Why fundamentalists need religious moderates

[trotsky]

One of the topics that draws a lot of fire for people who suggest it, such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, is that religious moderates help protect and enable their fundamentalist cousins. So I fully expect lots of flames here, but hear me out.

What are the hallmarks of religious fundamentalism? Basically, you have beliefs that:
1) The Abrahamic god exists
2) People can learn about this god from a religious text (bible, koran)
3) Religious faith (belief without evidence) is reasonable and even commendable

Religious moderates - even some here on DU - will defend the above 3 tenets fiercely. In doing so, they protect their beliefs from criticism. But they do so at the cost of protecting extremist beliefs as well. So instead of articles attacking extremist elements within their religion, we have authors who instead launch salvos at the Dawkinses and Harrises of the world - the terrible "new atheists" who don't understand true religious faith and need to stop criticizing items 1-3 above. And the Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelpses laugh and give those folks a virtual high-five for the assist.

[Bluenorthwest]

1. The moderates are there to hold the coats

and they excel at coat holding.

[Kolesar]

2. "But they do so at the cost of protecting extremist beliefs as well."-this needs further development

Skeptically yours,
Kolesar

[HereSince1628]

3. I Knew It, I Just KNEW IT!!! Unitarianism is a gateway belief to Radical Fundamentalism!

:rofl:

People. No matter where they are, or what they're doing, we've just gotta love 'em or oppose 'em.

[ZombieHorde]

4. I thought religious fundamentalism was when anyone made an argument against God's existence?

Just kidding.

[Boojatta]

5. If any part of my contribution to this thread amounts, in your opinion, to flaming

or even comes close to flaming, then please identify that part of my contribution. Also, please specify whether you believe that it is a flame or you believe that it isn't but comes close to being a flame.

What are the hallmarks of religious fundamentalism? Basically, you have beliefs that:
1) The Abrahamic god exists
2) People can learn about this god from a religious text (bible, koran)

In writing "bible, koran", are you providing a list and indicating that associated with a given fundamentalist there is one item from the list that is used by the given fundamentalist to learn about "the Abrahamic god"? Alternatively, are you suggesting that there is a significant number of religious fundamentalists who consider the combination of the Bible and the Koran to be the basis for their religious stance?

So instead of articles attacking extremist elements within their religion,

Can you give an example of a context where reference to or inclusion of an article attacking extremist elements within "their religion" would have been, in your opinion, appropriate, but where there was no such reference and no such inclusion?

we have authors who instead launch salvos at the Dawkinses and Harrises of the world

Are the salvos directed against the people or against their ideas? Is your primary concern that the criticism of Dawkins and Harris is unwarranted and may nevertheless influence sloppy thinkers who read the criticism, or is your primary concern simply that Dawkins and Harris are the targets of the salvos?

[cleanhippie]

6. Boojatta, you post enough in this forum to know EXACTLY the examples that support this OP.

Don't be so obtuse.

[LeftishBrit]

7. I disagree

SOME religious moderates protect fundamentalists actively. A rather larger number do so by silence, especially in places where it would be highly dangerous not to do so.

But most religious moderates do not actively support fundamentalism, and some actively oppose it.

To treat religious moderates as de facto fellow-travellers of the fundies is rather like treating atheists as fellow-travellers of the hardline anti-theists IMO.

I think one issue actually is the ambivalent meaning of the word 'fundamentalist'. A fundamentalist, properly speaking, is a person who believes that the Bible is the literal word of God, and thus usually considers (for example) that the world was created in six days. This does not necessarily mean that they think everyone else should be forced to believe that the world was created in six days; still less, that they necessarily think that laws should be passed to restrict women's reproduction rights or punish gays; or that it is a sin to vote for a left/liberal candidate. Many of them do believe and act on all these things, partly because the political Right has actively and increasingly co-opted them. But some choose to isolate themselves from the wider society rather than force their views on it; and some even interpret their Bible in a left-wing direction.

There are, on the other hand, quite a few people who are *not* fundamentalists, but who nevertheless believe that traditional Christian values should be forced on society, and that secularism is evil, and that right-wing candidates should be supported to enforce the 'moral law'.

Thus, one could on the one hand have someone who belongs to a small, isolated religious group which is very fundamentalist in its beliefs, but have no interest in wider politics. On the other hand many religious right-wingers are Catholics (not usually regarded as fundamentalists), and it is even possible for an agnostic or a religiously moderate member of a non-Christian religion (Melanie Phillips is an outstanding example of the latter) to be an ardent political anti-secularist, for whon social conservativism acts almost as a religion in itself, divorced from its theological aspects.

Thus, in my view the people to be opposed and fought are the political anti-secularists, ranging from active theocrats to those who use religious traditions to fight for social and often economic conservativism. There is a very strong overlap between these and the fundamentalist believers, but it is not a complete overlap. And the religious moderates are enabling anti-secularism just by being religious moderates - but only if they endorse or accept anti-secularism.

[trotsky]

10. Oh sure, I in no way intended to imply...

that the defense of fundamentalism is intentional on the part of moderate believers. Sorry I was not clear about that. What I was trying to say is that by defending those 3 items, by walling them off from critical discussion and analysis (which is what happens when people like Dawkins are attacked for what they say), the fundamentalist is protected as well.

