What is a fundamentalist?

[ned flandas]

Hi people

I am a Christian and I see the word "fundamentalist" banded around the forums a lot.

What makes someone a "fundamentalist"?

Chris

[Beady]

No matter the religion, political party, whatever, a Fundamentalist is someone who believes the "party literature" as it is written, with no or minimal interpretation.

The term "Fundie," however, is generally reserved for extreme fundamentalist protestant Christians.

PS It is quite possible to be a fundamentalist Christian and think the Fundies are whack jobs.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi people

I am a Christian and I see the word "fundamentalist" banded around the forums a lot.

What makes someone a "fundamentalist"?

Chris

It means they have chosen one way of looking at the world, they believe that their way is the one and only correct way and that it must form the basis of everything else they think and know. They also think everybody else should agree with them. As such, it includes the most extreme scientistic skeptics. Their religion is scientific materialism and the fundamenalist version is called "scientism". It equally applies to political fundamentalists like some extreme marxists. I think "literalist" is a specific subset of "Christian fundamentalist", but the terms might as well be interchangeable.

[kurious_kathy]

It means they have chosen one way of looking at the world, they believe that their way is the one and only correct way and that it must form the basis of everything else they think and know. They also think everybody else should agree with them. As such, it includes the most extreme scientistic skeptics. Their religion is scientific materialism and the fundamenalist version is called "scientism". It equally applies to political fundamentalists like some extreme marxists. I think "literalist" is a specific subset of "Christian fundamentalist", but the terms might as well be interchangeable.
Okay so what about the difference in personality types? This certainly comes into play when it comes to anyones perspective or view on important issues. I have always been an intense, type A, extreme personality type. So the only thing that has changed recently as of the last couple years is my world view. I have changed sides and decided I wanted to believe God and agree the Christian world view is the correct one.

Here's a take on What Is Christianity... http://www.atstracts.org/readarticle.php?id=46

And now with this perspective it brings things full cirlce in my life. I am still the same person or personality type, but my thinking is more what I would say well rounded. So this is what people now use to call me a fundy, but that's now exactly how I perceive it.

[Bruno Putzeys]

The term fundamentalism dates from the 1890's, when a subsection of American Evangelical Christians wanted to return to the origins of their religion. They called themselves Fundamentalists. The movement was marked by a literal interpretation of the scripture. Christian fundamentalists are still happy to call themselves that, but regret the more widespread application of the term to other religions or even non-religious movements.

In any case, someone who believes their religion used to be "more pure" in the past and tries to return there, usually by a strict adherence to the scripture, can be called a fundamentalist.

The application of the term to scientific materialism does not fit accepted usage.

[Bruno Putzeys]

Kathy, the question was "how does one define fundamentalism". Not "how does one value it."

[drkitten]

And now with this perspective it brings things full cirlce in my life. I am still the same person or personality type, but my thinking is more what I would say well rounded.

We'll have to take your word for this. You've never displayed any evidence of "thinking," well-rounded or otherwise, in your posts on this forum.

[drkitten]

It means they have chosen one way of looking at the world, they believe that their way is the one and only correct way and that it must form the basis of everything else they think and know. They also think everybody else should agree with them. As such, it includes the most extreme scientistic skeptics.

Not in standard usage, it doesn't.

The most general definition of "fundamentalism" that I've seen involves a rigid adherence to a limited set of "fundamental" religious principles. I've never seen any serious source that attempts to generalize this beyond the religious arena (mostly for historical reasons, since the term "Fundamenatlism" originated as a self-applied label in American Protestantism).

Key psychological aspects of fundamentalism that are implicit (i.e. not explicit) in the definition are an intolerance of those who do not follow those same principles, and authoritarian defense of those same principles (typically by reference either to Scripture or by the authoritative pronouncements of leaders). This alone sufficces to distinguish "fundamentalism" from "extreme scientific skepticism," since scientific skepticism is by definition anti-authoritarian and data-controlled. Maxwell's laws aren't true because they're the revealed Word of Maxwell, but because every experiment that's ever been done agrees with them.

