Talk:Fundamentalism/Archive 1

Islamic
This needs a lot of editing


 * Fundamentalist Muslims believe that their scripture (the Qur'an, and often the Hadith) is both infallible and historically accurate. Some Muslims, especially those within the Islamist movement, believe that these sources of authority can be infallibly interpreted by a living teacher called an imam. Similar trends exist within elements of the Hindu community and in other religions as well.

The problem with this statement is that many (perhaps most) Muslims who are not widely considered fundamentalist also consider the Qur'an and the Hadith as infallible and historically accurate. Also the Islamist movements don't seem to be particularly into infalliable interpretration of the Qur'an.


 * I think that these are reasonable comments. And, perhaps your approach here might even assist in differentiating "all Christians who believe in the infallibility and historical accuracy of the Bible", from "Christian fundamentalists".  Or, is that asking too much? Mkmcconn

Focus on Christians

 * surprising that this discussion is focusing only on christian fundamentalism...maybe we need to enlist some Muslims to show the other side of fundamentalism as it exists in today's media-dgd


 * I'm wondering if anyone else other than Christian fundamentalists use the term to describe themselves. I do remember an intervene with an Islamist who was *very* offended at being termed a Muslim fundamentalist.  Basically, to him, Evangenical Protestants and Greek Orthodox Christians are all the same.  Being linked to one rather than the other was bewildering, and the notion that they were closer to Evangelical Protestants than to fellow Muslims who are not Islamists, was downright offensive.

--Roadrunner


 * I imagine that it would be offensive to a Muslim. After all, it's offensive to Christians.  Only protestants use the word in its inoffensive, self-descriptive sense.  The word is usually used with undisguised contempt, with very little consciousness of the actual meaning of the word - it is a slur. Ask people what they think of conservative evangelicals, and I'll bet you'll find they are held in higher esteem than "Christian fundamentalists".  How can that be, since they are the same people?  It's because "fundamentalist" describes feelings of frustration, hatred and contempt. It isn't descriptive of the object, but of the describing subject. Mkmcconn

Editorial traditions
I'm not entirely opposed to the change you are trying to make, Soulpatch, but I think that there is more nuance to the Christian fundamentalist view than you might suspect. It's true that some fundamentalists reject the idea of multiple authorship, but it is specifically the idea of redaction that they typically won't stomach (the idea that "Luke" is not the name of a person, but the name tradition gave to an editorial tradition, for example). However, it hardly matters to fundamentalists if it was not Luke's hand on the page (so long as the scribe was doing the work for Luke), or if his work is primarily as an editor of various oral or written traditions. Do you see the difference here, from what you have written? My objection is that you are setting all who believe in Mosaic authorship over against "scholarship". Regardless of what a poll of bible scholars would conclude, fundamentalists place great emphasis on scholarship; and we shouldn't want decide in this article which of them is more credible.

Similarly, on the issue of "Tradition". Tradition names Paul as the author of Hebrews, but fundamentalist scholars tend to think that this is probably not the case - as evidenced internally. But if Paul's name is on the letter, they will accept this as fact unless it were demonstrable that it belongs to a discredited textual tradition. Similarly, because the Pentateuch (or rather, the Bible) ascribes authorship to Moses, fundamentalists conclude that it is a work of Moses and others writing for him; but, they reject scholarship that claims that distinct editorial traditions are discernible from the themes and literature types, or the names of God employed, etc.

Finally, there are fundamentalists who only accept the King James Bible, and the textual tradition behind it. However, this is not a distinguishing characteristic of all fundamentalists. Mkmcconn 18:15 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)


 * Mkmcconn, This is a very belated response because I just got around to seeing this discussion page after a month and a half. Your point about redaction versus tradition is a valid one, and I accept what you say regarding that point.