[Boojatta]

8. I gave some more thought to the Original Post and ...

... I'm wondering ...

Religious moderates - even some here on DU - will defend the above 3 tenets fiercely. In doing so, they protect their beliefs from criticism.

By "defend", do you mean argue in favor of?

I don't understand how arguing in favor of a belief can protect it from criticism. For example, here's a link to a thread arguing in favor of the belief that a good process for the selection of the Republican nominee would be mortal combat between the contenders. Do you think that thread protects the belief from criticism?

[rug]

9. If you spent as much time finding common ground with religious moderates as you do

attacking religion in toto, the influence of fundamentalism would diminish.

But, according to your premise, that is not possible, since you would in turn be abetting fundamentalism.

Consequently, as you fight with believers, fundamentalism laughs and thrives.

[trotsky]

11. You kinda missed the point.

Religion is the foundation of fundamentalism. If you believe you are a religious moderate, what are you doing to combat it? You seem to post a lot of articles about atheism, in particular ones that are critical of it or of atheists who write books. How does that help to diminish the influence of fundamentalism?

[rug]

13. Oh, I grasp your point fine.

You consistently dismiss all religious beliefs as nonsense, and add that it provides cover for rightwing fundamentalists. That is, of, course, wrong, but you repeat it ad infinitum.

Religion does not lead invariably to fundamentalism, nor does its core beliefs, as you assert.

For whatever reason, you repeat this false paradigm and accuse religious believers of complicity. It's bullshit. More to the point, it's disruptive bullshit.

[trotsky]

15. So you accuse me of incorrect tactics.

Yet you post fervently about atheism and feature articles that attack it.

If my tactics are wrong, how are yours correct?

[rug]

20. I've posted many articles about atheism, some critical, some not, none fervently.

Are your opinions insusceptible to criticism?

[trotsky]

23. Ah, I understand.

OK for you to do it, but not for others.

Got it.

[trotsky]

26. I forgot to address this:

Religion does not lead invariably to fundamentalism, nor does its core beliefs, as you assert.

I asserted no such thing. Within a strong secular framework, religion is generally prevented from running its natural course. What I *did* say is that fundamentalism is based on those 3 core beliefs above. But so are your religious beliefs. When you defend those three items, you are also covering for the fundamentalist.

[darkstar3]

12. No it would not.

When did the vocal nature of atheism really get started? When did Dawkins and other prominent atheist writers make public displays of their rejection of faith and the reasons for those rejections? It's only been in the last couple of decades, and it has been in response to the Dominionists and other theocratic movements that have been actively working to inject religion into government on a massive scale since the 1940's.

Fundamentalism thrives only where there is not enough light for the moderates to see the scum on top of the water. That light has to come from somewhere, and it's not coming from the moderates.

[rug]

14. Actually, you're starting to define a common bond with nonfundamentalist religionists.

You imply, at least, that the agenda of fundamentalists are not in harmony with "moderate" believers. Was that what your intention?

[darkstar3]

16. Fundamentalists and moderates agree on a great many things.

Fundamentalists have been able to sell their snake oil to other Christians for decades because the other Christians are never made aware of the negative aspects of their goals. It isn't until the moderates find out that they are not wanted and only used by the fundies that the intramural sparring begins.

While it may seem to you as though atheists push moderates and fundamentalists together, it is only their existence that pulled the two groups apart to begin with. What I bolded above is only due to the appearance of people outside the Christian faith actively criticizing the BS that is fundamentalism. Two steps forward, one step back.

[rug]

17. I was talking about nonfundamentalist believers and nonbelievers.

[darkstar3]

19. And I was saying that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

[rug]

21. Then you'll end up with two enemies and no friends.

Useful in carrying chips.

[darkstar3]

22. At least I'll never have to utter a real-life

"Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"

[Boojatta]

25. Rug, you will carry the fish, and darkstar3 will carry the chips.

At first I didn't think of shoulders.

[trotsky]

24. By the way...

the rest of DU is where I find common ground with religious moderates.

Here in R/T I speak directly about religion, and pull no punches on the subject that I think is poisoning the political dialog and trampling the rights of non-believers. Liberal AND conservative Christians are guilty of this.

Atheists were for the most part quiet and non-confrontational for centuries. We had to be, or else churches generally saw to it that we'd be silenced for good. But even once they couldn't do that anymore, the "New Atheism" was still centuries away - and what was the progress made against religious fundamentalism? Was it vanquished until that mean old Richard Dawkins wrote his first book?

[PETRUS]

18. Interesting and largely true

I'm a preacher's kid. My dad (RIP) spent no energy attacking atheists, but did devote some of his time to debunking fundamentalism. We were run out of town once.

[humblebum]

27. Militant atheism is every bit as extremist as far right religion. nt

[dmallind]

28. And totalitarian communism is as bad as fascism, but that is similarly irrelevant here

and will remain so until we see some militant atheism being displayed or espoused.

[humblebum]

29. You are rolling in it. nt