Fundamentalism is the Weakest expression of Faith

[Christopher Carrion]

Fundamentalism of any kind repels me. Being an active, bi-sexual gentleman, I often hang around some of the self-professed "gay" venues of my home city, a sad by-product of which is that I cannot avoid contact with those who seem to be cartoon character stereotypes of the hetersoecual world's preconceptions of what homosexuality should be. By this I mean that those who have a very affected, effeminate way of speaking, a certain flamboyancy of gesture or physicality and a preoccupation with very superficial matters. Don't get me wrong; in consideration, I can tolerate these characteristics. It is when a person feels so obliged to live up to the social prescription of homosexuality that they function and define themselves exclusively by its parameters that I tend to get queasy. This is fundamentalist homosexuality, and it annoys me, because I am extremely comfortable in my bi-sexuality, and therefore have no need to advertise it as my single most significant characteristic. I don't even care particularly if people do define themselves exclusively by their sexuality; what repulses me intellectually and emotionally are those who have adopted the reigning cultural construction of homosexuality, and allowed it to subsume them to such a degree that any notion of legitimate "inner" subjectivity, or the prospect of definition via some other means has been obliterated.

 

This is fundamentalist sexuality, not exclusive to homosexuality, but in the social circles that I operate, it is certainly the most pertinent example. Ironically, it is the same basic psychology which determines fundamentalist Christianity, or indeed fundamentalism of any flavour. Christianity, like most religions, contains in-built ideologies of behaviour, perspective and attitude which it actively encourages its adherents to define themselves by. As such, as the ideological parameters of the faith become reinforced through repetition, they come to have a much more dominant hold over the psyche of the individual, waxing like a cancer until there is no distinction between the individual's sense of self, and their faith.

 

I have alot of Christian friends, and I am quite lucky to have been born into a culture where fundamentalism of any kind is regarded as deviant. As such, they tend to be very considered in their perspectives, having adopted the basic notion of God or the more practical tenets of Christian morality and adapted them to suit their own lives, which I personally feel is an excellent way of utilising religion of any kind. Ironically, these people, whom fundamentalists would no doubt decry as illegitimate, demonstrate a greater security and sense of certainty in their faith than any other species of Christian I have thus far encountered. Defensism is itself indicative of insecurity; people become angered, frustrated and defensive only when they feel that someone or something poses a legitimate threat to them or their position. It is for this reason that churches and religious organisations throughout history have felt moved to undermine and condemn ideas, ideologies and perspectives which they feel undermine the core concepts of their faith, and also why historically and even in the modern day they percieve threats everywhere they look. Because they are afraid, and they are uncertain. The best analogy I can think of for a religious fundamentalist is someone clinging desperately to a sinking ship in the certain knowledge that it will eventually drag them down with it; it is easier to stay mired in the security of familiar delusion rather than consider what lies beyond, particularly when one has spent a lifetime defining one's actions and attitudes by concepts that are increasingly under siege.

 

Were fundamentalists as secure in their beliefs as they are so fond of advertising, they wouldn't care about those who proclaim the concepts of evolutionary biology and cosmological physics as truth, because they would be secure in the knowledge that they know the truth, and that any ideology or alternate perspective which presumes to challenge it is doomed to failure. Instead, what we have in most churches both modern and historical is a culture of denial, repression and intellectual dishonesty which, quite frankly, provides all the rationale one needs for questioning the legitimacy of the faith in question. Fundamentalism is weakness of faith, and it is weakness of self. Furthermore, it promotes the kind of aggressive defensism that would see everyone who does not conform to a particular template of the Christian ideal murdered. It is this basic desire which lies behind the use of the whole "End Times" scare tactics. Fundamentalist Christians want to see the world murdered for not reinforcing them; they want to be able to stand on a pedestal at the end of their psychological angst and suffering and proclaim to their fellow man "Ha ha, we were right....(thank God)," because the alternative, that the narrative by which they have come to define ever facet of their existence is fundamentally flawed, is just too potentialy calamitous in a psychological sense to consider.