 * I think the more important that they reject any scholarship that makes findings that they find theologically uncomfortable. Sure, it is true that fundamentalists place emphasis on what they call "scholarship", which is limited by definite boundaries of what findings they will accept.  In my view, "fundamentalist scholarship" is an oxymoron, kind of like "creation science" is an oxymoron.  Searching only for the conclusions that you want to hear isn't scholarship, and I think that giving respect to a tradition of "scholarship" that is fundamentally (no pun intended) unscholarly at its core.  This encyclopedia does not treat "creation science" as being equal to or legitimate in the way that evolutionary science it.  There have to be some standards here.  I believe it is totally appropriate to set up a distinction between fundamentalism and scholarship.  soulpatch


 * I still think that "fundamentalism" and "scholarship" are too imperfectly defined in this entry, for your statement to be meaningful for any purpose except polemics. (update) And I should clarify about the Mosaic authorship issue, that it is especially the idea of late editorial traditions, that are rejected -- after-the-fact-traditions, originating from polytheistic authors in some cases, gathered perhaps as late as the Babylonian exile -- which scholarship concludes were redacted together by partisan religionists in the attempt to pass off their product as though it were a history. Yes, "fundamentalists" reject this presumptively, but so do others who are never called "fundamentalists". Mkmcconn


 * Then perhaps we need to define scholarship more clearly, so as to better distinguish it from what fundamentalists pass off as "scholarship". soulpatch


 * You may be able to do that in such a way that fundamentalists would agree that they reject scholarship - in which case, I think you would have a neutral description. Mkmcconn

I think scholarship just means intense study. It doesn't have to be objective. I mean, look at all the women's studies courses or other liberal claptrap you can get a degree in. It doesn't have to be true, or based on verifiable research, you just have to get good grades in it. You can even get a PhD!

Science, on the other hand, entails an objective search for the truth about reality. You have to measure things, come up with a hypothesis that might explain it, and subject that hypothesis to tests. Moreover, your results must be verifiable by others. Like, any doctor who gives this kind of treatment to his patients should get the same results.

My own beef with fundamentalists is just that they cling to what they want to believe -- and NOTHING can shake them from it.

I am -- or try to be -- the kind of person who will modify my opinions if facts contradict them. I have a real hard time with people who say, "Don't confuse me with facts: my mind's already made up!"

Unfortunately, such close minded attitudes are not limited to religion... --Uncle Ed


 * What's still needed though, is a definition of fundamentalism that actually defines something, and doesn't shift meanings arbitrarily from group to group. If we really mean to say that fundamentalism is the same as "Don't confuse me with facts: my mind's already made up", then who is this group among Christians?  It is my strong impression that the articles began with a particular (Protestant) group in mind, but have chosen a broad definition to describe them in order to include other groups which by convention are called "fundamentalist" (Islamists and religious Jewish Zionists, for example).  But by broadening the scope in this way, "Fundamentalist" ceases to be descriptive of only the particular Protestant group among Christians (as Wiki broadly defines a Christian).  If you check your nets you will find a lot of Roman Catholics and Orthodox, as well as Mormon, JW and fringe Protestant groups - but we don't check the nets, because it wasn't Wiki's intent to catch these other groups.  This leaves the impression that "Christian fundamentalism" applies to Christianity broadly defined when fundamentalism is also broadly defined - and in my opinion that just isn't factual.  Simply describing a conventional way of speaking about people is not the same as a description of those people.  Mkmcconn


 * I consider myself a fundamentalist, and, as such, object to a few things that were said. First, fundamentalists categorically reject scholarship that has as its consequence that any portion of the Bible is incorrect. This DOES NOT mean that we are unwilling to change our minds when the evidence is against us. In fact, one of the ideas that I think is inherent in fundamentalism is the idea that we need to allow the text of the Bible to affect us (exogesis) rather than letting our preconceived notions affect our interprettation of the Bible (isogesis). While fundamentalists categorically reject any scholarship that says that a portion of Scripture is incorrect, liberal Christians categorically reject any reading of the Scripture that goes against preconceived doctrinal notions - often ideas such as universalism, ordination of women, acceptability of homosexuality, etc. To fundamentalists, it is frustrating that the liberals will not recognize the falsity of such beliefs, but it is much more frustrating that they refuse to recognize that the text of the Bible teaches against them. To an objective scholar, it is clear that the Bible teaches against these things, but, admittedly, that would not prove to an objective scholar that they are wrong. The point is that fundamentalists DO have a preconceived idea that the text of the Bible contains absolute truth, but most strive not to come to Scripture with any other preconceived ideas, but rather to let the Scripture form their ideas. Kpearce


