Fundamentalist Mindset

[JRKH]

If you read the thread you would see that we acknowledge Catholics are just as prone to this mindset as Protestants. That’s why it is here on the NCR forum.
BrotherJr over on the Traditional Catholic forum of CAF gives a very good explaination of the difference between fundamentalist Catholics and mainstream. Radical Trad Catholics, like thier Protestant counterparts, know a lot about the LETTER of Catholic law. They claim to be devout Catholics yet thier actions and words belie what they claim. Thier “certainty” is not examplified in thier actions.
Certainty is not just intellectual. Certainty can only be evidenced by action.
If fundamentalism were truly the moral and doctrinal light of the world, then we would see fundamentalist hospitals, fundamentalist homeless shelters, fundamentalist mental health clinics, fundamentalist soup kitchens, ect.
Certainty is not something to be proclaimed, as much as it is to be worked out. The certainty is there, but worked out differently. That is healthy certainty.
When I was a Baptist pastor years ago I used to say “Show me your Christianity. Can I touch your Christianity? What does your Christianity ‘look like’ when it is ‘happening’?”
Carrying a KJV Bible does not make you a Christian anymore than a uniform makes you a General.

Nice post but I must take issue with the bolded section.
I don’t think that equating something being a "light of the world’ with formal institutions is valid. Many ecclesial communities and faith traditions run, or participate in any number of charitable causes such as you describe above. Many more individual members of those communities live exemplary lives within their life circumstances and vocation.
I agree that it is perfectly valid, and quite in line with St James’ epistle to ask, “Show me your Christianity”…but that evidence need not be on the outside of a building…

Just a thought…

Peace
James

 

[JustaServant]

Nice post but I must take issue with the bolded section.
I don’t think that equating something being a "light of the world’ with formal institutions is valid. Many ecclesial communities and faith traditions run, or participate in any number of charitable causes such as you describe above. Many more individual members of those communities live exemplary lives within their life circumstances and vocation.
I agree that it is perfectly valid, and quite in line with St James’ epistle to ask, “Show me your Christianity”…but that evidence need not be on the outside of a building…

Just a thought…

Peace
James

But we are not talking Protestantism. We are talking fundamentalism, an ailment that afflicts both Catholics and Protstants. There are many Presbyterian, Lutheran, and even evangelical institutions that exemplify thier beliefs. There are many Protestants that live their lives as examples of thier certainty and faith.
Fundamentalism on the other hand, with thier emphasis on what they perceive to be “purity” fails in this regard. Benevolant iInstitutions are only an example. Thier lives are spent convincing themselves and others of thier certainty, without letting thier lives speak it for them.
“Work out your salvation with fear and trembling”.

 

[JW55]

I don’t know if this thread is to address 1) Fundamentalism in general, 2) Catholic fundamentalism, or 3) Protestant fundamentalism.

I will make a comment as to the mindset of most Protestant fundamentalists I know. I can only speak for the ones I personally know, so I am not making a blanket statement about all fundamentalists: They want a black or white answer. They don’t read the scripture in context. They won’t consider any logic or science in their beliefs. They use selective listening and fail to look at the big picture. This mindset seems to also apply to areas in their lives outside religion. The ones I know pick up an isolated statement and fail to hear anything else and base their opinion on that. They have a “fear” of God as opposed to a “love” of God. They take an opinion that they want and that becomes the “only” truth.

I guess I would consider a Catholic fundamentalist as someone who lives by the Catholic ideal of following all the precepts and teachings of the Catholic Church. I would consider this a sounder approach than that presented in what I know of fundamentalism in Protestant circles since the Cathoic faith is based on the Bible, the Traditions of the Church, and the advise of the magisterium rather than having the local minister’s personal Biblical interpretation as the sole spiritual advise.

 

[Contarini]

If I may ask, how much evidence is enough for something to be truly called miraculous and how much contrary evidence does it take for the evidence to be called “deceptive?” But I wouldn’t go as far as saying that if we hold to young earth then reason is useless. This is a perfectly reasonable statement: “If God did not intervene, then the evidence points to old earth.” Isn’t that qualification implicit in all our reason anyway?