[Loren]

Total agreement here, CC. Excellent post, by the way.

When I was Christian, I saw fearful rigidity, idolization of "godly" fear, fear of asking the "wrong" questions, social xenophobia and so on as evidence of lack of faith. I always felt that it was an extremely poor witness for Christ.

 

Fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, we have the love of Jesus and the power of God, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.

 

I (and others here) also agree that abject fears can produce toxic fundamentalism in any realm, be it religion, science, economics, nationalism, even fashion and fads.

[Lokmer]

Total agreement here, CC. Excellent post, by the way.

When I was Christian, I saw fearful rigidity, idolization of "godly" fear, fear of asking the "wrong" questions, social xenophobia and so on as evidence of lack of faith. I always felt that it was an extremely poor witness for Christ.

 

Fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, we have the love of Jesus and the power of God,  fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.

 

I (and others here) also agree that abject fears can produce toxic fundamentalism in any realm, be it religion, science, economics, nationalism, even fashion and fads.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There are some posts which are so well written that there is nothing to say but....

 

 

Amen! To both of you!

 

-Lokmer

[Godless Wonder]

If the Fundy is suffering from a lack of faith, it would seem to be a very different sort of lack of faith than that which the atheist enjoys.

 

The Fundy perhaps has just enough faith to be scared out of their wits? It is not that the fundy has too little faith, but that they suffer inordinately much from what little faith they are burdened with compared to the suffering some with more faith may have to endure, if the hypothesis that the Fundy has comparatively less faith holds.

 

And I can't really call it a fault to have too little faith, as some of what is written above seems to do, seeming to say the Fundy lacks faith as if lacking faith were a bad thing. I consider faith -- believing without evidence -- to be a very bad thing indeed, to be guarded against and rooted out of my thoughts.

[Guest acorn]

I dont know if you guys would consider me a "fundie" or not, though Ive been called this. I do know that my life is not consumed by fear, the "end time" notion, rather it is consumed by the fulfillment of Gods word to me directly, and His word in the scripture. I talk about the End Times as merely an event that by my beliefs will happen, not to "scare" anyone. So, my opinion about this topic is that either the author is making a simple point or is thinking about the validity of the subject. Just my opinion.

[crazy-tiger]

I dont know if you guys would consider me a "fundie" or not, though Ive been called this. I do know that my life is not consumed by fear, the "end time" notion, rather it is consumed by the fulfillment of Gods word to me directly, and His word in the scripture. I talk about the End Times as merely an event that by my beliefs will happen, not to "scare" anyone. So, my opinion about this topic is that either the author is making a simple point or is thinking about the validity of the subject. Just my opinion. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And your healthy fear of God?

 

Fear is not something you can switch on and off... If it's part of something that is THE major component of your mindset, (your religious belief, in this case) then fear is in your mind every waking moment of your life.

[Thurisaz]

Were fundamentalists as secure in their beliefs as they are so fond of advertising, they wouldn't care about those who proclaim the concepts of evolutionary biology and cosmological physics as truth, because they would be secure in the knowledge that they know the truth, and that any ideology or alternate perspective which presumes to challenge it is doomed to failure.

 

So true, Chris, so true...

[Thurisaz]

If the Fundy is suffering from a lack of faith, it would seem to be a very different sort of lack of faith than that which the atheist enjoys.

 

Right. Atheist faithlessness, for all I'm aware of, doesn't carry an "or else!" message with it, or does it?

 

Can you imagine it? "Disbelieve in any kind of supernatural influence or else God will smite you for... ummm... errr... never mind!"

[Sokudo Ningyou]

I rather like my athiesm. Clears up the headspace. No cluttering Commandments or Moral Issues floating around, making me look over my shoulder every ten seconds.

