Fundamentalism

[The Seeker]

In a sense, I would consider myself a fundamentalist. The original idea of fundamentalism was that one should stick to the "fundamentals" and derive other beliefs from these, in that regard, I am certainly a fundamentalist. However, I do not believe that my fundamental beliefs are unquestionable or beyond any kind of critical enquiry, I feel they are logically justified.

My fundamental beliefs are:

• Materialism - We can only ever understand the world around us through our own perceptions of the material, material evidence is the only objective standard we have for verifying the truth (though of course, all evidence is open to interpretation to a certain extent).
• Liberty - Without any way of verifying the absolute truth of any moral standard, the only reliable way we, as a society, can live in peace is if we respect the liberty of each other, hence liberty is the only real standard for measuring the ultimate rightness or wrongness of an action.
• Justice - We can only be said to be free if we are on a reasonably level playing field, for this reason, a comittment to a just society is absolutely necessary for a comittment to a free society to have any meaning

What are your thoughts? Would you consider yourself a fundamentalist? If so, what are your fundamental beliefs?

 

[PKJ]

If facts prove that your fundamentals are false, would you still stand by them?

 

[Eudaimonist]

In a sense, I would consider myself a fundamentalist. The original idea of fundamentalism was that one should stick to the "fundamentals" and derive other beliefs from these, in that regard, I am certainly a fundamentalist.

In this sense, so am I.

However, I do not believe that my fundamental beliefs are unquestionable or beyond any kind of critical enquiry, I feel they are logically justified.

Yes, for me too.

what are your fundamental beliefs?

Metaphysical naturalism -- "To be is to be something." - Aristotle

Cognitive realism -- we are consciously aware of some of what exists

Eudaimonism -- we are rational beings who have a need for living rationally virtuous lives, and this need forms the foundation for all "oughts"

(I have political beliefs, but I don't regard these as foundational.)

If facts prove that your fundamentals are false, would you still stand by them?

No, then it's back to the drawing board.

 

[Merlin]

You have a good basis for uniting a few colonies into a great nation.

 

[Verv]

My fundamental beliefs are:

• Materialism - We can only ever understand the world around us through our own perceptions of the material, material evidence is the only objective standard we have for verifying the truth (though of course, all evidence is open to interpretation to a certain extent).
• Liberty - Without any way of verifying the absolute truth of any moral standard, the only reliable way we, as a society, can live in peace is if we respect the liberty of each other, hence liberty is the only real standard for measuring the ultimate rightness or wrongness of an action.
• Justice - We can only be said to be free if we are on a reasonably level playing field, for this reason, a comittment to a just society is absolutely necessary for a comittment to a free society to have any meaning

What are your thoughts? Would you consider yourself a fundamentalist? If so, what are your fundamental beliefs?

So you really are a minimalist.


How can we understand from materialism, which can only tell us scientific facts, and nothing about morality... anything of moral significance? That is the big question.


Why should humans even have pressure to be good to each other? Why shouldn't they simply live for themselves?


That is the biggest question I always have to any atheist.


The basic premise of the universe is left unexplored.

 

[The Seeker]

If facts prove that your fundamentals are false, would you still stand by them?

Of course not. That would just be silly. As I already said:

I do not believe that my fundamental beliefs are unquestionable or beyond any kind of critical enquiry

 

[The Seeker]

So you really are a minimalist.

Am I? What's a minimalist when its at home?

How can we understand from materialism, which can only tell us scientific facts, and nothing about morality... anything of moral significance? That is the big question.


Why should humans even have pressure to be good to each other? Why shouldn't they simply live for themselves?


That is the biggest question I always have to any atheist.

I really don't want this to turn into a thread about my specific beliefs, but I'll try to answer your questions. Basically, who wants to live in a world run purely on seflishness and cruelty? Unless you could always guarantee that you are going to be the one at the top, there is no rational advantage to it, whereas everybody benefits from cooperation. No society can survive without cooperation and mutual aid, simply because it will destroy itself, it will cease to be a society and we will be back where we started.

The basic premise of the universe is left unexplored.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[TeddyKGB]

How can we understand from materialism, which can only tell us scientific facts, and nothing about morality... anything of moral significance? That is the big question.

