Chris Hedges expresses his opinion on fundamentalism in his book I Don’t Believe in Atheists:
The blustering televangelists, and the atheists who rant about the evils of religion, are little more than carnival barkers. They are in show business, and those in show business know complexity does not sell. They trade clichés and insults like cartoon characters. They don masks. One wears the mask of religion, the other wears the mask of science. They banter back and forth in predictable sound bites. They promise, like all advertisers, simple and seductive dreams. This debate engages two bizarre subsets who are well suited to the television culture because of the crudeness of their arguments. One distorts the scientific theory of evolution to explain the behavior and rules for complex social, economic and political systems. The other insists that the six-day story of creation in Genesis is fact and Jesus will descend format the sky to create the kingdom of God on Earth. These antagonists each claim to have discovered an absolute truth. They trade absurdity for absurdity. They show that the danger is not religion or science. The danger is fundamentalism.
My question, and I think the urgent question is: How can fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists dialog? Harvey Cox, in his newest book The Future of Faith, suggests that the most important isn’t interfaith but intrafaith dialog, especially between the fundamentalist wing and the rest. It is the fundamentalist mindset that is his newest concern:
Of course in conversations between people from differing traditions, for example, between Christians and Buddhists, differences always come up. Indeed, that is one purpose of the conversation. But the differences seem to be at a safe remove, since the participants are not a part of the “family”. The can be registered and dismissed as “interesting”. This is not the case, however, with the discrepancies that inevitably arise when those in the interfaith wing of a religion try to converse on a serious level with those from the circle-the-wagons wing of the same affiliation. In these encounters, things get tense, tempers often flare, and people sometimes stomp out of the room. More seems to be at stake. Many people try and then just give up. But quitting merely propels the whole interfaith enterprise toward a dead end. It creates the unpleasant prospect of a future in which, while open-minded members in each religion enjoy cozy colloquies with each other, the ultraconservative wing in each becomes more isolated and truculent.
It has become apparent to me over the last few years of writing this blog that the critical conversation is between the fundamentalists and the rest. It is the fundamentalist mindset that presents the greatest challenge, in my opinion, to open dialog between all parties. Like Cox experienced and observes, as well as Hedges, and just as we do here at nakedpastor, if we all just agreed with each other, what’s the good in that? But when we enter into the foray of disagreement, that’s where the real possibilities lie. I believe it is urgent that we explore ways of dialoging. Love necessitates it.
(The title is inspired from Bruce Cockburn’s song, “Lovers in a Dangerous Time”).
Cartoonist.
Artist.
Spirituality Coach.
Writer.
Speaker.
In my experience there is no conversation with a fundamentalist, at least not without charges of heresy, apostasy, and “you aren’t really a Christian.” Once I was even told, “I’m glad I’m not part of the congregations you lie to.”
That’s not conversation.
Will Deuel
February 24, 2010 at 3:06 pm .In my experience there is no conversation with a fundamentalist, at least not without charges of heresy, apostasy, and “you aren’t really a Christian.” Once I was even told, “I’m glad I’m not part of the congregations you lie to.”
That’s not conversation.
——And it sure doesn’t take a liberal long to call me an intolerant, fundament, bigoted…and that after they ask me a question; I answer, and then the tirade to follow. Works both ways, I think, Will.
fishon
It’s all in the mindset. When a radical mindset meets another radical mindset, sparks will fly because well golly, “I’m right and you are wrong”! We are striving for the day when each individual mindset ‘allows’ the possibility that the other can be ‘wrong’ and still can hold respect for them as a person. How long, I wonder?
I actually have to (*gulp*) side with fishon here…it does work both ways. Will’s comment that “there is no conversation with a fundamentalist” is, well…just too easy. It’s not much different than how a lot of fundamentalists respond when you ask them to explain “why”. They don’t think, they just say “’cause that’s what the Bible says.” They take the easy way out. What’s hard, is trying to push through this and find a way to dialogue which is what I think NP is getting at…and what I have been learning a lot about lately, partly thanks to this blog
.
It’s a little like how some people view terrorism. “You don’t negotiate with terroists”. Well maybe you don’t negotiate with them, but you do need to dialogue with them…engage them somehow. You may find out that it is something you’re doing…or not doing…that creates the terrorist in the first place. What might we be doing or not doing that strengthens or encourages fundamentalism? I guess what I’m saying is someone has got be the “bigger (wo)man”, be willing to do the difficult thing and engage the other side in peace talks. I just don’t think that someone is me, lol. Good luck, NP
.
fishon: i agree. it works both ways. which is the point of this post. thanks.
When you walk in the center listening to both sides you get a panoramic view… those on the left think you are leaning right and those on the right think you are leaning left…but all you are doing is walking on a tight rope trying to keep your balance. It’s not really comfortable, but it always is a joy to be an instrument of peace and reconciliation. Ultimately, love conquers all. I have the privilege of having precious friends from all variations of the Christian spectrum, so there’s never a dull moment! I celebrate this diversity which testifies that the Church is a living organism and not just a dead edifice.