 * I'm sure that it isn't that kind of openness that Ed and Soulpatch are referring to. More to their point, in the interest of clarifying what a fundamentalist is, John Paul II in 1979 requested that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences conduct a study of the Galileo affair, based on the conviction that the 1633 condemnation was reversible.  In fact, the Pope later declared the condemnation an error.  On the heels of this decision, in 1996 the Pope addressed the Academy again on the issue of evolution.  After stating that the Roman Catholic Church has never made an irreversible decision concerning the theory of evolution, and quoted his predecessor, who advised caution prior to adopting as fact an idea which is still speculatively entertained as a possibility or likelihood, the Pope then said that "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."  "The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."  The remainder of his address urges that there must be a clear perception of what is at stake in the acceptance of evolution as a "new knowledge".  This kind of openness (regardless of counter-examples that might be cited), is the sort that critics say fundamentalists do not have.


 * The question that soulpatch and Ed Poor are concerned with, is not whether fundamentalism is closed to every kind of new knowledge, but whether it is closed to some kinds of new knowledge - evolution is an example, but not the only one that someone might cite. As Ed points out, fundamentalists don't have a monopoly on being presumptively closed to certain kinds of knowledge.  But, are evangelicals the geocentrists of this generation? Are they like those who inflated the stakes involved in accepting that Capernicus was right, those who obstinately made a theological issue out of a simple observation of the facts?  Do they have an exaggerated view of the implications involved in accepting that some passages are idealized history or poetry, rather than prosaic history?  Or, for soulpatch's favorite subject, do fundamentalists have so much invested in Moses being the original author of the Pentateuch that they put their faith at stake over the issue?  Or, can they entertain such possibilities in light of factual findings (or alleged findings, if you will), so that they can explore the potential implications for the believing interpretation of the Bible, without being made violently anxious that the faith is at stake over such things?  Are they simply reluctant to too hastily adopt for their view of the world every novelty of scientific speculation?  Or, are they closed to discovery of certain kinds?  If the former, then they are misunderstood - but not in the latter case.  I'm not indicating my own opinions about these issues.  I'm only trying to describe the kind of "closed mind", for which critics indict the "fundamentalists".  Mkmcconn


 * Perhaps you are right. In fact, I know that in many cases you are. However, for myself I think that evolution might possibly be compatible with Scripture, with the one exception that even a figurative interprettation of the Genesis story would say that man was created ex nihilo (in other words, macro-evolution could be the ultimate source of the rest of the animal kingdom, but it could not be the origin of man). I would not say that my faith would be destroyed by acceptance of evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, I do not believe in it (in my limited understanding and unlimited curiosity, I actually have some scientific objections to it, but this is not the place for a discussion of those). Also, the Scripture makes clear that the Law ultimately came through Moses, but I have seen no reference where the text itself identifies Moses as the sole author, or even says that it was written in his lifetime. If the Torah was not written until a few centuries after Moses died (but accurately represented what occurred, and what was delivered to Moses at Mt. Sinai), I know of no Scripture that would be contradicted. By way of contrast, the gospel of John identifies its author as a follower of Jesus during His earthly ministry and so if it was not written until the second century, THAT would contradict Scripture. In conclusion, for myself - as a fundamentalist - I do believe that Moses was the sole author of the Torah, and I do not believe in macro-evolution, but my being wrong about either would not be a fatal blow to my faith.  Kpearce