No bigger than "why should we listen do a disembodied voice" or "why should we privilege a really old book."

Why should humans even have pressure to be good to each other? Why shouldn't they simply live for themselves?

Anthropology tells us that cooperative agricultural communities are orders of magnitude more successful than what's-mine-is-mine hunter-gatherers. Whether evolution or cultural learning made us so is in dispute - probably a combination.

The basic premise of the universe is left unexplored.

If it has anything to do with a purpose, I think the best you can do is an infinite regress.

 

[FSTDT]

My fundamentals:

1) Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

2) TNG is the best, followed by DS9, Voyageur, The Original, and Enterprise.

3) Ewoks were engineered to be a marketing ploy, and Jar Jar Binks was created solely to sell Jar Jar coffee mugs, but otherwise those characters have no redeeming values.

3.1) While R2D2 definitely adds 10 coolness points to Star Wars, Jar Jar takes away about 55.

4) The Borg were 100x tougher and 1000x more awesome than those nancy army of clones.

5) Data could beat up CP30 any day of the weak.

6) "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!" - Darth Vader. Come on, get serious!

7) Pitting the Star Trek Universe against the Star Wars Universe is a no-brainer: the Star Trek Q are omnipotent, and with the mere flicker of will could destroy the Star Wars universe before it even had time breathe.

8) Yoda is a pretty awesome, but not half as awesome as Species 8472.

9) The Star Wars Death Star can destroy planets, the Star Trek Trilythium Torps can destroy stars.

10) Star Wars hyperdrive is fine and dandy, but its vastly inferior to Star Trek transwarp drive.

 

[FSTDT]

Why should humans even have pressure to be good to each other?

If by "why should", you mean the word "should" in a moral sense, the question pretty much answers itself. It would be like asking for rational reasons for why anyone would want to be rational, in this case you're asking for moral reasons for why someone must be moral -- answers to both questions would be tautological. This isnt to say that they dont have an explanation, but rather that they dont need one.

If you mean should in a difference sense, then imagine that a person asks "why should I be moral", or equivalently "why should I follow any moral principle". They are interesting questions, but they overlook something vital: when people define moral principles, providing reasons for why people must follow those principles is exactly what they do. This understanding implies that moral principles, if they are held to be valid, are self-motivating; given that people are rational creatures and can grasp the validity of certain moral principles, we have every good reason to be moral.

Why shouldn't they simply live for themselves?

Actually, some people think rational egoism is a perfectly acceptable way to live (I dont, but I'm just throwing it out there).

 

[PKJ]

No, then it's back to the drawing board.

Then you are not a fundie

Fondamentalism is mostly deliberate ignorance of facts that contradict beliefs.

 

[The Seeker]

Fondamentalism is mostly deliberate ignorance of facts that contradict beliefs.

According to google:
"[Fundamentalism is] An approach to a belief system that emphasizes following a particular set of basic principles and opinions"

 

[somasoma77]

Fundamental.....Let's see take the fun and mental out of Christianity and you have a fundamentalist.

 

[b4uris]

Fundamental.....Let's see take the fun and mental out of Christianity and you have a fundamentalist.

What are you talking about? Every time I go to the Creatio/Evo forum, fundies make me laugh soooooooooooooo hard.

 

[Verv]

I think that in the end, it is a hard point to justify a moral standing if you do not have a real and effective reason. Albeit, it can be justified but it seems so flimsy to say "we are good because it benefits us," because then it always brings up the scenarios of when being bad benefits you (and we do not need to get into that).

Do you see my point?

 

[CSMR]

My fundamental beliefs are:

• Materialism - We can only ever understand the world around us through our own perceptions of the material, material evidence is the only objective standard we have for verifying the truth (though of course, all evidence is open to interpretation to a certain extent).

• 
  Is the comprehension of truth material?
  

  [*]Liberty - Without any way of verifying the absolute truth of any moral standard, the only reliable way we, as a society, can live in peace is if we respect the liberty of each other, hence liberty is the only real standard for measuring the ultimate rightness or wrongness of an action.

  A strange chain of thought indeed. Starting with the questionability of every moral standard, concluding with the truth of a particular moral standard, and justifying it by some standard of "reliability" (whatever that is).
  

