Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

[PreachersWife2004]

Just because you believe in a God does not mean there is a God for you to believe in.

How about you stick to the topic at hand?

 

[Nathan Poe]

yes; fundamentalists feel threatened by logic, truth, and rationality. This is why they are so against intellctualism.

I think it's part of a larger issue that fundamentalism of any kind is never a movement in favor of something as it as reaction against something. Fundies need an enemy to rally against -- and if no such enemy exists, one will be manufactured.

 

[BananaSlug]

I also think it is a deeper issue as well. We see many of the fundies on here that go out of their way to hand-wave evidence that violates their particular interpretation of the Bible. Any evidence in support of evolution, the big bang, or anything else under the term "evolutionism" must either be ignored or explained in a way to coincide with the Bible. This is how we get things like "embedded age", "hyper-evolution after the flood", and even the "different state past". It doesn't matter that there is zero evidence for such events but it helps them keep their religious beliefs in the face of the ever growing field of scientific evidence.

Many fundamentalists also look down on science because it "always changes". They see the Bible as God's word that is true and unchanging no matter what time period (despite the fact that it has changed over the many years it has been around). They ignore the fact that science is self-correcting, the Bible never has to be corrected.

Last but not least, honest intellectualism can lead to agnosticism or even the dreaded atheism. Critical thinking and inquiry can lead someone to question their beliefs when they see evidence that goes against what they've been taught all of their lives. That is what happened to me, and I'm sure it is what happened for 95% of the atheists on here. Critical thinking is the biggest enemy to fundamentalism.

 

[Catherineanne]

What do you mean if there were such a thing as "afeyism?"

Given that I coined the term based on your question, it is not unreasonable to say 'if' in relation to whatever semantic construct is attached to it.

I certainly do not believe fairies exist. How about you? I don't believe in ghosts, kobolds, BigFoot, or The Lochness Monster, Zeus, Shiva, Isis, or The Easter Bunny either. That must mean I have an awful lot of "faiths" all with their own "doctrine." I think you are abusing the terms faith and doctrine. Not believing in something that is not demonstratable does not require any faith at all. Only believing in something that is not demonstratable requires faith.

I am not sure how many times I will have to say this, but here goes once more. Atheism is not a lack of belief. Atheism is a belief.

Similarly, 'afeyism' would not be disbelieving in fairies. It would be believing that fairies do not exist. And as you rightly say, believing in something that is not demonstrable requires faith. That is true of atheism, it is true of theism, and it would be true of afeyism if there were such a thing.

No faith is required for the agnostic position on any of these; this is the position of science which says, we cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God/fairies/the Easter bunny and so there is nothing we can say about them. We cannot disprove their existence to anyone barmy enough to believe in them, and neither can we prove their existence to the rest of the world. Science has nothing to say about belief, however bizarre it may appear to those who do not share it. Science is agnostic.

 

[Catherineanne]

What do you call peace that is required?

Tyranny.

 

[Catherineanne]

That is incorrect. Agnosticism is a position on knowledge. Atheism is a position on belief in the existence of deities. They are not exclusive.

I am an atheist: I don´t believe that there is a god.
I am also an agnostic: I believe that you cannot know whether there is or not is a god.

This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, this is once again evidence of imprecise use of language.

Your use of language being imprecise does not give you the right to say that my precise use of language, in line with accepted definitions, is incorrect.

Atheism, agnosticism and theism are absolutes, and they are mutually exclusive. They do not bleed into one another. It is totally meaningless to say that you are both agnostic and atheist.

 

[Catherineanne]

Wouldnt it be great to not even know that anyone ever claimed there was a god? Nobody would come up with a negative way to label you, a-theist, defined by what you are not.

At least it only seems fair to just be a person, if others want to be theist-person, let them. If someone wants to play basketball, fine, just dont call me an abasketballist.

This is right. Atheists are defined in relation to what they are not, rather than in relation to what they are, and that is distinctly unhealthy.

 

[Catherineanne]

It´s sooo easy.

"People interprete the Bible in a certain way. They are wrong."

"People did interprete the Bible in a certain way. They were also wrong."

"I interprete the Bible in a certain way. I am always correct."

There is a much easier way. There is a whole lot of nonsense in the Bible, but as the Bible is not God, then it really doesn't much matter either way.

 

[Catherineanne]

The way you guys think we Christians should walk, talk, and think, based on how you guys interpret the Bible, it's no wonder we were thrown to the lions.