[Godless Wonder]

And I can't really call it a fault to have too little faith, as some of what is written above seems to do, seeming to say the Fundy lacks faith as if lacking faith were a bad thing.  I consider faith -- believing without evidence --  to be a very bad thing indeed, to be guarded against and rooted out of my thoughts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One more thing I thought of. Though I don't consider a lack of faith in a fundy to be a bad thing, something to castigate them for (why would I encourage a fundy to have more faith?), there is one circumstance which comes up frequently which indicates not so much a lack of faith, but a lack of confidence in the concept of faith itself (understandable). Often I've had conversations go like this:

 

Atheist: <demand for evidence>

Theist: <provides some weak non-evidence>

Atheist: <explains why that doesn't cut it.>

Theist (eventually) "Well, that's why it's called faith!" (admission of lack of evidence.)

Atheist <explains why faith sucks, is invalid and is something to be stamped out not a virtue to be cultivated and protected>

Theist "Well, you have faith too..." <equivocates like crazy ("you have faith your wife loves you, etc.)>

 

Now here the atheist has two things that can be explained. The first is'obvious, point out the equivocation (e.g. There is actually evidence your wife loves you. etc.)

 

The seoond thing you can do is (rhetorically) ask why is it that the theist is so keen on insisting that the atheist also uses faith. It indicates that the theist at some deep level recognizes that there is something wrong with the concept of faith, something wrong with the idea that it is a good thing to go around believing things with a certainty unwarranted by the available evidence. They try to justify their use of faith by insisting that the atheist uses faith too, and somehow this makes believing things for which there is no evidence perfectly OK.

 

Now, what kind of faith might the atheist be using? Well, one might say that the atheist has faith that their senses are not consistentenly deceiving them, and that their memory and brain are in more or less good working order, and that's pretty much it. Many atheists would strive to confine their use of faith to just this.

 

But that's not really quite right either, for a couple reasons:

 

First, we really don't have much choice other than to trust our brains and senses and in some cases we may well know not to trust them. (e.g. when my uncle started getting a brain tumor, he noticed symptoms e.g. was confused about how to tie a simple knot, and knew that this should not be something which confused him. He was able to recognize his brain not working right.)

 

Secondly:

 

Taken from here:

 

We don't take it on "faith" that our senses are reliable. It's the other way around: We define "reliable" in terms of a statement's ability to predict our sensory experiences. We don't consider our senses "reliable"; we consider them authoritative, in that our epistemological project is to deal coherently with the evidence of our senses. Likewise, the fundamental (and oversimplified) definition of the "past" is that which we remember.

[Christopher Carrion]

On the notion of faith, I agree completely. I find the concepts of "faith" and "belief" as they are traditionally understood as extremely negative and psychologically damaging factors, however the point I was trying to make was that the fundamentalist, one who typically promotesd their "faith" as the principle defining factor of their existence, is in fact quite lacking and uncertain in the quality.

[Panther]

By this I mean that those who have a very affected, effeminate way of speaking, a certain flamboyancy of gesture or physicality and a preoccupation with very superficial matters.

 

Ok, call me weird or whatever, but actually, I get along very well with this type of homosexual. They don't bother me in the least actually. *shrug*

 

 

Defensism is itself indicative of insecurity; people become angered, frustrated and defensive only when they feel that someone or something poses a legitimate threat to them or their position. It is for this reason that churches and religious organisations throughout history have felt moved to undermine and condemn ideas, ideologies and perspectives which they feel undermine the core concepts of their faith, and also why historically and even in the modern day they percieve threats everywhere they look. Because they are afraid, and they are uncertain. The best analogy I can think of for a religious fundamentalist is someone clinging desperately to a sinking ship in the certain knowledge that it will eventually drag them down with it; it is easier to stay mired in the security of familiar delusion rather than consider what lies beyond, particularly when one has spent a lifetime defining one's actions and attitudes by concepts that are increasingly under siege.

 

 

Very good post, very good!

Yes, fundies inside are very insecure people, I have seen those traits right through their charade.

 

Ironically, though, in my opinion, they have always come off as some of the most arrogant, rude and judgemental people of the worst kind.