  [*]Justice - We can only be said to be free if we are on a reasonably level playing field, for this reason, a comittment to a just society is absolutely necessary for a comittment to a free society to have any meaning

I am not sure what this is exactly. Fundamentalists make it very clear what they believe in so that a 10 year old can perfectly understand fundamentalism.

What are your thoughts? Would you consider yourself a fundamentalist? If so, what are your fundamental beliefs?

I believe that no human belief is absolute truth, so I am not a fundamentalist. That is contradictory, I know. That is also why I am not a fundamentalist.
I believe that all men are liars and only God is true.

 

[FreezBee]

Materialism - We can only ever understand the world around us through our own perceptions of the material, material evidence is the only objective standard we have for verifying the truth (though of course, all evidence is open to interpretation to a certain extent).

By giving arguments for your fundamentalist beliefs you implicitly acknowledge that rationalism belongs to your fundamentalist beliefs.

You say that "all evidence is open to interpretation to a certain extent" - but often the case is that there is little more than interpretation. Often we have prejudices (which can be both positive and negative) that control our perception. Don't you occasionally come across that others perceive you differently than you perceive yourself?

Liberty - Without any way of verifying the absolute truth of any moral standard, the only reliable way we, as a society, can live in peace is if we respect the liberty of each other, hence liberty is the only real standard for measuring the ultimate rightness or wrongness of an action.

So, pacifism is yet another of your fundamentalist beliefs. What do you mean by respecting the liberty of others? Anyway, what difference does it make? If you have a job, you may have the liberty to quit that job, but of course you don't - unless you have another job waiting for you, or you've just won enough money to keep you fueled for the expected rest of your life.

Justice - We can only be said to be free if we are on a reasonably level playing field, for this reason, a comittment to a just society is absolutely necessary for a comittment to a free society to have any meaning

Yes, justice, the foundation of the foundation; but that requires rules, and rules are always somebody's rules, which is against liberty: we can't all make our own rules and call it justice at the same time.

What are your thoughts? Would you consider yourself a fundamentalist? If so, what are your fundamental beliefs?

My most fundamentalist belief is that fundamentalist beliefs is okay, when you're trying to make friends with people with fundamentalist beliefs, but that they do not have and can not have anything to do with anything just remotely real.


- FreezBee

 

[The Seeker]

Again, can we please not make this about my beliefs specifically?

By giving arguments for your fundamentalist beliefs you implicitly acknowledge that rationalism belongs to your fundamentalist beliefs.

I felt that follows on from materialism.

You say that "all evidence is open to interpretation to a certain extent" - but often the case is that there is little more than interpretation. Often we have prejudices (which can be both positive and negative) that control our perception. Don't you occasionally come across that others perceive you differently than you perceive yourself?

What is your point here?

Is the comprehension of truth material?

What is truth?

So, pacifism is yet another of your fundamentalist beliefs.

No, what gave you that idea?

What do you mean by respecting the liberty of others?

Not forcing things on people and not allowing people to force things on others.

Anyway, what difference does it make? If you have a job, you may have the liberty to quit that job, but of course you don't - unless you have another job waiting for you, or you've just won enough money to keep you fueled for the expected rest of your life.

See justice.

A strange chain of thought indeed. Starting with the questionability of every moral standard, concluding with the truth of a particular moral standard, and justifying it by some standard of "reliability" (whatever that is).

The point is that if we can never agree upon one moral standard, then the best we can hope for is just to not impose things on others, nobody likes that.

Yes, justice, the foundation of the foundation; but that requires rules, and rules are always somebody's rules, which is against liberty: we can't all make our own rules and call it justice at the same time.

Any concept of liberty which defines oppressing others as an expression of liberty is an incoherent one.

I am not sure what this is exactly. Fundamentalists make it very clear what they believe in so that a 10 year old can perfectly understand fundamentalism.

Since when?

My most fundamentalist belief is that fundamentalist beliefs is okay, when you're trying to make friends with people with fundamentalist beliefs, but that they do not have and can not have anything to do with anything just remotely real.

What do you base this upon? I have plenty of friends with very different beliefs to mine.

 

[ccastellow]

Blah Blah Blah

 

[The Seeker]

Blah Blah Blah