No. For instance, in the case of the resurrection of Jesus, the evidence points on the whole to the thing actually having happened. The reason many people don’t believe in it is that it’s miraculous. The virginal conception, admittedly, is a more difficult case resting more on faith and less on evidence (though as Fr. Raymond Brown has pointed out, the absence of any expectation that the Messiah would be born of a virgin is, in a sense, evidence that the thing may have actually happened). But it doesn’t require us to see the “evidence” as deceptive.

The poster to whom I was responding suggested that God created the world with an appearance of age. That’s what I mean by deceptive evidence. It’s not the claim that God intervened, but the claim that God intervened specifically with regard to the evidence that we have.

So, for instance, if we were to find the embalmed corpse of Adam and he didn’t have a belly button, that would be evidence for special creation. As it stands, we don’t have any direct evidence either way, so those compelled by their understanding of the faith to hold that Adam was specially created are not positing deceptive evidence (except of course with regard to the general evidence for human evolution, but I’m creating a very narrow–and rather silly–case to make a point). But if we found the embalmed corpse of Adam and it did have a belly button, and creationists argued that God gave Adam a belly button even though Adam had no need for an umbilical cord, then that would be “deceptive” evidence.

It is interesting that so many people are claiming that intellectual certainty is a motivation for fundamentalism. As a Protestant, I would say the most frustrating thing about you Catholics is your certainty that your Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and how you are not open to even consider the possibility otherwise (BTW, not all of you). So I don’t know if I would say that intellectual certainty is a desire of fundamentalist any more than it is a desire for Catholics. I would much rather say this is a description of fundamentalists.

Well, many Catholics would say that there’s a form of “Catholic fundamentalism” characterized precisely by this hunger for absolute, clear-cut certainty. I try to be careful using the label “fundamentalism” as a kind of diagnosis rather than as a historical descriptor. But I do see many Catholics on this forum thinking in ways that are highly reminiscent of Protestant fundamentalism.

I think that trying to use religious authority as an answer to epistemological anxiety (which I follow William Abraham in regarding as a deeply mistaken move) is a broader phenomenon than fundamentalism, but fundamentalism is certainly one of the forms of Western religion most characterized by this habit.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Good post. Many Catholics on the internet seem to have a vast dislike for creation. I am a Creationist and it is very much hated in Catholicism by many lay people even though it is allowed

It’s not about disliking *creation, *God forbid. It’s about disliking the intellectual blindness and even dishonesty characteristic of the movement dubbed “creationism.”

Edwin

 

[jericho777]

Sorry, I don’t buy this.
How is “liberal” the opposite of “fundamentalist”?
What is liberal?
Many fundamentalists would consider “liberal” praising God with contemporary music, concern for the environment, joining in interdenominational fellowship, and welcoming mixed-race couples into the church, pants on women, long hair on men. We could go on for hours.
If you mean “theological liberal”, how is that defined?
Does that imply we MUST except everything in the Bible as written as though it was a CNN news report? Or are there stories in the Bible that are intended to go beyond our modern understanding of the purpose of storytelling. When I was a fundamentalist, to question a world-wide flood was considered “liberal”. That’s all or nothing thinking.
All-or-nothing thinking is a cognitive distortion that everything must be in black and white. Thinking purely in extremes. I.e. If Noah didn’t build an ark and the WHOLE world was not flooded, then its a lie and everything else in the Bible is a lie.
In building the wrong foundation (everything in the Bible ACTUALLY happened in the EXACT way it is depicted) the fundamentalist totally misses the point of the stories themselves.
To believe otherwise is not liberal, it is understanding the Bible as it was intended, not in our modern understanding of it.
As JRKH pointed out, simplicity and certainty go together and are powerful psychological reasons people are attracted to fundamentalism.

Liberal and conservative are merely perspectives from one’s own point of view. Conservatives hold for adherence to a certain set of established values while liberals have no regard for those standards. I am just defining the terms not putting forth a judgment. However most here would in general consider today’s society as liberal based on the historical direction from our nations past.

Why couldn’t everything have happened as the bible portrays it? Is God incapable of doing miraculous things that don’t make sense to science? After all they are working with limited knowledge trying to explain the actions of an infinite God. It is clear from scripture people held to a literal interpretation of the word. They certainly held the view of a global flood and the literal destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Also about the issue of mixed race couples remember what God did to Moses’ sister Miriam when she disapproved of his dark skinned wife.