 

In fact, when I think of the word "fundie", all those characteristics come to mind.

*shudder*

 

Even when I was a christian, I just hated the fundies.....

I have always thought about their desperation that comes through their pushiness....and WHY.....that always has revealed itself to me as tremendous insecurity as well.

[Panther]

I dont know if you guys would consider me a "fundie" or not, though Ive been called this. I do know that my life is not consumed by fear, the "end time" notion, rather it is consumed by the fulfillment of Gods word to me directly, and His word in the scripture. I talk about the End Times as merely an event that by my beliefs will happen, not to "scare" anyone. So, my opinion about this topic is that either the author is making a simple point or is thinking about the validity of the subject. Just my opinion. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Acorn, I don't really know you yet...or even know if you plan to stick around here, but so far, I would say that you don't seem to appear as a fundie to me so far. The mere fact that you are socializing with us "heathens" *chuckles* shows me that you probably aren't a fundie.

 

Acorn, honestly, don't you see that christianity is a fear based belief system? Even if you don't personally project that to others, it still IS....

How bout it? Will you admit that much?

[Panther]

And your healthy fear of God?

 

Fear is not something you can switch on and off... If it's part of something that is THE major component of your mindset, (your religious belief, in this case) then fear is in your mind every waking moment of your life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I totally agree CT!

Fear is the fuel that runs the christian engine.......

[Reach]

Fear is the fuel that runs the christian engine.......

No fear, no fuel.

No fuel, no fire.

 

Excellent post, Chris! Thank you.

[Panther]

No fear, no fuel.

No fuel, no fire.

 

Excellent post, Chris! Thank you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah! Let's keep putting out that fire!

[Guest Angry Agnostic]

I posted this on the old forum, but it seems so relevant to this discussion I thought I would post it again. I hope you don't mind.

 

OK, I know it's easy to take pot shots at fundamentalists. They are often narrow minded, simplistic, self righteous, hypocritical and their devotion seems to have more to do with tribalism than faith. My buddy, a religion teacher, has a whole section of one of his classes devoted to what he calls "bad faith." He goes into many of these flaws. But my critique is going to be more, well, fundamental. I think fundamentalism is screwed right from the get go.

 

Here are my three issues with this brand of faith:

• No one interprets the bible literally. No one.

• Fundamentalism is a product of modernity, and most of us have gotten over that.

• Fundamentalism is, to co-opt a Christian word, idolatrous.

 

Part 1: I got you're "literal interpretation" right here.

"Literal interpretation" is an oxymoron. Once you interpret something, you change it. You bend it to your will. Sure it still exists outside of your interpretation; that let's the rest of us have a crack at it. But you can't see it outside of your own interpretation. In short, it is impossible to interpret something literally.

 

You want proof? Let's take a passage from the bible. A guy wants to know how he can "possess everlasting life?" He tells Jesus he follows all the rules, so what else does he need to do. Jesus tells him to sell everything, give the money to the poor and "follow me." This is a bit of a bummer for the guy because he just paid the last installment on his limited edition Lexus. Mmmmm. Let's see, Lexus or everlasting life? Lexus or, everlasting life? I'm going with the Lexus. Come on, it's got a leather interior and a bitchin' sound system. What do you want?

 

Jesus then tells his disciples that it would be easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. Ouch! Personally, I don't need another reason to be agnostic.

 

So let's take a look at a few of our fundamentalist friends and see if they interpret this passage literally. Billy Graham: no; Oral Roberts: no; Jerry Falwell: no. That's pretty much strike three. Now I'm not begrudging these men their millions of dollars. They are good men who run large organizations dispensing spiritual and material comfort to millions of people around the world, and I am sure they are worth every dime they make. Bahahahahaha! Bahahahahahaha! Wooo! Let me wipe the tear out of my eye. That was a good one.

