Information icon.svg Results are posted for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election.
Thanks to all who participated in the vote, and congratulations to the new moderators!

Talk:Fundamentalist

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I think fundamentalism shoold be the big article, hence the stubby one here. humanbe in 20:14, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Should this just be replaced with a redirect to fundamentalism?--MountainTiger 21:25, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
Good question. here's why I would say "no". One day, this might be a bigger article, with links to prominent fundamentalists, etc. But feel free to redirect now, if you want, since it ain't. humanbe in 21:46, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

(copied from user talk page)

You keep using that word...[edit]

Whats your definition of fundamentalism? 24.141.169.255 00:31, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

A "literal-minded or intolerant philosophy with pretense of being the sole source of objective truth" taken from wikipedia article Bohdan 00:34, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
What aspect of atheism relies on "literal" interpretation? How does atheism fit in with the fact that fundamentalism is in opposition to secularism? What universal doctrine is required to adhere too? What ceremony or book encapsulates atheistic fundamentalism? 24.141.169.255 00:36, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
There is no such thing as "fundamentalist" atheism, sorry. FFRF essays aside... feel free to critique them! humanbe in 00:42, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Is a "strict doctorine of beliefes, religious books, ceremony" needed to be a fundamentalist? Dawkins is a fundamentalist. He has adopted a "literal-minded or intolerant philosophy with pretense of being the sole source of objective truth" And there is such a thing as fundamentalist atheism. Atheists make the same claims about deity as theists do. Bohdan 00:54, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Your missing the key word here, "literal" , what doctrine is being taken literally? tmtoulouse frustrate 00:59, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Dawkins has a total dogmatic conviction of correctness which is comparable to a a religious fundamentalism which refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged. taken from the Dawkins Delusion This, among other reasons, qualifies him as a fundamentalist. Bohdan 01:06, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
The fact that a book - whose sole purpose is to criticize Dawkins - calls him names does not mean that those names are true. In response to the book Dawkins stated that, like all scientists, he does not know many things. He went on to point out that it is religion which claims all knowledge - not science. --Bob_M (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
  • "The fact that a book - whose sole purpose is to criticize Dawkins - calls him names does not mean that those names are true." Right. The sole purpose of Dawkins book is to criticise religion, and to call theists names. And as you just said, that doesn't mean those names and statements are true. Bohdan
I am glad that we are in agreement.--Bob_M (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Maybe, but fundamentalism is not the word your looking for, fundamentalism has a specific meaning and usage. Dogmatic is closer to the word your looking for. tmtoulouse frustrate 01:09, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Hey, you logged in! Fine, I will stop adding him if you want, but he is a fundamentalist. Bohdan 01:10, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
  • The definition given is still incorrect. Bohdan 01:11, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
I fixed it. Bohdan 01:16, 10 August 2007 (CDT
I've added all the definitions from the source quoted for completeness.--Bob_M (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Thank you. To be honest, I must have forgotten to add those last two. Bohdan
you're welcome. I'm sure that quote mining wasn't your intention.--Bob_M (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Quote mining? The last two (or really one) definitions were already covered in the article. Look [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist] at the wikipedia article, and see how they write the dictionary's definition. They don't include those last two definitions when citing the dictionary. I didn't even read off the dictionary, I just used it as the source based on what wikipedia had written. Bohdan 12:10, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
  • This is a direct quote from the wikipedia article, "The American Heritage Dictionary defines "fundamentalism" as "a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.". Thats what I added. Your frivolous acusations of quote mining hold no weight. Bohdan 12:12, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Lighten up. My exact words were: "I'm sure that quote mining wasn't your intention." What exactly is your objection?--Bob_M (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Alright, I figured it was a sarcastic attempt to accuse me of being dishonest. Bohdan 19:50, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Dawkins...[edit]

...IMO is a pompous, intolerant ass...who makes some good points. However, he is not religious. He is stubborn and judgemental, and opposes religion in all its forms...however he does not hold to a set of supernatural beliefs...therefore he is not a fundamentalist.

Others whom you should dislike, despite their not being fundamentalists...

Mussolini
Franco
Robert Mugabe

Up for question:

Hitler (belief in racial superiority, etc.)
Pol Pot
Lenin (but prob. not Stalin, who was less an ideologue and more of an opportunist)

--PalMD-Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice! 07:38, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

But he does hold supernatural beliefs. His claims on the nature of deity are of the same sort as theists. Bohdan 10:11, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
How do you figure that? tmtoulouse frustrate 10:19, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Dawkins and all atheists claim that there is no deity. That is a statement on the nature of deity. There is no way for this to be definatively proven. It is a supernatural belief. Bohdan 10:34, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Dawkins states (in the God Delusion) that we cannot disprove the existence of god. He states that we can only say that it is highly improbable, and invites those who do believe to provide evidence for their belief. He further claims that the rational scientific position of that of extreme agnosticism.--Bob_M (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2007 (CDT)


