Fundamentalism

[haggholm]

[Edit (January 23, 2007): My, how one can change in the span of three years. Today I would cite Douglas Adams and say that I no more respect a person's religion than I respect their contrary political opinions, weird and erroneous scientific ideas, or favourite sports team. I can be friends with someone in spite of disagreeing with them on political matters, or in spite of thinking that they are fundamentally wrong about the nature of the universe, and these may not be significant issues in the relationship, but that doesn't mean that I don't think they're wrong.]

Anyone who knows me knows that I am an atheist. A couple of years ago, I made a fairly big deal of it. I have grown out of that, and from friendships with people of very disparate religious persuasions have taught me the value of tolerance. Anti-religious attitudes tend to irk me as much as religious zealotry; if I have the right to separate from the world view held by Christians, for example, then why should they not have the right to adhere to one that I do not share? In general, I don't care about a person's religion; I may respect or like them regardless of faith, provided that the three golden rules of my personal philosophy are respected;

• Thou shalt think for thyself;
• Thou shalt not take from another his right to think for himself;
• Thou mayest otherwise do in general as bloody well pleaseth thee provided that thou dost not wilfully harm another.

On a personal level, of course, I may disagree with a great many things, whether they pertain to religion or not, but this is something else entirely. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and to express it; however, there is a distinction in my mind between expressing an opinion and attempting to ram it down everyone else's throat—in other words, denying other people their right to hold their own opinion. This is part of the reason why I don't go around attempting to persuade religious people (regardless of religion) that what they believe in is untrue—the other reason is that it reeks of lack of respect for the other man (or woman, as the case may be), and in my personal code of honour and values, a person who will not show respect to others in general has (on a specific and individual level) forfeited all rights to be shown respect.

So what's this all about and leading up to? Fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalism, in this case, though I expect it would apply equally to fundamentalism within any other religion; it just so happens that this is the only form I have been exposed to, and given that experience I have no desire to be subjected to any others of its ilk. As I have said, I know, like, and respect a good many people who happen to be Christians. However, I could never respect a person who will not think for himself (or herself - henceforth consider this amendment implicit in all that I write) - and, of course, I cannot truly like a person whom I cannot respect. And, as it happens, not thinking for oneself is what fundamentalism is all about.

This sounds facetious, I'm sure; insulting, generalising, and whatnot. I disagree. The kind of fundamentalism I speak of is that particular, blind adherence to whatever the Christian Bible says, maintaining (in the face of evidence to the contrary) that it is absolute and infallible. Take a moment to step back and ponder this notion. If the Bible is the ultimate guide to everything and—more importantly—infallible, then every word in it is true. From inspection, it is painfully obvious that this is not true. Courtesy of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, I can give a trivial sample to disprove any such claims: According to Matthew 27:5, …[Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself, whereas according to Acts 1:18, …this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Now fundamentalists can talk all they want about how the Bible cannot be understood unless you let God into your heart - the simple fact is that these are two incompatible accounts of the same event (or at least two incompatible descriptions of the death of one and the same person, which I assume is considered one event unless someone wishes to claim that Judas died, was resurrected, and died again, which is not, to my understanding, part of Christian dogma). If two incompatible accounts are given, then at least one of them must be false. If at least one of them is false, then clearly not everything in the Bible is true.

At this point a Christian may speak up and say, But it doesn't matter. The point is, he betrayed and he died—does it really matter how? I'm not a Christian myself, but no, I should think not. A Christian might further say, Only the details differ - slightly - between different books in the Bible. The spirit and grand intention remain the same. This doesn't make the Bible any less valid. To which I might respond that I never argued this in the first place. I may not believe in or agree with much of what the Bible says, but if you want to take that up with me, you're free to do so on your own time, but I'm not going to post it here and attempt to force my view on people. A Christian's religion is no more my business than it is a Christian's business that I don't believe in any gods - that is, none. All I want to argue is that since the book contains obvious inconsistencies, it is obviously not infallible. It may contain a great deal of good things—the proportion lies in the eye of the beholder—but it is certainly not all true.

However, once you admit that the Bible is not all true, you also admit that the message depends on interpretation (in however minute ways; it may not change the spirit of the thing, but it certainly changes things). If you admit that it depends on interpretation, the obvious implication is that any given interpretation runs the risk of being slightly wrong. I think this is where fundamentalism kicks in.

[Edit (January 25, 2007): A more significant observation is this. If you admit that the Bible is not all true, then it is not an inherently reliable source. It may (if you take the view that it is largely credible—I don't, but you're perfectly welcome to) lend some credence to some view of the world, but its statements, unless corroborated by other sources, are then by your own standards not sufficiently reliable for you to believe in them (clearly, for you have rejected some of them). What other sources—not derived from the Bible—do you, Christian, base your beliefs on? A virtually identical argument, of course, applies equally to Jews / Muslims / Hindus / …; merely substitute Torah / Qur'an / Vedas / … for Bible.]

I cannot adequately explain this phenomenon. I could think of a few reasons why a person might refuse to believe that the interpretation of a religion he has hitherto believed in could possibly, in any detail, be incorrect:

• They may be too stupid to realise that what they have been told may not be the absolute truth, evidence to the contrary;
• They may be ignorant of the facts that prove that literal truth is impossible;
• They may be so insecure that, for want of self confidence, they cling to their religion as absolute, and are afraid to confront the possibility that this faith, once arrived at and embraced (however crooked the path that led them there may be) may not provide the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Personally, I suspect that it is the third brand of person I have been subjected to. After all, a person who, in the face of statements along the lines of A is B, A is C, but B is not C, maintains that yes, A is both B and C and B and C are incompatible, but this makes perfect sense because only God can understand it, is telling an obvious untruth; whether because they are afraid to admit this to themselves or because they are fearful to show a flaw in their fundamentalist armour to godless unbelievers such as myself, I cannot say.

In conclusion, I have this to say: I respect Christians in general. In fact, I respect people in general, until they give me reason to view them otherwise. But, ye Christians who will not question, consider this: If you believe that your god gave you a brain, has it not occurred to you that you were given it for a reason? Why is it that people who adhere to a faith that admonishes them to be wary lest they fall prey to the lies of the evil one refuse to even consider the concept that such lies may have made their way even into their religious scriptures, as the authors of the same were, after all, human (and fallible) and not divine?

As a footnote, it may be that some particular reader believes this is directed especially and individually against their person. This is not the case. I may not fraternise with those who refuse to use their brains; unfortunately this does not imply that I have been spared all contact.