 * Mkmcconn has, I think, done a good job of conveying some of what I am getting at. To a certain extent, regarding Kpearce's earlier comment, there might have been some confusing of doctrinal interpretation and historical and textual scholarship.  My point about fundamentalism is summarized by the statement "fundamentalists categorically reject any scholarship that says that a portion of the the Scripture is incorrect".  This is, to me, a clear example of what I consider to be the closed mindedness and hostility to scholarship that characterizes fundamentalism.  Fundamentalists have clearly stated that certain kinds of scientific findings are off limits, that their eyes and ears are closed to any research finding that contradicts their dogma.  This is not science, in my view, and it is not scholarship.  (Those complaints against liberal Christians are all related to doctrinal interpretations--universalism, ordination of women, homosexuality--which isn't the question I was addressing, and I think they really miss the point in other ways that aren't germane to this specific discussion).  I am talking about objective, scientific scholarship related to understanding how the Bible was formed and whether the events depicted there are historically or scientifically accurate.  This is where fundamentalism, in my view, is ultimately not scientific and not scholarly. soulpatch


 * I would remind you that this is not the only type of legitimate scholarship. Even studying the Bible in isolation - considering no outside facts whatsoever - would be a legitimate form of scholarship. The word "scholarship" could describe any type of serious study of anything. Fundamentalist scholarship is a serious study of the consequences of the belief that everything in the Bible is true, and this is legitimate scholarship. In fact, one could make an objective scientific study of such a question. Fundamentalist scholars DO attempt such a study. What they do not attempt is a completely objective scientific study of the origin of Scripture. They cannot do this, because for them there are certain possibilities which are ruled out before the study begins (this throws objectiveness out the window). Basically, the only problem that I have with what you have said is that you use the word scholarship far too narrowly. kpearce

KPearce claims "I would remind you that this is not the only type of legitimate scholarship. Even studying the Bible in isolation - considering no outside facts whatsoever - would be a legitimate form of scholarship. The word "scholarship" could describe any type of serious study of anything."


 * I am afraid that this is grossly in error. What you are describing is not only not scholarship, you are describing a deliberate attempt to avoid scholarship. I am always intrigued by the way that fundamentalists rewrite the dictionary in order to make anti-scholarly methods have the external appearance of scholarship. Their new definition just doesn't wash. Perhaps you don't think much of biblical scholarship, historical scholarship, inter-textial study, linguistics and archaeology, and perhaps you wish to avoid them. That's fine by me. But don't rewrite the dictionary. RK


 * Fundamentlists (of all religions) don't engage in any kind of scholarship at all. Rather, most systematically attack impartial scholarship (even by scholars of their own faith), and create detailed arguments (often relying on circular reasoning) to show that their beliefs are infallible. That's not scholarship, even if they try to call it such. The correct term for this kind of reading and conclusion-drawing is, at best, apologetics. RK

Definitions
From "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary":

Scholarship \Schol"ar*ship\, n.    1. The character and qualities of a scholar; attainments in        science or literature; erudition; learning.              A man of my master's . . . great scholarship.                                                    --Pope.     2. Literary education. [R.]              Any other house of scholarship.       --Milton.     3. Maintenance for a scholar; a foundation for the support of        a student. --T. Warton.     Syn: Learning; erudition; knowledge.

Firstly, we seem to be speaking primarily of definition 2 (since we are speaking neither of qaulities nor of money). By this definition, one could be a scholar of the works of Shakespeare without ever studying the question of whether or not they were actually written by a man named William Shakespeare in the seventeenth century (it is my understanding that a few of the scholars of THE HISTORY BEHIND the plays of Shakespeare question this). "Literary eduction" could refer to just about anything. Scholarship, according to Webster's dictionary, refers to book learning, as opposed to science or practical study. This would lead one to believe that archaeology is actually outside the realm of scholarship (but any writings unearthed by archaeologists would be relevant to scholarship).

Secondly, allow me to introduce you to the inductive method of Bible study, encouraged most Evangelical Bible colleges (it is probably also taught in some true seminaries, but those tend to be more liberal, and so are not relevant to the topic of fundamentalism). The inductive method has as its basis the idea that there are four important "gaps" which must be bridged in order to reach a proper understanding of Scripture. These are spiritual, historical, linguistic and cultural. There are occasions when we may find that not all of these gaps are relevant to a given passage. For example, according to the Bible the spiritual state of the world has not changed significantly since the day of Pentecost, and according to history the culture of the Roman empire was in many ways very similar to modern western culture.