This particular aspect of authoritarianism has caused a lot of rather comic and rather pathetic miscommunications on the Randi forum in particular -- many are the people who come on to the JREF with the apparent intention of attacking Randi in particular in the hopes of destroying his credibility, not realizing that Randi is in no way an "authority" for the skeptic movement, but simply a well-regarded gatherer of evidence.

Getting back to religious "fundamentalism," most of the "fundamentalists" one is likely to encounter derive either from the American Protestant tradition or more recently from Islamic tradition -- as such, there's no single set of beliefs that one must subscribe to be a "fundamentalist."

[Freethinker]

Kathy, the question was "how does one define fundamentalism". Not "how does one value it."

Hell, it was closer to an answer to a question than anything else she posts.

[kurious_kathy]

Kathy, the question was "how does one define fundamentalism". Not "how does one value it."

Riddle me this, If one doesn't value it, then how can they define it?

[Genesius]

Riddle me this, If one doesn't value it, then how can they define it?

So you're saying the people who write dictionaries value everything in the book?

oy vey. . .:rolleyes:

[UndercoverElephant]

Riddle me this, If one doesn't value it, then how can they define it?

I detest red lilly beetles. I wish they'd all drop dead. (Well, all the ones in England, anyway).

1) Here's a definition of Red Lily Beetle:

http://www.essexfieldclub.org.uk/lilybeetle_survey.htm

2) I don't value them. They are a pain in the arse.

[drkitten]

Riddle me this, If one doesn't value it, then how can they define it?

You know, I don't especially "value" triangles, but I can easily define them. They're three-sided polygons.

[FireGarden]

To be fair to kathy,
If you don't value something and dismiss it quickly then you'll probably leave with a lot of misconceptions about it.

But you can pay long and hard attention to things you don't value. A lot of school work demanded that.

[The_Fire]

Fundamentalism: What you get when you cross kurious_kathy with pat robertson and a suicide bomber.

[ponderingturtle]

To be fair to kathy,
If you don't value something and dismiss it quickly then you'll probably leave with a lot of misconceptions about it.

But you can pay long and hard attention to things you don't value. A lot of school work demanded that.

And you can study things you find revolting. Like trying to find out what makes someone a serial killer or what caused an accident that killed many people.

Also valuing something does not really mean you must be studying it and trying to reach a broad understanding of it.

[Dr Adequate]

Riddle me this, If one doesn't value it, then how can they define it? Riddle me this. If you don't know what something is, how can you know what value it has?

[writerdd]

Speaking from my own experience as a former born-again Christian....

Fundamentalists, evangelicals, Pentecostals, born-again Christians. It doesn’t matter what you call them or what they call themselves. The small differences in doctrine and practice are negligible. What ties all of these groups together under the blanket term “fundamentalist” is a belief in the “five fundamentals” of Christianity:

• Inerrancy of the Scriptures
• The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
• The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
• The bodily resurrection of Jesus
• The physical return of Jesus and the rapture

Sometimes the last point is replaced with "the miracles of Jesus.

Technically, fundamentalists are subset of evangelicals, as are Pentecostals. Fundamentalists are more focused on obeying the rules and law of the Bible, while Pentecostals are more concerned with spiritual experiences. There are so many sub-groups, that it's almost impossible to be detailed about anything. Fundamentalists are, as far as I have observed, are conservative and even reactionary in their politics. Evangelicals, as a larger group, may be conservative or liberal.

More recently, the term fundamentalist has come to refer to people of any religious belief who are dogmatic, legalistic, and literalist in their interpretation of the scripture of their religion, and who disregard any evidence or philosophy that is not in agreement with their holy book.

[Foster Zygote]

Hi people

I am a Christian and I see the word "fundamentalist" banded around the forums a lot.

What makes someone a "fundamentalist"?

Chris

Good question. I sometimes wonder if "fundamentalist" is used at times when "extremist" would be more appropriate. Take Islam for example. The media refers to terrorists as "fundamentalists" yet my Muslim friends assure me that these people are so far from the fundamentals of the Koran as to seem alien to them.

Steven

[Hux]

Might it be that an extremist, in the religious context, is prepared to undertake violence or violent behaviour in his cause?

A fundamentalist is a religious person identified by the absolute depth of his conviction to dogma?

