Its quite common to hear the term Atheist Fundamentalist being shot around these days--even amongst atheists. I want to know what people think about this. I personally have a problem with it. Ill be the first to admit that thier are atheists who are extremists and are every bit as loathsome as religious fundamentalists. That Im not debating. But that doesn’t seem to be how this term “atheist fundamentalist” is being applied. The way its been used in the press and on blogs (mostly in reference to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins or “the New Atheists") is that atheist fundamentalist is synonymous with atheist. If you are an atheist who is not silent about it and argue against belief in God you are an atheist fundamentalist. Period. Its a sort of ad hominum attack. Its much easier to label someone as an extremist, a fundamentalist, a _____phobe (as in Islamaphobe, homophobe whatever) rather than accurately represent their arguments and then critique them. Fundamentalists after all cannot be reasoned with. But worse than that...its just a poor use of the word fundamentalist. A fundamentalist is someone who’s viewpoint is extreme because they take a literalist view of scripture. They believe a set of revealed doctrines to be true at all times for all people. Its not just inflexible dogma, its inflexible dogma of a certain kind. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are certainly extreme, confrontational and even mean spirited. But they are not fundamentalists. They make their arguments through reason and evidence. They actively participate in debates where any one of their ideas can be challenged, and where they are expected to defend them by rational argument--they cannot and do not retreat into authority or dogma. This distinction between an extrem and controversial view on the one hand...and fundamentalism on the other seems to be completely missing from discussions of this kind in the media.
Its quite common to hear the term Atheist Fundamentalist being shot around these days--even amongst atheists. I want to know what people think about this. I personally have a problem with it. Ill be the first to admit that thier are atheists who are extremists and are every bit as loathsome as religious fundamentalists. That Im not debating. But that doesn’t seem to be how this term “atheist fundamentalist” is being applied. The way its been used in the press and on blogs (mostly in reference to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins or “the New Atheists") is that atheist fundamentalist is synonymous with atheist. If you are an atheist who is not silent about it and argue against belief in God you are an atheist fundamentalist. Period. Its a sort of ad hominum attack. Its much easier to label someone as an extremist, a fundamentalist, a _____phobe (as in Islamaphobe, homophobe whatever) rather than accurately represent their arguments and then critique them. Fundamentalists after all cannot be reasoned with. But worse than that...its just a poor use of the word fundamentalist. A fundamentalist is someone who’s viewpoint is extreme because they take a literalist view of scripture. They believe a set of revealed doctrines to be true at all times for all people. Its not just inflexible dogma, its inflexible dogma of a certain kind. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are certainly extreme, confrontational and even mean spirited. But they are not fundamentalists. They make their arguments through reason and evidence. They actively participate in debates where any one of their ideas can be challenged, and where they are expected to defend them by rational argument--they cannot and do not retreat into authority or dogma. This distinction between an extrem and controversial view on the one hand...and fundamentalism on the other seems to be completely missing from discussions of this kind in the media.
Wasn’t fundamentalism a call to return to the so-called fundamentals of Christianity? Those that want to return to the glories of the primative church? The fundamentals include a literalist understanding and complete faith in the scriptures as a way of life. Atheists generally don’t swear allegience to a mere book. Atheists may be annoying, disputative, forceful, but this is not a return to any fundamentals. If anything, atheists are progressivists by and large, because they are interested in the latest discoveries of science. If the atheists had a dogma, then they could be fundamental to it. Since they have no dogma, they cannot be fundamentalist.
A couple weeks ago I presented what I’ll be conducting research on for my master’s project, which involves studying religious fundamentalists. The fundamentalist professor in my department (psych) said I should study “Darwinian fundamentalists” instead, as “there are a lot of them out there.” I responded with, “But isn’t there a lot of evidence to back up evolution?”; he then paused and went off on a ridiculous tangent about dogmatic atheists, not letting me get a word in edgewise.
Dogmatic individuals hold onto their beliefs despite encountering contrary evidence; they hold unjustified certainty. A good number of atheists/agnostics grew up religious and then became apostates upon critically examining their beliefs. That certainly doesn’t sound dogmatic to me. Further, research shows that when religious fundamentalists are given a scenario in which a neighborhood child has atheist parents and is reconsidering her current nonreligious beliefs, if that child were to confide in them, they tend to report that they would tell the child that her parents are wrong and would essentially evangelize to the child about their beliefs. However, when atheist parents are given a scenario where a religious child comes to them and confides that she’s not so sure god exists, none of the atheist parents reported that they would “evangelize” their own godless beliefs nor tell the child her parents are wrong; instead they said she should look into the matter and make up her own mind.
Fundamentalism, dogmatism, and right wing authoritarianism are highly correlated by the way.
I find in the last few years that “extremist” is the flavor of the decade to come.A fundamentalist seems to take literally every word in its’ groups texts.I find my open-minded approach to life to have been labeled in the past as extreme simply because it didn’t fit into any of the mainstream
organizations of expression.Anything outside the norm could be seen as extreme.
Jaycosmos mentioned people who can’t be reasoned with.True the world over.I am in mid life and
I am an atheist.Many well meaning people of faith have tried to “reason” with me to no avail.Does that really make me extreme in what I hold to be true to me?They may think so.