In cases where these gaps must be bridged, inductive method Bible students generally study one complete book at a time, using a process something like the following: First, one reads through the book to get a grasp on the "logic of argument", i.e. to get a general overview of the contents of the book. Next, the student checks a reference to determine from historical data and/or Biblical cross-references when the book was written, who it was written by, who it was written to, why it was written, etc. After this, the student reads the book again, taking note of any words, phrases or cultural issues (customs) that might be relevant to a proper understanding of the book and looks them up in some sort of reference. With this understanding, a student will be ready to apply the book FIRST TO THE ORIGINAL INTENDED AUDIENCE, and then to the modern day. Now, if that's not "literary education", what is it? Honestly, I rather resent the accusation that I am rewriting the dictionary, and would like to know whose dictionary I am contradicting.

Basically, the only important difference between fundamentalist scholarship and liberal scholarship is that the fundamentalist takes it for granted that whatever is determined to have been written down by the original authors of Scripture will turn out to be true (SOME fundamentalists say, rather, that it is some specific English translation or ancient text that is inerrant. I would strongly dispute any claim that the KJV was without error - that is a ludicrous idea - but one might say that, for example, the Textus Receptus was without error and I would not make any strong objections, although I suppose I disagree, in theory). This certainly makes the fundamentalist a less than objective scholar of history, as there are a whole slew of possibilities he is unable to consider, but it doesn't make him inaccurate as to the originally intended meaning of the text of the Bible, and it certainly doesn't make it incorrect to apply the word scholar to him. As I have said, the fundamentalist's study of the Bible certainly constitutes "literary education". kpearce


 * RK, What kpearce has described is not scholarship as you are describing it if yours cannot be "a serious study of the consequences of the belief that everything in the Bible is true". Scholarship is being used by you as requiring the suspension of belief pending proof (I hope that paraphrase isn't too sloppy), and what kpearce is talking about requires presupposing the Bible's authority, taking it as "given" and "truth", a criterion of proof.  On the other hand, on kpearce's religious standpoint, given the central place that the Bible subsequently would have in relation to every issue, there is no other scholarship possible ...  Mkmcconn


 * Rather than trying to settle the impasse by one side or the other declaring itself the owner of the dictionary, is there no way in this entry to simply describe the presuppositional dividing line? It seems to me that such a fight belongs in an entry on scholarship (if such an entry should exist in an encyclopedia), and not in an entry on fundamentalism.  Is there no way, even in an article on fundamentalism, to allow for fundamentalists to describe themselves?  Is it really more neutral to decide that the most truthful description of fundamentalism can only come from those who are not sympathetic with it? Mkmcconn


 * One obvious difference between fundamentalist Bible "scholars" and Shakespeare scholars is that no one is claiming that Richard III is an accurate representation of what really happened in English history. soulpatch


 * In my experience with Academia, critical scholarship is distinguished from other types of scholarship; thus they would (and do) label some fundamentalist scholarship as non-critical. I don't think that it would be fair to deny the label of scholar to fundamentalist thinkers since some can be very erudite, but, if there is a desire to have a label to juxtapose against fundamentalists views, critical scholarship would be appropriate. -- Stephen C. Carlson 06:36 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)


 * I would not object to a wording such as Fundamentalists generally view critical scholarship of the Bible as unecessary, as they are already convinced of the accuracy of Scripture. Instead, fundamentalist scholarship (uncritically) presupposes the accuracy of Scripture and uses that as a starting point in finding what it sees as the truth. Does everyon think that this (or something like it) would be a good, accurate, npov phrasing? kpearce

Martin Luther
Why doesn't this mention Martin Luther? -- he was the original fundamentalist.


