Are Psychological Abnormalities a part of Christian Apologetics?

[Freodin]

I'm a bit confused. What sort of information campaign are you talking about precisely? I'm not sure what providing information about atheism has to do with prying people away from fundamentalism, unless the aim is specifically to convert them to atheism. Wandering around trying to sabotage people's faith by whatever means possible isn't going to make fundamentalists start seeing atheists in a more positive light--it's just going to reinforce the idea that they are dangerous.

It seems to me that the best way to combat fundamentalism would be to educate people about Christianity rather than about atheism. These rigid fundamentalist theologies tend to fall apart as so much modernism if you know anything about Church History.

Well, it might be that you feel some satisfaction in the varied deep philosophical ideas that permeate some forms of Christianity... but you have to admit that you are some kind of a special case.

Most people I know have either a very apathic/cultural approach to Christianity, or a very fundamentalist one. The theologian's religions doesn't have much appeal to the "normal" people. It's not different from most other specialized fields in this regard.

 

[gaara4158]

I'm a bit confused. What sort of information campaign are you talking about precisely? I'm not sure what providing information about atheism has to do with prying people away from fundamentalism, unless the aim is specifically to convert them to atheism. Wandering around trying to sabotage people's faith by whatever means possible isn't going to make fundamentalists start seeing atheists in a more positive light--it's just going to reinforce the idea that they are dangerous.

It seems to me that the best way to combat fundamentalism would be to educate people about Christianity rather than about atheism. These rigid fundamentalist theologies tend to fall apart as so much modernism if you know anything about Church History.

Let’s take shows like Talk Heathen and The Atheist Experience, for example, because those are at the “front lines” of what I had in mind. These are atheism-themed talk shows where people can call in and ask the hosts anything about atheism, including why they don’t accept arguments x, y, and z for God’s existence. No one is handing out atheism flyers or making cold calls, nor is anyone actively trying to pry anyone away from their faith. They’ve created a space online for their ideas to be heard so that a) closeted atheists can have a community to turn to and b) theists can understand where we’re coming from when we say we don’t believe. Fundamentalist callers are actually handled in the way that you suggest pretty often, with the hosts letting them know that there are Christians who do accept things like evolution and deep time, and the reasons they’re rejecting those things aren’t good ones.

 

[Tone]

Christians who do accept things like evolution

Isn't this some kind of fallacious argument though?

 

[Silmarien]

Well, it might be that you feel some satisfaction in the varied deep philosophical ideas that permeate some forms of Christianity... but you have to admit that you are some kind of a special case.

Most people I know have either a very apathic/cultural approach to Christianity, or a very fundamentalist one. The theologian's religions doesn't have much appeal to the "normal" people. It's not different from most other specialized fields in this regard.

I'm not really thinking about varied deep philosophical ideas. It's not uncommon for fundamentalists to see that there are serious problems with the ways that they interpret things--is speaking in tongues necessary for salvation? Or does it mean that you're not saved? I've actually seen this issue mentioned multiple times as the seed of doubt that eventually shatters someone's fundamentalism, because it leads to serious questions about how the Bible is to be interpreted and who has the authority to do so.

That sort of question can either lead you to a more liberal form of Christianity, or straight to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, depending on how you answer it. I don't think everyone who runs into this problem is a fullblown theologian.

Of course there are a bunch of other issues where popular Christianity has taken a sharp left turn even from the Bible. We talk about some otherworldly heaven so much that people tend to not even realize that the afterlife is supposed to be corporeal anymore! These are the sorts of problems that can lead to a reassessment of what your church taught you if you learn that they're out there.

 

[gaara4158]

Isn't this some kind of fallacious argument though?

It would be if the argument were “There are Christians who accept evolution, therefore your reasons for rejecting evolution are invalid,” but the critique of the fundamentalists’ reasoning is actually separate from the fact that some Christians can square Genesis 1 with modern science. That’s just an indication that fundamentalism isn’t necessarily the only way to be a Christian.

 

[Freodin]

I'm not really thinking about varied deep philosophical ideas. It's not uncommon for fundamentalists to see that there are serious problems with the ways that they interpret things--is speaking in tongues necessary for salvation? Or does it mean that you're not saved? I've actually seen this issue mentioned multiple times as the seed of doubt that eventually shatters someone's fundamentalism, because it leads to serious questions about how the Bible is to be interpreted and who has the authority to do so.

That sort of question can either lead you to a more liberal form of Christianity, or straight to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, depending on how you answer it. I don't think everyone who runs into this problem is a fullblown theologian.