 

I'm sure these three have a great defense for their great wealth. And I know many Christians latch on to the fact that Jesus doesn't say a rich man "can't" get into heaven; just that it would be really, really hard. But a camel through the eye of a needle? How much closer can you get to impossible? (At one point, Christians even came up with some lame myth that when Jesus said "the eye of a needle" he wasn't talking about a sewing needle but a difficult mountain pass called the Eye of a Needle. Weak.)

 

In contrast to fundamentalism's holy trinity, there have been a few famous Christians who did try to take this passage literally, most notably St. Francis of Assisi and Mother Teresa. These two owned nothing and spent most of their adult lives working directly with the poor. Fundamentalism's trinity, while they do raise millions for the poor, are rich beyond the dreams of 99.9 percent of the world. So, who is closer to a literal interpretation of this passage of the bible?

 

My point is, no one interprets the whole bible literally. And given the nature of how humans interpret the world, it's not surprising. Interpretation is to humans what water is to fish. We see reality through our interpretations. That's how we exist. There's no getting out of it.

 

If a fundamentalist stumbled onto this posting, she would probably fume that I am making the claim that everything is relative. But that's not what I'm saying. There might be an absolute reality out there, and there might not be. But even if there is, we wouldn't be able to see it for what it is. We can only see it through the water and glass of our own fish tanks. Even if the bible reveals an absolute reality, we are still going to end up interpreting it. Sorry. That's just the way it is. (OK, I'm not really sorry. In fact, I'm a little smug about it.)

 

So the lynchpin that holds fundamentalism together is seriously broken. It is, to put it kindly, a bunch of crap.

 

Part 2: Stuck in modernity with you

 

There's an irony in the creationist movement. It's followers reject the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution because they accept modern science's definition of truth.

 

In the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists and philosophers changed the rules on what they would accept as true. They wanted hard, tangible evidence. Without it, they saw nothing but superstition and illusion. This new way of seeing the world, a modern way, sparked great advancements in science and technology, as well as the industrial revolution.

 

It also left behind much of the spiritual foundation on which religion exists. Many of these scientists and philosophers began to take shots at Christianity, seeing the passages of the bible as "only" stories and rituals as superstitious mumbo jumbo.

 

What's a believer to do? At first there was resistance to this new way of thinking. But eventually, even the faithful were overwhelmed and accepted this modern definition of truth. The only problem for many Christians was that if only facts constituted truth, then the bible had to be more than "just" stories. It must be a recording of historical fact. Viola, fundamentalism. (Yes this is a great oversimplification. What do you want for free, a well researched argument?)

 

This is not an original idea. Karen Armstrong argues along the same lines in her fine book "The Battle for God." (And if you want a real critique of fundamentalism, this is where you will get it.) Fundamentalism is a product of modernity just as much as communism, capitalism, existentialism and scores of other -isms that cropped up in the past 300 years.

 

So fundamentalists are people of faith who have allowed science and modern philosophies to corner them. They believe that the bible can only be true if ALL of it is true. It's what they like to call "unerring." The bible can't just reveal truth the way many great literary works do; every event in it must be factual. So for a fundamentalist, if Jonah wasn't a real person swallowed by a giant fish, then the story would have no meaning. To claim the event didn't actually happen is to say the bible isn't true.

 

For Christians with a broader perspective — what you might call a post-modern way of thinking — it doesn't matter whether Jonah was a real person or not, the story is still true. For these people, truth doesn't lie in the events but in what the story says about humans and their relation to God and the world. Jonah is a story about a spiritual journey, and for many Christians, that's all that matters. For these post-modern believers, to say Jonah is "just" a story is to miss the point. It is a story that reveals truth. In that sense, it is a true story.

 

But fundamentalists cling to modernity, and for many, they can't even understand the argument that a story didn't have to happen for it to be true.