[Foster Zygote]

Might it be that an extremist, in the religious context, is prepared to undertake violence or violent behaviour in his cause?

A fundamentalist is a religious person identified by the absolute depth of his conviction to dogma?

Good point. I've heard Islamic extremism defined (by a Muslim) as "a cult of hate, violence and death".

[kurious_kathy]

Riddle me this. If you don't know what something is, how can you know what value it has?
Oh and this is definitely what we strive for, intillectual understanding. But to care about something is to value it. So keeping in mind that caring about something is an emotion that drives us to ponder the definition makes us reflect that one without the other doesn't quite cut it, we need both to have conviction. Our conviction is what I believe drives a person.

[Ryokan]

I believe the definition of fundamentalism is a return to the fundamental basics of a religion, not neccesarily extremism.

A fundamentalist Christian, for example, would be one who returned to the teachings of Jesus Christ, throwing away all the trappings Christianity has gathered in the last two millenia. Only the words of Jesus Christ would apply.

A fundamentalist Buddhist would throw away all the trappings that Buddhism has collected over the last two and a half millenia, including a multitude of supernatural beliefs and godhoods, and return to the basic teachings of Gautama Buddha, like the Four Noble Truths.

Of course, very few Buddhists will label themselves as fundamentalist, because of the connotations of the words. But as long as people understand what the word really means, I would have no problem identifying myself as a fundamentalist Buddhist.

ETA : Of course, I'm a pot and I'm calling the kettle black. I've used the word fundamentalist when I meant extremist numerous times.

[Foster Zygote]

[QUOTE=Ryokan;1786279]

A fundamentalist Christian, for example, would be one who returned to the teachings of Jesus Christ. QUOTE]

Too bad those teaching, in their original form, are probably lost forever.

Steven

[Ryokan]

Too bad those teaching, in their original form, are probably lost forever.

Steven

Well, you know what I meant. The teachings of Jesus Christ, as portrayed by the Bible.

Most Christians that are labeled fundamentalists are nothing of the sort. Remember, Jesus taught that poverty is superior to wealth.

ETA: I think the closest thing to organized Christian fundamentalism is probably the Jehova's Witnesses.

[sphenisc]

Well, you know what I meant. The teachings of Jesus Christ, as portrayed by the Bible.

Most Christians that are labeled fundamentalists are nothing of the sort. Remember, Jesus taught that poverty is superior to wealth.

ETA: I think the closest thing to organized Christian fundamentalism is probably the Jehova's Witnesses.

Why the Jehovah's Witnesses in particular?

[Ryokan]

Why the Jehovah's Witnesses in particular?

Because of their interpretations of the Bible, which is pretty close to the interpretations of most atheists. They don't even believe in the divinity of Jesus or the trinity, for example, because the Bible never mentions it. They don't change stuff to fit in with modern day views, for the most part, but follow the book strictly. One of the few Christian groups, IMO, that take their Bible seriously.

In short, they're fundamentalists, in the true sense of the word.

[writerdd]

In reality, none of today's religious groups go back to the original meanings of the Bible, even those who have that intent. Why not?

1) The original manuscripts do not exist and even if they did, it's impossible to translate complicated ideas literally from one language to another. Even simple ideas cannot always be translated literally between closely related languages like Germand and English. And religious ideas are rarely simple.

2) Our world view is so different than that of the people who wrote the Bible thousands of years ago, that we cannot even begin to understand what they "really meant" when they wrote. In addition, the categories of "fiction" and "nonfiction" did not exist at the time. Mythological stories were not intended to represent historical accuracy. That does not mean they were just "made up" as today's novels are. They were meant to elucidate on the humand condition. In a way, they were an early form of psychology. The purpose of such writings was to give meaning to life through metaphor and analogy.

That said, fundamentalists do intend to try, at least, to return to early versions of their religion. Unfortunately, they most often try to do that via a misinformed idea that taking their scripture literally brings them closer to the original meanings. This is far from the truth.

Regarding the difference between extremists and fundamenalists, I think that's an important distinction to make. It is the reason we have the words Islamist and Muslim, which carry hugely different connotations. I have noticed that many writers have started calling extremist Christians "Christianists" to differentiate them from other people who follow versions of Christianity.