Of course there are a bunch of other issues where popular Christianity has taken a sharp left turn even from the Bible. We talk about some otherworldly heaven so much that people tend to not even realize that the afterlife is supposed to be corporeal anymore! These are the sorts of problems that can lead to a reassessment of what your church taught you if you learn that they're out there.

It can also lead you to the realization that none of it has anything to do with reality... so in a way, I think I agree with you.

But talking about "Church history"... this kind of "we only have to tell them how it really works" tends to result in fragmentation, not consolidation of religions.

 

[Silmarien]

It can also lead you to the realization that none of it has anything to do with reality... so in a way, I think I agree with you.

That would be less a realization and more a conclusion, though. It's really an objective fact that the New Testament teaches the Resurrection of the Body, not a disembodied heaven in the clouds, so I don't know how you could read the Bible carefully and fail to see something like that.

You don't just realize that none of it has anything to do with reality, though. Certainly, you could come to that conclusion, but all sorts of other factors are going to be playing a role there, between metaphysical views, interpretative views, the way you look at history, and so forth and so on. That wouldn't be a matter of simple reading comprehension in the same way.

But talking about "Church history"... this kind of "we only have to tell them how it really works" tends to result in fragmentation, not consolidation of religions.

I wasn't really talking about consolidation, though. I was talking about combating fundamentalism, which is characterized by a modernist approach to Scripture. I'm neither Catholic nor Orthodox--I don't believe in a One True Church, but I do think a study of the history of Christianity leads to a better understanding of how certain aspects of it are culturally contexted. That sort of realization is bad news for fundamentalism.

 

[Freodin]

That would be less a realization and more a conclusion, though. It's really an objective fact that the New Testament teaches the Resurrection of the Body, not a disembodied heaven in the clouds, so I don't know how you could read the Bible carefully and fail to see something like that.

You don't just realize that none of it has anything to do with reality, though. Certainly, you could come to that conclusion, but all sorts of other factors are going to be playing a role there, between metaphysical views, interpretative views, the way you look at history, and so forth and so on. That wouldn't be a matter of simple reading comprehension in the same way.



I wasn't really talking about consolidation, though. I was talking about combating fundamentalism, which is characterized by a modernist approach to Scripture. I'm neither Catholic nor Orthodox--I don't believe in a One True Church, but I do think a study of the history of Christianity leads to a better understanding of how certain aspects of it are culturally contexted. That sort of realization is bad news for fundamentalism.

Hm... you are aware that "modernism" is/was a catholic movement? And one with the goal of aligning modern scientific understanding and theological concepts? So, rather the opposite of the "fundamentalist" approach.

Or are you talking about some form of "modernism" that I am not aware of? Perhaps you are using it in the same way that this catholic modernism got it's name: coined by the people who didn't like it.

 

[Tone]

the New Testament teaches the Resurrection of the Body

Not a body of corruption (which is in the realm of science), but a glorified body of incorruption (immortal...which is in a realm that atheistic science can't touch).

 

[Silmarien]

Hm... you are aware that "modernism" is/was a catholic movement? And one with the goal of aligning modern scientific understanding and theological concepts? So, rather the opposite of the "fundamentalist" approach.

Or are you talking about some form of "modernism" that I am not aware of? Perhaps you are using it in the same way that this catholic modernism got it's name: coined by the people who didn't like it.

No, I'm thinking in terms of historical periods: early modernism, modernism, post-modernism. As far as I'm aware, it's pretty established that both theological liberalism and fundamentalism stem from a kind of early 19th century worldview, where you've got the clash between Cult of Reason thinking and some strands of pure fideism.

I'm not really being derogatory. I'd just as quickly say that Luther was a product of early modernity, or Aquinas of the late Middle Ages. I like them both, but there are obviously going to be aspects of their thought that reflect that particular culture. Build a rigid theology around it, and things are going to get very strange.

 

[Freodin]

No, I'm thinking in terms of historical periods: early modernism, modernism, post-modernism. As far as I'm aware, it's pretty established that both theological liberalism and fundamentalism stem from a kind of early 19th century worldview, where you've got the clash between Cult of Reason thinking and some strands of pure fideism.

I'm not really being derogatory. I'd just as quickly say that Luther was a product of early modernity, or Aquinas of the late Middle Ages. I like them both, but there are obviously going to be aspects of their thought that reflect that particular culture. Build a rigid theology around it, and things are going to get very strange.