You can’t converse with a fundamentalist. But there are different kinds of fundamentalists–not just “right-wing, Republican, southern United States fundamentalists.”
That’s one of my favorite songs…
Nope, there’s no communication to be had with a fundamentalist. That is why my husband and I have not seen his parents for four years now (and they live 40 miles away). Keep the contact to cutesy ecards and the occasional paper card. All is well as long as they can continue living in their dreamworld.
You pose some questions here that really resonate with me NP. Lately I’ve been interested in what sort of difference could be made if ‘dialogue’ became less focused on understanding why someone believes what they do (in light of the way I belief) and more about understanding the way those beliefs are held in the context of the experiences that helped birth them. I am just starting in this myself and have noticed that its really hard (I mean really hard!) to direct my own assumptions and reactions to other people in a way that fuels my curiosity in them more than in how I am about to be understood. Real poverty of spirit is required and I just keep realizing how little of it I have.
Well NP, your heard it here; No communicating with the likes of me.
fishon
fishon: well that’s obviously not true, is it? we’ve been doing it here for how long? it hasn’t been easy, but it’s been!
fishon:
Maybe you’re not what everybody else considers to be a “fundamentalist” even though you consider yourself one.
That’s pretty funny, fishon. Now, because you communicate with us, we’re going to say you’re not a fundamentalist even though you consider yourself to be one. Come on, folks…I think there may be some stereotyping going on here. Fundamentalists are people and most of them can think. Just because they seem unreasonable doesn’t mean there is no communication with them. I was once a fundamentalist and from what I gather, there are several ex-fundys on this website. In retrospect, my positions were unreasonable and sometimes absurd, but with time and as I finally began to grasp the true extent of God’s love and freedom, I changed (fishon, you may call this backsliding, lol). If we just alienate anyone who is considered a fundamentalist because we think they’re unreasonable, I think we do what NP is talking about in this post…we create an isolated environment wherein the fundamentalist becomes more fundamentalist, and consequently more isolated and “unreasonable”.
Trey: I agree. I think we can talk with fundamentalists. After all, we are all fundamentalists about something sometimes. I value fishon’s presence on this blog because he says what many fundamentalists are thinking but won’t say, for whatever reason. But he also says what non-fundamentalists are thinking but wouldn’t dare say because they might not be aware that they believe it. Anyway… I know we can dialog. If we can’t, why talk at all?
I’m a recovering fundamentalist. My dad was an IFB church pastor who was screwed over royally by the deacons in the last IFB church he pastored. We kids never really understood what happened or why it was that they dumped him out on the street with no job, and no place to go with four kids 16 years old and under. He died at age 73 of complications of diabetes and heart disease – which cropped up in his life approximately five years after he was kicked out of his church. He had given his life to work for the IFB churches, and they dumped him, and he never, ever was able to get over it.
The particular group he worked with blackballed him so that he was never able to pastor another IFB church. He refused to look into other possibilities. There’s not enough time to describe the overall devastation and destruction that all of this caused each family member including my mother who is now in a nursing home with severe dementia – partly, I believe, due to unresolved issues with that church. Sometimes when I am with her, she starts weeping, grieving, screaming in the pain that she was never able to let go of before her dementia kicked in. It breaks my heart.
A year-and-a-half ago I walked out of the last IFB church we attended. I floundered around spiritually, and theologically for awhile, but we began attending an AMiA church. I attribute finding God’s mercy and grace in their fullness at this church. Most of the fundamentalists who were actually talking to me before, have turned away their faces at this point since I am in a church, which they have judged sight unseen, to be apostate.
Last week I went back to the last IFB church for the funeral of the daughter of a friend, and I’ve found I can forgive and love, but most do not think they need to be forgiven. The biggest issue I have seen is control. I saw it again last week at the funeral. The preacher felt the need to hammer on the point that we need to reach people for Christ for about 20 minutes after he had made his point. The fundamentalists I have known mostly act as though the Holy Spirit needs their help to bring people under conviction, so they belabor the point until people turn it off.
I’d be glad to dialog with a fundamentalist if we could find a common ground to do with with respect, and Christian love.
hey FPK: what a story! many more like it!
nakedpastor
February 25, 2010 at 7:37 am .fishon: well that’s obviously not true, is it? we’ve been doing it here for how long? it hasn’t been easy, but it’s been!
————Yep! That was my sarcastically way of saying we do it here—-blood letting and all.
fishon
Fred
February 25, 2010 at 9:29 am .fishon:
Maybe you’re not what everybody else considers to be a “fundamentalist” even though you consider yourself one.
———Oh Fred——-you want to take a vote?
fishon
I’d be glad to dialog with a liberal if we could find a common ground to do with with respect, and Christian love.
fishon
Here’s an interesting link:
http://friendlyhumanist.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-definition-fundamentalist.html
It’s official! I’m addicted to this site!