Sorry to demolish your castle in the air, AV, but Christians were not thrown to the lions because of how they interpreted the Bible; the Bible did not then exist.

The crime they were thrown to the lions for was atheism. Strange, but true. They denied the reality of the pagan gods, including the former Emperors, and were executed for atheism.

 

[dewaddict84]

No faith is required for the agnostic position

What now? Sorry, but the agnostic, those who believe in agnosticism, believe that it's impossible to know [about god] for sure. If you're going to demand that atheism be defined as a belief, then agnosticism follows suit.

Science is agnostic.

Actually, there's a few out there who believe that it's possible to learn everything there is about the universe. That there's an end to science, a point where we won't be able to learn anything new. We're NOWHERE near that as yet, but the idea is out there. Those people would certainly not be agnostic.
Science however, is just a field or category. It doesn't love, live, or have belief systems. Don't personificate science, it hates that.

Personally, I believe that we can't disprove any of the gods, but they could certainly come down in a column of light and prove themselves to us. So I guess I'm not really agnostic, but it's close enough.

 

[Catherineanne]

Here's an example that I have used before to illustrate how one can be atheist and agnostic at the same time. I live in Vancouver, my brother lives in San Francisco. At this moment, I do not believe that he is in Vancouver. If you asked me if he was in Vancouver, I would unhestitatingly say "no." If he were coming, he would have called me, or let me know so we could meet up. He would have told our parents, who would have told me. So no, I do not believe that my brother is in Vancouver. That is similar to the atheist stance.

No, all of this is predicated upon several huge presuppositions; the first of which is that we accept the existence of your brother. Atheism would say, your brother does not exist, and therefore it is meaningless to discuss where he may or may not be; there is no such person.

However, it is certainly possible that my brother was sent up here on an emergency business trip and hasn't been able to get ahold of me. Maybe he's coming and wants it to be a surprise for me. So it is possible that my brother is in Vancouver, and right now, there is no way for me to know. That is similar to the agnostic stance.

Not at all. An agnostic would say, you may have a brother, or you may not. I have no way of knowing for sure, and therefore any discussion of where he may or may not be is pointless.

So, what are the "proper definitions" of atheism and agnosticism that make them mutually exclusive?

You have a dictionary, I assume? Look for yourself. I am not making this stuff up, just for the fun of it.

If a person does not know, and admits to not knowing, then they are agnostic. This is the position of modern science; it can say nothing of God so does not bother trying.

If a person says they believe there is no God, then that is a statement of faith, and is atheism. Atheism is a belief, and it teaches that there is no God.

You do not need to take my word for it. Any decent dictionary will be more than adequate. There is no such thing as weak or strong atheism, any more than there is any such thing as weak or strong theism. One either believes, does not know, or does not believe. Certainly the same person may change positions, but only one position may be held at one time.

Speaking as a theist, I am well aware that God is real, and I don't really bother about what other people think. As with you and your brother, if he is real to you, then who cares what other people believe about him or about you?

 

[Catherineanne]

Should God actually show up, the agnostic would be surprised, whereas the atheist would be shocked and disappointed.

In my opinion.

The agnostic would be pleased, and would be able to say, now there is evidence, and therefore I can now say something of God. The agnostic is like Thomas; show me the evidence, and then I will believe.

The atheist would not be shocked or disappointed. I dare say he would have a long list of questions, however, such as what took you so long, and what kind of a mess have you created? Atheism is not always about God, in other words. Sometimes it is the only sensible conclusion, given the sorry state of affairs in this world, to conclude that they may be accidental, but are hardly meaningful evidence of a benign Deity.

And I would have to agree with that.

 

[metherion]

I'm sorry, this is getting into one of the things I hate. One of the things I hate is person A trying to tell group B exactly what group B is, believes, does, etc, without even being a member of group B.

I'll take your dictionary, and raise you another.

Dictionary.com
atheist definition | Dictionary.com

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

or
(scrolling down the page)

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


Now, if someone actively denies the existence of God or gods, the case COULD BE MADE that it is a type of faith, an idea that there is nothing supernatural, period. This I do not disagree with. Take for example Richard Dawkins. I would say the man has faith in the lack of a God or gods judging from how he speaks and writes.

However, if someone disbelieves, let us again go to the dictionary (same site again)
to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in
or
to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

(yeah, I know, they just flipflopped things around the semicolon. Their fault not mine.)

So, if one has no belief or refuses to believe, by definition THEY ARE NOT BELIEVING. In anything. By the dictionary.