 

This inability to get out of modernity forces fundies into ridiculous positions, like believing the world is only 6,000 years old, or that evolution is "just" a theory and that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

 

I'm not sure why fundamentalists can't seem to move on. I suspect that brand of faith is simpler. Mining the bible for spiritual truth is a lot tougher than adding up its years to figure out how old the earth is. Plus, there's probably some comfort in thinking all the answers lie on the surface, easy to see and grab. It saves you the trouble of an inner spiritual journey. And the surface truth seems so obvious, they think a person would have to be crazy or, worse, sinful not to see it. There is nothing more comforting than being certain. It makes the world black and white: There are sinners and the saved.

 

Part 3: Worshipping an idol

 

Didn't you love the commotion over the Alabama judge putting the ten commandments in a courthouse? All the fundamentalists came out to support him, demonstrating, petitioning, calling him a hero. But here's the irony: fundamentalism is a violation of the second of those commandments.

 

OK, fundamentalists aren't creating "graven images" out of clay or gold. I'll give you that. But they have created an image of a god, and they worship it just as devoutly as animists worship trees. The image isn't made of a physical material, but it is just as real to them. And they will attack anyone who challenges that image.

 

What is the image? Some background first.

 

Throughout the history of Christianity, mystics and theologians have pondered the nature of faith. Most understood that doubt is the foundation of a rich, mature faith. Doubt is the challenge that gives faith its power. Faith is a leap into the unknown, an emotional, pyschological and spiritual risk. Faith is not logical or rational, and as such, it's not easy. It is doubt that makes it hard.

 

Certainity, on the other hand, does not require faith. When you sit in a favorite chair, you are certain it will support your weight. It doesn't require a leap of faith. There is no risk involved. You're certain its going to do its job, just like it always does. Sitting in a chair is easy. Believing in an infinte god is not.

 

You see, you cannot believe in an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent god and be certain that you're image of him (or her) is anything close to the "truth." Think about it. The idea that you, a finite being, can know anything significant about an infinite being is absurd. I think it was St. Augustine who said something along the lines of "whatever you are sure about, you can be sure is not God."

 

But fundamentalists don't agree with St. Augustine. Their god's nature is revealed in the Bible. And they believe to doubt their interpretation of it is sinful and blasphemous. Only those who believe with them will be saved. The Bible tells you all there is to know about their god. (At least we know how big infinity is now; it's two or three hundred thousand English words.)

 

Now you might think that even the Bible can't tell you everything about an infinite being. I mean the Bible can't define God, because "infinite," by definition, can't be defined. But, according to the fundamentalists, you would be wrong about that. You see, they have the answers. They have certainty. They have their own god.

 

Their god is an image they hold in their minds, and they worhsip this image, this idol, with all of their egocentric hearts.

 

Their god resembles the traditional Christian God, but is not quite the same. Their god is not awful (or, I guess in contemporary parlance, awesome). Their god is not mysterious; he is made up of rules and regulations they gleaned from their selective interpretation of the Bible. He is not infinte, but he is vengeful, because if you do not believe in him in the same way they do, you are condemned to hell. He is not omnipotent, but he is magical, doling out miracles to those he deems worthy. He is not omniscient, but he is pretty smart: he'd get a 1600 on the SAT, no sweat (even the new, tougher version of the SAT).

 

And so fundamentalists are idolatrous. They worship a god they have created, essentially a caricature of the God described in the Christian Bible. In fact, it may be even worse than simple idolatry. If you believe that your interpretation of the Bible is the foundation of truth, then aren't you arguing that your beliefs are the basis of all reality? For some fundies, they haven't just created a god in their minds; they have essentially made themselves gods.

[Reach]

And so fundamentalists are idolatrous. They worship a god they have created, essentially a caricature of the God described in the Christian Bible. In fact, it may be even worse than simple idolatry. If you believe that your interpretation of the Bible is the foundation of truth, then aren't you arguing that your beliefs are the basis of all reality? For some fundies, they haven't just created a god in their minds; they have essentially made themselves gods.

A penny will hide the biggest star in the Universe if you hold it close enough to your eye.

-Samuel Grafton

 

No one is so blind as the fool who refuses to see.

 

Angry Ag, thanks much for posting that. Nice work.