 * Because it's a bit of an anachronism, I think. Also, in my opinion, there is a difference between other reform or sectarian movements, which separate because of some issue of doctrine or government, and "fundamentalism". Fundamentalists accuse their liberal counterparts not of throwing out old doctrines for new ones, but of failing to faithfully adhere to doctrines that they ostensibly hold.  So, while some fundamentalist might draw analogies between themselves and the Protestant reformers, it is a different sort of threat perceived, resulting in a different kind of reaction, which should probably not be conflated with Protestantism (particularly since the term is  already an analogy, that is hard enough to consistently maintain without complicating the comparison even further).  Mkmcconn


 * In addition, I (as a fundamentalist) would object to ANY comparison with Martin Luther. The number one most easily provable fact about Martin Luther which is relevant to whether or not we ought to label him a fundamentalist (and I have heard of other such facts) is that he did not believe in the inerrancy of the ENTIRETY of Scripture. Luther actually believed that the epistle of James was canonized by mistake. It is also said that Luther's life did not match his teachings (but I do not have at ready marterials to prove this - although I suspect there are some in existence) and that his church retained many of the un-Biblical beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, essentially changing only two things - Luther believed very strongly in justification by faith alone, and he encouraged Bible study among the laiety. Desipite these changes, Luther's church was still basically Catholic. A better candidate for the title "Father of Protestantism" might be John Calvin, and I say that despite the fact that I do not espouse predestinarian theology. kpearce


 * In which case should the article not mention the Carthaginean council where the canonical scriptures were established? I suspect that an acceptance of the ecumanical councils is not a prerequisite to being a fundamentalist; why the primacy given to the Carthaginean?


 * The Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod of the Lutheran church are both (properly, I think) considered "Fundamentalist" churches in the proper, historical sense of the term. But Luther is not - not because he revisited the old doubts about the canonicity of the Epistle of James (but note that his "canon" does include James, regardless of the doubts he expressed at one time). It's just not the right label to put to him, to call him a "fundamentalist".  Furthermore, I don't think that you'll find that Calvin can be fit much more comfortably into a modern fundamentalist mold than Luther. Mkmcconn

I think the following statement of criticism against fundamentalism needs to be clarified: "The most common is that all theological claims made by fundamentalist groups are unprovable." How does this differ from theological claims made by non-fundamentalists? "Theological" claims are generally unprovable, aren't they? soulpatch

Deleted from 'Arguments for Fundamentalism
I deleted the following paragraph from the Arguments for Fundamentalism section, because (1) the first sentence is covered better and more NPOV earlier in the article in the beliefs sections, and (2) the rest of the paragraph is not an argument for fundamentalism but a criticism of it and would belong in the next section except that the next section already covers it. Stephen C. Carlson


 * An important secondary claim of most fundamentalist beliefs, especially Christian fundamentalism, is that some holy book is the infallible word of God. This is the claim that is most focused upon by those who dispute fundamentalist belief systems, as can be seen above. It is, of course, true that the fundamentalist position is _unprovable_, but it is not altogether _implausible_ if one already accepts the existence of an omnipotent Deity. The idea here is that if God brought into existence a book which contains His word, then He is perfectly capable of preserving it intact.

This problem arose because the arguments were originally in reverse order, the arguments against being first, followed by the arguments for. That paragraph is a response to the arguments against. The argument against is that the fundamentalist claim is not provable, the response is that while it may be unprovable, it is not implausible (assuming the existence of an omnipotent Deity, which assumption is perfectly reasonable, since the argument is typically not against atheists, but against liberals). I think that at least the last sentence is relevant, as fundamentalists often say things like "if God could create the world, then He can certainly write a book and keep it intact" to liberals. kpearce

Thanks. I see what's going on. Yet, even the last part is still not an argument for fundamentalism but more of a rejoinder to a criticism against fundamentalism concerning the transmission and preservation of the sacred text. The next part (criticism) does mention this argument, but it is quite muddled: the Dorff quotation has nothing to do with preservation or transmission of the text, but its interpretation! There is a need for a lot of fixing of these sections. Stephen C. Carlson