Postmodernist-style science critique would say similar things about strict literal interpretations of scientific texts.
You'll have to forgive my ignorance on some of these matters, but how does one take
figurative or
metaphorical interpretations of scientific texts?
You should rein in the emotional provocation and try to be thoughtful and friendly in all of your posts. At the same time, argue for your own points as best you can. You seem pretty smart, so let your persuasiveness carry the weight. You'll look a lot better doing it that way. (It's what they expect in universities and in professional writing.)
Well, thanks. I was trying to stay above the fray initially, but when the only sparring partners are Wynn and Reiku, the task becomes difficult. I've been away for about three years, primarily because I simply couldn't take the likes of Baron Max and Sandy anymore, and the moderators refused to do anything about them. Sandy's been banned since, and I think Baron eventually just stopped coming around, but they've been replaced by people just as intellectually bankrupt.
Granted, I'd take Wynn's elusiveness and Reiku's, well, you know, any day over Sandy and Baron's blatant homophobia and racism.
Anyway, I'm getting off-topic. Back to the post!
The word originally referred to the ideas set forth in a set of pamphlets. Then it expanded to Christians who held views similar to those argued for in the pamphlets. Then it expanded out to members of other religions who held views in their own religions that are seemed analogous in some ways to the views of this particular sort of Christian. Then it broadened out to embrace the broader characteristics that all of these people seemed to share in common.
Mmm, you had me up until the part I put in bold. I've never heard the word being used that broadly. Maybe I need to get out more? Are we talking colloquially? I mean, I've heard it applied
improperly to groups like atheists or Muslims in general, but improper use doesn't define a word, does it?
I'm just arguing that some (certainly not all) atheists resemble people who are labeled 'religious fundamentalists' in strong and relevant ways. I don't think that it's inaccurate to call these people 'atheist fundamentalists'.
Well, okay, maybe we're getting closer to the problem; you say "people who are labeled" rather than "people who are." Does this mean you're referring to religious people who are
incorrectly labeled fundamentalists? Because I can't think of any way an atheist could be a fundamentalist in any real sense of the word.
Many atheists hold views about issues such as what "true Christianity" is, or about how the Bible should be read and interpreted, that are very similar to and often indistinguishable from the Christian fundamentalists' own views on the same issues.
That's interesting. And true. I'm one of those people who believes that the bible was written literally, and other interpretations of it are not accurate. They're
preferable, certainly to the fundamentalist interpretation, but not accurate.
But I don't believe
in these texts, so how does my perception of them translate to my atheism? I would still believe there is no god no matter what color of flavor it was. Even if Jesus really was the loving quirky rabbi, I'd still think he was a fraud. I no more believe in reincarnation than I do in the God of the Old Testament.
Perhaps my interpretation of the bible is fundamentalist. But I can't figure how that makes me a fundamentalist atheist.
The contrast concerning how these issues are understood is often between this kind of atheist and their fundamentalist enemies together on one hand, and theologically liberal Christians on the other.
I'm not sure how you mean that (I've been up for twenty hours, so again, forgive me if I'm a little slow at the moment).
Then what do people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris fill all those books with? And why don't atheists simply fall on their knees and become Christian upon first encountering a preacher and hearing the gospel? (Wow! I never realized! Thanks for telling me!)
Because they are (and were, as is the case for poor Mr. Hitchens) sensible, reasonable, rational human beings. They can see the precursors to the Abrahamic texts in older civilizations, can see the plagiarisms of Christianity in Islam, know that the values held by those who started these faiths are not compatible with the values we hold today.
It's just observation, isn't it? I don't see where the principles become involved.
I think that many atheists would agree to many of the following propositions: God doesn't exist. Religion is false. Religious belief is nothing more than superstition. Religious belief has no factual or logical justification. Religious belief has been an obscurantist force in human history. Religion is fundamentally opposed to reason and to science. The world would be a much better place if religion no longer existed. And many more... They probably aren't all false. I'd agree with some of them myself. I'm just saying that they are positive beliefs and not just the absence of belief.
I'd agree with all but the part I put in bold. I believe religion does serve a purpose, and I wouldn't wish it gone from the people who actually need it. Not everyone can withstand, say, the death of a loved one, or the loss of a home, without some assurance from on high that everything's going to be okay. Even if I could wave a magic wand and make religion disappear, I wouldn't.
(I'd hack a few limbs off it, though.)
But I'm getting sidetracked. Yes, those statements are for the most part agreeable. But are these principals? Or are they simply factual observations? None of them (with the exception of the one I put in bold) are predictive statements. They don't make claims. They're just comments.
I don't really buy the "weak atheist" strategy that tries to argue that atheism is simply lack of belief in God, nothing more, and that it makes no positive claims. That seems a little disingenuous to me. The purpose of that claim seems to be to position atheism where it has no need to justify itself. It looks like a rhetorical attempt to claim immunity from the same kind of 'prove it!'-style epistemological challenges that atheists routinely address to religious believers.
I tend to agree with that, though I am guilty of it sometimes. I get caught up in the semantics of it, because atheism just means "not a theist." Hence, a-theist. But it does
mean more than that, I know. It's implied, at least.
But most atheists don't just lack belief in God. They hold views of their own about the existence of God and about those who believe in God.
Okay, but as I said, neither is belief itself a tenet (though I did say "tenant," which I apologize for. I'm usually a mush bedder spellur than that) or a principal. If it were, Sunni and Shia Muslims wouldn't be trying to eradicate each other, Protestants and Catholics wouldn't blow themselves up in corner pubs, and Christians of all other denominations wouldn't find Mormons creepy.
I agree with you on that. Of course, we probably should get away from trying to make Christianity fit some dogmatic mold as well. (That's what the fundamentalists are trying to do.) But having said that, I still think that it's true that some rather evangelical 'true believer' types in both the Christian and the atheist camps can plausibly be labeled 'fundamentalists' in their respective contexts.
But who tries to make Christianity fit into that mold? Atheists aren't generalizing Christianity, they're taking aim at specific kinds of it. When I say "Christians trying to put religion in biology textbooks!" I'm not talking about all Christians,
I'm talking about the one's trying to put religious propaganda in biology textbooks!
I agree with you that strong atheists needn't be anti-theists. I'm a strong atheist myself in the sense that I'm reasonably certain that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God doesn't exist. But I don't consider myself flatly anti-theist. Like you, I definitely take a dim view of certain expressions of theism though.
I'm not thrilled with some expressions of atheism either, which is part of my point in this thread. Atheist excesses and closed-mindedness don't seem as socially dangerous as Christian or Islamic fundamentalism at this point though.
But as I said, I don't think the people you're talking about are atheists. I think they're anti-theists.
Many atheists appear to desire that. They would definitely prefer a world in which religion is just an extinct ancient atavism described in history books.
Okay, fair enough. But that's not what atheism is "about," because atheism isn't "about" anything. People who want religion eradicated are anti-theists, and those folks have some principles. Warped principles, perhaps, but principles nonetheless.
Calling those people atheists is just like calling a suicide bombers theists. Obviously the theism is implied, but clearly there's more to the story, and probably a better, more accurate category for them.
You don't look at OJ Simpson and say "What did you expect of a football player?" do you?
We seem to agree on substance there, but disagree about which word to use to describe it. ('radical' vs 'fundamentalist') That's ok with me, I can live with that.
Sadly, upon further review, I'm going to have rescind my offer. I believe anti-theist is a far better (and accurate, and
existing) term for those kinds of people. There's nothing about atheism that says religion is bad. Atheism has no moral opinion of religion. An atheist might, but then he's not simply an atheist, but an anti-theist.