Well, I think you might want to use the correct terminology in that case regardless. The fundamentalist movements of the 19th century might have been influenced by the modernist ideas... but specifically in the way that they rejected them in favour of a traditionalist approach.

But the same would be true for about any philisopical movement: they all have been developed either to further or to opppose certain contemporaty ideas.
In that regard, "educating people about Christianity" would mean showing that there simply isn't "Christianity", but a multitude of "Christianities".

I'm not quite sure why that should make anyone consider certain versions over others.

It would also imply educating people about the more secular, even unpleasant, sides of Christianity... I can only recommend Karl-Heinz Drescher for this topic.

 

[Silmarien]

Well, I think you might want to use the correct terminology in that case regardless. The fundamentalist movements of the 19th century might have been influenced by the modernist ideas... but specifically in the way that they rejected them in favour of a traditionalist approach.

Except that they didn't. There is very little about those fundamentalist movements that one could consider traditional, if by traditional you mean something that actually incorporates pre-modern thought. Even the ways in which they rejected modernism bear the stamp of the Enlightenment, and you can still see it with some of the heightened rationalist approach, the need to latch onto modern science or history to prove things empirically beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I use the term "modernist" intentionally because that's what all this is. It's certainly not pre-modern or post-modern.

But the same would be true for about any philisopical movement: they all have been developed either to further or to opppose certain contemporaty ideas.
In that regard, "educating people about Christianity" would mean showing that there simply isn't "Christianity", but a multitude of "Christianities".

I'm not quite sure why that should make anyone consider certain versions over others.

But that is precisely the problem. It's the fundamentalist who thinks that you have to carefully choose one out of infinite versions of the religion, and everything else is simply wrong and dangerous. The traditional churches tend not to have the same problem--they're perfectly capable of allowing for significant latitude in individual approaches without schisming entirely.

I wouldn't say that there are a multitude of Christianities, per se, but yeah, there definitely are ambiguities. The more comfortable you are about that, the less you're going to flip out when you come across someone who believes differently.

It would also imply educating people about the more secular, even unpleasant, sides of Christianity... I can only recommend Karl-Heinz Drescher for this topic.

I don't see how that's a bad thing.

 

[Freodin]

Except that they didn't. There is very little about those fundamentalist movements that one could consider traditional, if by traditional you mean something that actually incorporates pre-modern thought. Even the ways in which they rejected modernism bear the stamp of the Enlightenment, and you can still see it with some of the heightened rationalist approach, the need to latch onto modern science or history to prove things empirically beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I use the term "modernist" intentionally because that's what all this is. It's certainly not pre-modern or post-modern.

Nope, sorry, cannot agree with that. At least we should try to use the terms in the forms that is accepted and commonly used, and not what we want to make of it.

We might debate if anti-modernism is modernist in itself... but then we could also call modernism traditionalist.
And I would certainly call the fundamentalist movement "pre-modern", in their attempt to rely on the traded, established, "brought to us by our forefathers" versions... even if they got it wrong.
Historically, this is a well-established traditionalist way of reasoning... basically a tradition itself: it is not so much what is really old and established and traded that is important, but what one considers to be.

But that is precisely the problem. It's the fundamentalist who thinks that you have to carefully choose one out of infinite versions of the religion, and everything else is simply wrong and dangerous. The traditional churches tend not to have the same problem--they're perfectly capable of allowing for significant latitude in individual approaches without schisming entirely.

Sorry, are we still talking about the same Church history here? Schisms are basically a tradition in its own... the only religion that does it better than Christianity is Discordianism... and there it is a Holy Dogma.

I wouldn't say that there are a multitude of Christianities, per se, but yeah, there definitely are ambiguities. The more comfortable you are about that, the less you're going to flip out when you come across someone who believes differently.

A multitude or an ambiguous unity... that's very much dependend on the point of view.
But I would definitly say that the ability to be comfortable in ambiguities is a "modernist" developement within Christianity.

I don't see how that's a bad thing.

Well... let's say being educated about the Mafia might not make you want to join it.

 

[Silmarien]

Nope, sorry, cannot agree with that. At least we should try to use the terms in the forms that is accepted and commonly used, and not what we want to make of it.

We might debate if anti-modernism is modernist in itself... but then we could also call modernism traditionalist.
And I would certainly call the fundamentalist movement "pre-modern", in there attempt to rely on the traded, established, "brought to us by our forefathers" versions... even if they got it wrong.
Historically, this is a well-established traditionalist way of reasoning... basically a tradition itself: it is not so much what is realy old and established and traded that is important, but what one considers to be.

