s fundamentism), neither does “atheistic fundamentalism” simply refers to an individuals level of atheistic conviction.
So my argument is that it makes perfect sense to just assume that “fundamentalist atheism” automatically means a lot of stuff (such as atheist belief/worldview as the only right one) just as “religious fundamentalism” automatically means a lot of stuff.
Secondly, I meant that it was beyond me that you actually used the term “orthodox christianity”, not that the “subject” was beyond me. So what I meant was: I can’t believe you’re actually trying to defend some kind of made up pseudo-academic term on christianity as an “absolutist religious system” by using another nonsensical term as “orthodox christianity”. So since you wrote “That’s a convenient excuse for trying to avoid addressing it”, I’ve changed my mind, I would actually like for you to elaborate what you mean by “orthodox christianity”?
These are not mutually incompatible. A religious fundamentalism is fundamentalism of some religion. Fundamentalism is typically also a movement within a religion, though it’s possible for a person to be an isolated fundamentalist. Finally, it’s possible for fundamentalism to become part of a political movement, though again this isn’t necessary. Even the “original” Christian fundamentalists have at times advocated separating themselves from politics.
Sorry, no, that’s not the criteria for fundamentalism.
What’s “atheistic conviction”?”
It only makes sense to assume a lot of stuff that’s true. Unfortunately, there is nothing that’s true of all atheists except an absence of belief in gods. The only thing that so-called “fundamentalist atheists” seem to have in common is that their critics don’t like them. They don’t have any political, ideological, philosophical, or social movement in common.
So in the end, all the label “fundamentalist” is, is an expression of personal distaste and dislike. It doesn’t actually convey any information beyond that. This can be contrasted with using the adjective to describe Christians or Hindus where, if used appropriately, does convey something relevant about the believers in question.
At best, “fundamentalist” is being used as a criticism of an atheists’ perceived character: dogmatic, rude, uncompromising, etc. This is just as bad because no only does it avoid forcing the speaker to support these specific accusations, but it’s actually unfair to fundamentalists themselves. I’ve encountered fundamentalists who are kind, considerate, gentle people. They may be dogmatic when it comes to religious dogma, but they have no desire to force those dogmas on others — they’re sorry I’m going to hell, but that’s on my head.
So applying the adjective “fundamentalist” to atheists, misrepresents atheism as something that one can be “fundamentalist” about, makes implicit accusations that don’t have to be supported, and misrepresents real fundamentalists as if there were something automatically or inherently bad about them.
I wasn’t. But, the concepts are beyond you so I won’t try to explain them.
hey wait, I’ve alread explained that I did’nt mean that the concepts was beyond me (not sure if i’m using the expression “beoynd me” right), so please answer my question. What do you mean by “orthodox christianity”?
If it’s not beyond you, then someone so familiar with the writings of religious scholars and historians shouldn’t have any trouble comprehending it.
Yes, that is correct, I am very much familiar with most of religious studies, but still don’t comprehend in what way you use it, that’s why I’m interested in what you mean by “orthodox christianity”?