Back when I was involved in Jewish-Christian Dialogue we used to wonder whether for the sake of tolerance we needed to tolerate intolerance… the answer was “do not tolerate intolerance but the intolerant”. Just as G-d has chosen to reason with us – we need to follow His example and reason with each other. I see this is what’s happening here and I am blessed by all of you.
op said: “These antagonists each claim to have discovered an absolute truth. They trade absurdity for absurdity. They show that the danger is not religion or science. The danger is fundamentalism.”
(I’m an atheist) I don’t know any fundamentalist atheists, either personal friends, or famous atheists.
Every atheist I know is willing to change their mind as new information becomes available to them. Every one I know is willing to be persuaded.
Does anyone know any atheists that are unwilling to be persuaded? If so, who?
If the existence of a significant group of fundamentalist atheists cannot be shown to exist, Chris Hedges’ book is fiction.
Boz
February 25, 2010 at 9:34 pm .
(I’m an atheist) I don’t know any fundamentalist atheists, either personal friends, or famous atheists.
——Oh, Mao—-Stalin—-Pol Pot come to mind.
fishon
fishon: i guess i wasn’t clear. this ALL doesn’t apply to every fundamentalist. only parts. if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. so, instead of you feeling militant, perhaps you feel genuine concern for those who don’t subscribe to your beliefs, and are sincerely curious as to why they don’t. sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Boz,
I know someone who calls himself a “weak atheist”–someone who is willing to entertain the possibility of the existence of God and has even devised some “experiments” (more like “tests”) in order to allow God to prove his existence.
He personally knows “strong atheists” with whom he has argued–atheists that would deny the existence of God even if it were proven.
fishon,
You said: “I’d be glad to dialog with a liberal if we could find a common ground to do with with respect, and Christian love.”
I think that disqualifies you from what I would call a “fundamentalist” today. And yes, I think the definition has changed unfairly, but it has changed.
Boz said: “If the existence of a significant group of fundamentalist atheists cannot be shown to exist, Chris Hedges’ book is fiction.” I would guess exaggeration like this is the type of “absurdity” Hedges is referring to…you know, calling a work of non-fiction fiction because it disagrees with your beliefs.
Fred, to me it seems like you are referring to a type of personality…someone who is unwilling to dialogue. Not all fundamentalists are this way. I’ve always thought that “fundamentalist” describes someone’s belief system, not their personality type. To me if someone is a Biblical literalist, for example, they are fundamentalist in their beliefs. But I’ve known a few open-minded (I use that word loosely here) biblical literalists, who will dialogue and discuss. Eventually most of them will talk themselves into a corner where their only answer is “cause the Bible says so.” They choose, for whatever reason (spiritual experience, fear, apathy) to not waiver from their interpretation and understanding of biblical texts even in the face of reason and logic. But some, like fishon, will keep on talking with you…and even try and find a way to get along with you…but they’re still fundamentalists.
Fishon, how do you know that stalin, pol pot, and mao were unwilling to be persuaded out of atheism?
Trey…I too was a fundamentalist of the first order about 35 years ago. I was the lady with the concrete bible that I used to hit people over the head with. Then I grew and learned about Grace and Mercy and Love…first hand. And then I learned more about the bible and the danger in literal interpretation after all these years. And the more I studied, the more I softened and the more I learned how much we couldn’t be sure of. After all these years of study, of experience, of seeing others change, and becoming a different person myself, my belief system has gone a long way from “because the bible says so” to lets see everything the bible has to say about it, what was going on then, who it was said to, and what it means in the context of life today. And even that leaves us with questions.
Boz
February 26, 2010 at 1:59 am .Fishon, how do you know that stalin, pol pot, and mao were unwilling to be persuaded out of atheism?
——–Because they died as atheist. Therefore, they were not persuaded.
fishon
If I died right now, I would die as an atheist. Yet, I am willing to have my views changed through argument.
If someone dies as an atheist, that does not mean that they were unwilling to be persuaded.
Fishon, how do you know that stalin, pol pot, and mao were UNWILLING to be persuaded out of atheism?
Boz
February 26, 2010 at 6:28 am .If I died right now, I would die as an atheist. Yet, I am willing to have my views changed through argument.
If someone dies as an atheist, that does not mean that they were unwilling to be persuaded.
Fishon, how do you know that stalin, pol pot, and mao were UNWILLING to be persuaded out of atheism?
———Boz, you are being ridiculous.
YOU:(I’m an atheist) I don’t know any fundamentalist atheists, either personal friends, or famous atheists.
Every atheist I know is willing to change their mind as new information becomes available to them. Every one I know is willing to be persuaded.
——Interesting, no, it is ludicrous that you make a stand for those atheistic, masses murderer as men who ‘might’ have changed their minds. They are dead. They did not change their minds. They killed millions. You think Karl Marx was willing to change his mind. Or I suppose that you think he was never in debate with others over his thoughts and teachings?
I suppose you think Hitler was willing to change his mind!
Oh, never mind.
fishon
I have no idea what you are talking about.