I agree that we ought to use the terms in their accepted forms. That is why I refer to fundamentalism as a form of modernism. If it comes out of the late modern period and is characterized by late modern thought, then yeah. It's modernist. That is the historical term for it.

Pre-modern thought would have its roots in something like Catholic scholasticism, or perhaps even further back. That isn't Protestant fundamentalism, so no, it's not pre-modern at all.

Unless you are using the term "modernist" to refer to anything that is contemporaneous, which is not its correct usage, then I really can't follow what you're saying here at all. It's just a historical fact that fundamentalism is an aspect of post-Enlightenment thought. Way post-Enlightenment.

I don't think it's really possible to be a genuine traditionalist in this day and age unless you separate yourself from society as radically as groups like the Amish do. Rejecting the Industrial Revolution is a tricky thing to pull off.

Sorry, are we still talking about the same Church history here? Schisms are basically a tradition in its own... the only religion that does it better than Christianity is Discordianism... and there it is a Holy Dogma.

Hardly. I suppose you could arguably consider the Aryans to be an early schism, after that the non-Chalcedonians in 451. Of course the Great Schism in 1054, then the Reformation. Obviously there are later schisms like the Union of Utrecht, and schisms over social issues in Mainline Protestantism, but I don't think you can reasonably compare any of that to the sorts of feuds that are said to divide fundamentalist churches.

I do think the Reformation splintered things in a way that hadn't really been the case before. Aside from the various groups that rejected the Councils, schism was pretty rare.

A multitude or an ambiguous unity... that's very much dependend on the point of view.
But I would definitly say that the ability to be comfortable in ambiguities is a "modernist" developement within Christianity.

I wouldn't at all. Something like Eastern Orthodoxy is pretty big on a fairly expansive approach to what is considered orthodox. Yes, in many ways they are very strict, but they're not going to call you a heretic unless it's over an issue where there's real unanimity.

Having to deal with various different interpretations is not something new--the Early Church had to deal with things like the conflict between the Schools of Alexandria and Antioch. They did manage to make compromises between various approaches.

Well... let's say being educated about the Mafia might not make you want to join it.

Eh, speak for yourself. The fact that Christianity as an institution can best be described as a 2000 year long betrayal of Christ is precisely why I'm Christian.

 

[Freodin]

snip

Ok. If you say so.

 

[Tone]

infinite versions of the religion

That's quite a bit!

I better get started right away...

 

[Tone]

schisms

You know that word ^ and the word "science" are related...it's true...same genome...

That's what happens when one scientizes everything...

 

[Hieronymus]

It would be if the argument were “There are Christians who accept evolution, therefore your reasons for rejecting evolution are invalid,” but the critique of the fundamentalists’ reasoning is actually separate from the fact that some Christians can square Genesis 1 with modern science. That’s just an indication that fundamentalism isn’t necessarily the only way to be a Christian.

Bare in mind though, that Darwinian evolution is still only a naturalistic thesis.
And naturalism is just as much a belief as supernaturalism (creation, ID).
It's a matter of assessing what is more plausible / probable / possible.

 

[gaara4158]

Bare in mind though, that Darwinian evolution is still only a naturalistic thesis.
And naturalism is just as much a belief as supernaturalism (creation, ID).
It's a matter of assessing what is more plausible / probable / possible.

Evolution is based on the methodological naturalism of science, not philosophical naturalism itself. Unless supernaturalism means there can be no natural events whatsoever, it’s perfectly plausible to be a Christian and accept evolution.

 

[Hieronymus]

Evolution is based on the methodological naturalism of science, not philosophical naturalism itself.

It's a bit more complicated than that.
When you approach the question of origins with natural sciences, there simply is no place for the hand of God.
So IF God was involved, science will never come to that conclusion, because it's not applicable to such things.
So if you decide to rely on the natural sciences to reconstruct the events that caused living nature to emerge, you have decided that there was no hand of God involved.
But that's a philosophical belief: naturalism.
It's not an evidence based conclusion.
Rather it is an uncalled for predetermined answer.

Unless supernaturalism means there can be no natural events whatsoever, it’s perfectly plausible to be a Christian and accept evolution.

Who decides what is acceptable?
Yes, there is evolution.
Mutations and natural selection certainly have influence on the gene pools.
But can it account for purposeful and genius information that brings forth organs and organisms?
And is it plausible?
What are the chances?
We do know organisms can lose traits.
But how would they gain traits?