And if one has no belief in a God or gods, it does not logically follow that they actively believe in a lack or such beings.

If they have no belief in a God or gods, and no belief in affirmative absence of such beings, they have no belief. They are not holding to a religion. They are atheists.

It is possible to be an atheist with the religion of THERE ARE NO GOD(S). However, it is possible, using the same dictionary term, to be an athiest with no beliefs about the supernatural whatsoever. Period.

"I do not believe in God or gods" is NOT equivalent to "I believe in no God or gods."

Saying one does not believe is not a statement of faith, it is a statement of a lack of faith. And if the atheists themselves are telling you 'We do not have faith.', then it's rather rude to pull out a dictionary and go 'because you call yourself an atheist you must have faith in something, even if that something is nothing.' despite being told of an active absence of faith.

What to you would be a better word for someone without faith? With no faith at all, in anything? Who believes in neither the presence or lack of divine beings? Is there any word that would cover such an individual? Or do you insist such individuals do not exist? They do, they are telling you they do. Who are you to tell them exactly what they believe, when THEY are the ones saying "we don't believe that!"?

Metherion

 

[Catherineanne]

We're not on a (off topic) today like you guys are.

So there is a statute of limitations on Biblical injunctions.

Where does the Bible say that, exactly?

Do bear in mind that any interpretation is direct evidence against Sola Scriptura. Therefore, only Bible verses will do.

 

[Catherineanne]

Here's a question for you (or anyone):

The Bible says to execute a witch --- the Bible also says not to kill.

Since we Christians are so 'uneducated and ignorant', how about someone here with an education show us how that prescription and that proscription can be legitimately reconciled.

(W/O ad homs, of course.)

Already done, AV, some time ago.

Let he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone.

 

[Catherineanne]

yes; fundamentalists feel threatened by logic, truth, and rationality. This is why they are so against intellctualism.

It is not that they are threatened by those things, but rather that they demand that any such qualities are subservient to Scripture. Therefore the only logic they recognise must be Scriptural logic, any truth must be Scriptural truth, any rationality must be Scriptural rationality.

The reason for this is that they (mistakenly) beleive that the antithesis of Scriptural truth is untruth, the antithesis of Scriptural logic illogic, the antithesis of Scriptural rationality irrationality.

Completely ignoring the fact that the Bible makes no such demands, nor such judgments, and that therefore such attempts are unBiblical, and a distortion of our faith.

And where such a gross distortion exists, intellectualism cannot survive. It demands a level of double think which is untenable to any but the most narrow of mindsets.

 

[Catherineanne]

I'm sorry, this is getting into one of the things I hate. One of the things I hate is person A trying to tell group B exactly what group B is, believes, does, etc, without even being a member of group B.

This whole thread is about intellectuals deriding non intellectuals for their closed thinking, is it not?

However, when the boot is on the other foot, and definitions of atheism are found wanting, not on my say so, but by any dictionary you care to mention, who is big enough to say, actually, that looks as if it makes sense?

Nope, the closed mindset takes over, and I hear over and over, you are wrong and we are right. Not on any evidence, but just because we say so.

Which only goes to show that every faith has its fundamentalists.

Good luck with that.

 

[Catherineanne]

What now? Sorry, but the agnostic, those who believe in agnosticism, believe that it's impossible to know [about god] for sure. If you're going to demand that atheism be defined as a belief, then agnosticism follows suit.

This is not about what I demand. It is about what the terms mean. If you prefer to regard agnosticism as a faith, then go ahead. I am not sure I would go along with that, myself, but would need to consider it more before deciding.

Personally, I believe that we can't disprove any of the gods, but they could certainly come down in a column of light and prove themselves to us. So I guess I'm not really agnostic, but it's close enough.

Fine.

 

[Catherineanne]

What to you would be a better word for someone without faith? With no faith at all, in anything?

Nihilist.

Who believes in neither the presence or lack of divine beings? Is there any word that would cover such an individual? Or do you insist such individuals do not exist? They do, they are telling you they do. Who are you to tell them exactly what they believe, when THEY are the ones saying "we don't believe that!"?

Agnostic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any evidence in support of evolution, the big bang, or anything else under the term "evolutionism" must either be ignored or explained in a way to coincide with the Bible. This is how we get things like "embedded age", "hyper-evolution after the flood", and even the "different state past".

At least you get an explanation.

When we ask the same thing from you guys we get, "It didn't happen."