They argue for the unprovable.I argue for science and can prove it.I guess in my way I’d say within the realm of the logical world I view I am a fundamentalist too.
Guys blowing up buildings and embassies are extreme alright!Extreme bad people.That’s all.
I am new to this genre of website so I may not know yet the type of knowledge we throw out here.
You and I and everyone on here has been and will be again labeled with something simply for the
things you find work in your life that others do not understand.I hope that would not hinder the freethought I wish to enjoy.Finally, I must confess that as an atheist,I do not know what an atheist
fundamentalist is.
What irks me is how some use logical fallacies and then accuse me of the same when I show such ! They think we atheists use unfounded assumptions. How I fault their presuppositons!
It is so insulting and funny that others,even fellow atheists, call us fundamentalists for saying there is no emperor,no divine shepherd and that others should know that. God is useless as a saviour,other than as a placebo or explanation.We are our own saviours when we use reason and facts.
Since atheists tend to be philosophical, and praise reason and critical thought, calling an atheist unreasonable or dogmatic is usually third grade “I know you are but what am I.” We don’t believe a set of books are written by some ghost, and quote it as saying “Trust not on your own understanding, but put faith in God.” I promote extremism. An extreme attitude is a passionate attitude; passion has creative power.
Fundamentalism has a bad name. Therefore, use it against those who pointed out it wa a bad name. I can’t wait until religious people call atheists Christian.
Theists of all stripes just don’t get it! Bishoop John Shelby Spong reconizes the evils the Bible endorses but still finds a god of love there and advocates a humanist ethic. Almost persuades as is John Hick who demolishes natural theology, only to revel in faith, the I just say so of creculity. Yet they feel sorry for us in using reason.
“Atheist” has never been considered a soft term. There are plenty of people who are only “Catholic” or “Christian” in name, but don’t really practice it, or don’t even care what their philosophy is for that matter. My dad comments regularly about how his freshman Microbiology class can’t fathom the concept that what you believe affects your life philosophy.
But if you call yourself “atheist,” it’s usually not a “well, my family’s atheist, so I’m sticking to the tradition” sort of a term.
I’ll admit that I avoid calling myself atheist too carelessly, because it has a bad name. In Christian circles I’d be immediately dismissed as a block-headed skeptic zealot who continually takes advantage of the fact that it’s almost always easier to poke holes in an idea than build it up or understand how it might be cogent. I’d prefer they know me as the respectful, inquisitive thinker that I am.
*The Evolution Wars*, by an author sympathetic to evolutionary theory, is a fascinating history of the quarrels among scientists about the theory and its various interpretations. For a very biased history of a specific incident, see Daniel Dennett’s account of the acrimonious debate between Dawkins et al and Stephen Jay Gould et al. on the ‘neutral theory’ within evolutionary biology in one chapter of his *Darwin’s Dangeorus Idea*. (This isn’t Gould’s theory of science versus religion, but one where he cautions that not evey property of an organism can be automatically claimed to be ‘adaptive’; the argument often uses the properties of arches in building as an analogy. In the end Gould et al. were vindicated, but see a different criticism of Gould’s caution by David Sloan Wilson in a criticism of Dawkins, in E Sceptic here: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04.html ).
We shouldn’t lower ourselves to their level and give them the opportunity to call us fundamentalists by attacking every little thing they do that disagrees with our belief system. If we stay on the facts and allow our cooler heads to prevail we should come out appearing more rational, more believable, more accepting and therefore more inclusive of all people. I have nothing against other belief systems. For me everyone is welcome to believe what ever they want as long as they practice their beliefs in private. Even if there is a community tradition, during the Christmas season, to place their seasonal Christian “Idols” on the grounds of a public building as Holiday decorations, why fight it? We’ll just look like fundamentalists, like the Grinch who stole Christmas, if we object to every little infraction. I’m not a Christian but I enjoy celebrating the traditional Holidays. I enjoyed hiding Easter Eggs for my children and I also enjoy both giving and getting gifts at Christmas. To me it’s more of a family celebration than a religious celebration. When we squash the fun associated with such family oriented Holidays we then end up looking like anti-religious fundamentalists. On the other hand, having the Ten Commandants as a permanent display / fixture at the County Court House is making a clear statement about what book / fundamentalist ideology that court subscribes itself to. Our constitution established a separation between Church and State, so in similar cases we should stand up for our Constitution and take the appropriate action necessary. If we choose our battles wisely we will win more of them, reduce the negative labels placed upon us and maybe persuade a few more people to review the facts and move over to our side.
Yes, fundamentalist was a term of self identification adopted by certain preachers, I have read. Islamic authorities have denied the application of that term to them.
An analytical definition would need to be less arbitrary than self identification, so the notions of loyalty testing and repetition compulsion emerge, using ideas as a less dangerous arena for such weird behavior.
Self labelling versus being labelles is mostly propaganda and advertising. There is nothing deep or profound about it. The funny thing though, is that the names Christians use for themselves being to stink after a while: being a sheep, a true believer, a fundamentalist, spreading “propaganda” (a catholic term for what missionaries do), dogma, etc. have come to be infamous words of derision. Perhaps that is because if you advertise a bad product enough, the advertising itself becomes mockable.
