Fundamental questions

[aardvarklf]

Several weeks ago I watched part of a TV documentary on religious fundamentalism. The bit that I saw profiled a Christian fundamentalist in America; apparently they'd also interviewed some racist monks in Sri Lanka and a hate-spouting Muslim preacher in London, but I didn't see either of them (although I wish I had, as it would have given me a

Comments

[spacefem]

I do get irked, as a religious person, when racist assholes are held up as examples of how religion effects people. I mean, if that woman had never found Jesus, she probably still would have found something to use to justify her behavior and beliefs.

sometimes the term "fundamentalist" is more meant to mean someone who refuses to admit that ideas can/should evolve... back in the day, racism was perfectly acceptable, so if you really want to get back to basics sometimes that's what you end up going back to; the good ol' days when we could lynch people, scare homosexuals so they'd never come out, keep women in abusive relationships so the divorce rate would stay down, etc.

[jklgoduke]

I am reminded of a family friend that I talked to some 14 years ago about someone I was then dating. I should say that she is a very nice generally reasonable person, but what I think of as a Christian fundamentalist. She'd heard that the guy I was dating was Jewish (not true actually - his parents were Jewish, but he was a fire-breathing atheist), and was saying hopefully that maybe he could become a "completed Jew." She added as though it were obvious, "I just don't understand why the Jews don't accept the rest of the Bible." I replied something like, "well, I suppose they wonder why we had to add so much stuff to the Bible" and she looked completely bewildered. That idea just didn't compute in her view of the universe.

[malc_uk]

Maybe what we should do is coin a new phrase for "fundamentalists". Religious psyhco-nutters?

[taffy23110]

The best definition I have is the second defintion in Merriam-Webster, that is a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles. I think Sir Richard would fall under than one if "set of basic principles" defines his world view.

The biggest problem I have with the what has become the common speak definition of fundamentalism is that it people use it to refer to people who are fundamental-etc-ists. They are really fundamentalists in their religions, but they are also radicals and extremists. While Fundamentalist Christianity used to be a mainstream movement inside Christianity, the has been misapplied to people who really are extremists.

[belgand]

So what exactly is it about Dawkins that pisses you off so much? I'll admit, I haven't yet had a chance to see "The Root of All Evil?" or read "The God Delusion" yet, but his previous work was all rather sound and fits in rather nicely with me as both an atheist and a biologist.

[aardvarklf]

I don't object to being told that my beliefs are incorrect. I freely accept that I could be wrong about religion, in either direction - as in, I accept that it is within the bounds of possibility that a) there could be a vengeful deity out there who has it in for nearly everyone, or b) there could be no deity at all

[aardvarklf]

oops, little html problem there

[belgand]

A valid criticism. At the same time it can be a tough issue to work with. Not implying too much, but convincing a member of a cult that they are as you say "pathetically weak and misled" is bound to cause problems and make you come off as a bit of an asshole. Some Christians (not to exclude other religions, but most of the time in our local context we're dealing with Christianity) can approach their religion in that manner. Many more just accept what they've been told since birth and had reinforced by society. Is organized religion itself a dangerous cult? Uhm... no comment