Bohdan - you're confusing "existence" and "essence." Talking about the essence of an object - it is round, it is heavy, it is blue, whatever, is not the same thing as talking about whether or not it exists. Claiming there is no deity is in no way a statement on it's "nature." Things that don't exist, like God and unicorns, have no "nature" at all - they have no qualities that can be one way or another...PFoster 10:39, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

But his claims on the existecne of deity still cannot be proven. They are still beliefs, and the way he goes about his philosophy is quite fundamentalist. Bohdan 10:46, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
What he claims about god is that his existence is highly improbable. --Bob_M (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Its obvious that the article won't change, and I won't convince any of you. I do stand by him being a fundamentalist. I aleady was in a revert war over this. Hopefully we can all agree with Palmd that Dawkins is pompous and intolerant. I am now resigning this conversation. Bohdan 10:52, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Bohdan - no claim of non-existence can be "proven." "Prove" to me that unicors don't exist - you can't really - maybe they're just really good at hiding. It's very difficult to prove *any* negative statement - prove to me that you never saw "Star Wars," for example - you probably can't. The onus of proof is on those who claim that something does exist. PFoster 10:52, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

True, very true. Bohdan
Hey I was about to cut and past to show what he in fact says. He seems quite reasonable to me.--Bob_M (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Bohdan. If you agree with the above then you agree with Dawkins.--Bob_M (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
I believe that much of what Dawkins says is reasonable and true, but that his methods of communicating are alienating...by way of clarification.75.135.132.177 11:05, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Bohdan? Is that you?--Bob_M (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
That was not me. Bohdan 12:02, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Regarding Dawkins: I find it somewhat curious that many of those who go up in flames whenever a theologian pretends to know about something science apparently don't seem to have a problem with a scientist who pretends to know something about theology - and failing miserably at it, for that matter. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:01, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
In what way does he fail? tmtoulouse frustrate 18:14, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Because it is quite apparent, especially from reading The God Delusion, that he has only the faintest idea of what theology or even religious studies actually involves, and even less intention of actually making the effort to familiarize himself with those fields. Just to take a few points, his understanding of Biblical criticism seems non-existent (I think he even attributes the Letter to the Hebrews to Paul at one point), his discussion of the various arguments of the existence of God is downright embarrassing, and his attempts at playing philosopher (such as that "Ultimate Boeing 747" argument) are severely lacking compared to just about anything a real philosopher could come up with. There was one reviewer who wrote (I forget where) that this is somewhat like attending a lecture on biology by someone who has only read the Book of British Birds - I agree with that, and it continues to amaze me that there are actually so many people who can take that kind of academic arrogance seriously. It's a pity, too, because much of his previous work was excellent. The Selfish Gene, for instance. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 19:00, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Atheism is a "religious belief" the same way "bald" is a hair color. --Gulik 12:50, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Atheism as a supernatural belief[edit]

It might be arguable in the most pedantic sense that atheism does make a claim about the supernatural, but it is not a supernatural belief since its reasoning is grounded in empiricism. Usually the retort is something along the lines of "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" this trite phrase is actually not really accurate. I am writing over in my bayesian essay on how repeated failed predictions does mean you should alter your prior probabilities that something exists. Therefore, any reasonable person should have pretty low priors for an interventionist God. Now Spinoza's God or a totally non-interventionist God can not be have the priors for its existence altered through a lack of evidence, but very few people are talking about such a god when they discuss God. Even the "prime mover" or "first cause" god can have it priors adjusted each time we discover a naturalist mechanism that negates the need for intervention in the universe.

Regardless of any of this, based on the accurate definition of the word fundamentalist an atheist can not be a fundamentalist, it is a perversion of the language and a rhetorical simplification to say otherwise. Go ahead and use something like dogmatic if you want, but fundamentalist has a specific definition with a specific usage history. An atheist can simply not be a fundamentalist. tmtoulouse frustrate 11:20, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Then how do we tell the differance between a religious fundamentalist and a dogmatic religious person? Bohdan 12:04, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
A fundamentalist has two qualities 1) the desire to return to the "core" or "fundamental" beliefs of the first practitioners of the religion. For example, in Christianity fundamentalism would view the ideal Christian as one that practiced the faith like the disciples. 2) They have a literal interpretation of the religious books that surround their faith. Hence fundamentalist are YEC anti-science types because the literal word of God in genesis is a priori literally true.
A fundamentalist is dogmatic but someone who is dogmatic does not have to be a fundamentalist. Square/rectangle relationship here. For example a dogmatic religious person could believe that the resurrection was simply an allegory and anyone that believes otherwise is deluded. He is certainly not a fundamentalist. tmtoulouse frustrate 12:11, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
I take issue with #2. religious texts are not needed for fundamentalism. Bohdan 12:14, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I would agree that a book is not needed per say, but some sort of way of knowing what doctrine your take literally has to exist. I would agree you could have a fundamentalist religious sect based around an oral history, but thats sort of splitting hairs really. Its a belief that ones religious teachings (whatever form they come in) must be taken completely literally. tmtoulouse frustrate 12:21, 10 August 2007 (CDT)