God is a God of order and peace. He has promised us His peace which when trusting Him brings certainty. We do not have blind faith but the presence of the Holy Spirit assuring us of His promises.

 

[InJesusItrust]

How can you not see why assuming only the laws of nature works leads to faulty reasoning? The universe is billions of years old ASSUMING only natural laws. God is deceiving no one, we are deceiving ourselves with vain philosophies.

 

[Contarini]

How can you not see why assuming only the laws of nature works leads to faulty reasoning? The universe is billions of years old ASSUMING only natural laws.

No.

That is not an adequate description of the evidence.

You said it yourself–for the young-earth hypothesis to be true, God would have had to create evidence of “apparent age.”

This isn’t about natural laws vs. supernatural intervention.

It’s about evidence.

To give another example beyond the one I already did:

If God heals someone of heart disease, that’s a miracle. But if the person has a scar on his chest as if he’s been operated on, and there’s a record in the hospital that he was admitted for heart surgery, and you tell me that it was really a miracle and God created this “apparent” evidence as part of the miracle–then we have a problem.

Edwin

 

[InJesusItrust]

It appears old because we are presuming naturalism. It is really that simple.

If you have the wrong philosophical assumptions don’t be surprised if the evidence looks wrong. Have you actually looked for evidence for Creation and Biblical archaeology?

 

[Contarini]

It appears old because we are presuming naturalism.

No. That’s not true.

Plenty of people who are not naturalists believe in an old earth. This is a creationist canard that just doesn’t hold up.

If you have the wrong philosophical assumptions don’t be surprised if the evidence looks wrong. Have you actually looked for evidence for Creation and Biblical archaeology?

I was educated using fundamentalist textbooks. So yes.

And again, you’re misusing the noble word “Creation.”

However, I’m not a scientist by training but a historian and a scholar of religion, and my main problem with young-earth creationism is how badly it reads the Bible.

So yes, theological and philosophical assumptions do play a role. If you’re locked into a hopelessly anachronistic reading of Genesis as some kind of proto-scientific treatise, then of course you will find it hard to look at the evidence fairly.

For instance, “canopy theory” requires you to read the Hebrew word “raqi’a” as a water canopy, when it pretty clearly refers to something like a metal dome with windows in it through which water could pour. But since that is clearly unscientific language, creationists force the word to mean something that etymologically and historically is at best wildly improbable.

This has nothing to do with “naturalism.” It has to do with reading both Biblical and scientific evidence in a manner that respects the God who has revealed Himself to us in so many wonderful ways, instead of forcing Him into our own intellectual paradigm shaped by an overreaction to atheistic naturalism.

Edwin

 

[InJesusItrust]

When scientists claim something is true they base it upon the mindset that miracles don’t exist and uniformity. They look to the present to find evidence for the past. For instance, the law of decay that is used to date things is based on the assumption of uniformity based on present observation that things decay at a constant rate. From this they model what the initial fraction must be based on what they theorize from other scientific findings. If the past was always the same as the present then this is warranted. We assume the past is the same as the present based on repeated observations. Without such an assumption, science could discover nothing about the past.

But on the other hand, if something in the past changed and was not uniform present state of things (say having been created out of nothing) then we got a problem. For example most people will concede that the flood couldn’t happen without a miracle, and scripture calls it an act of God. Scripture does call in an unnatural event. And here we are saying it didn’t happen because we are assuming natural mechanisms.

I have a hard time believing that God waited till about 2000 years ago to save humanity when all those millions of years passed and prehistoric humans were behaving like barbarians, killing, raping and eating each other. I have a hard time believing all saints were wrong when God gave them visions and locutions discussing the flood. I find it hard to believe that Jesus spoke literally about something that never happened.

Fortunately I have personal experience with a supernatural God and I know the crucifixion is true, so I am sticking with what I know for sure rather than what I don’t. Many people, however educated they are, are wrong for not believing in the Resurrection. I feel that if they knew it was true they would be more keen to discuss the limits of the scientific method.

 

[Contarini]

When scientists claim something is true they base it upon the mindset that miracles don’t exist and uniformity. They look to the present to find evidence for the past. For instance, the law of decay that is used to date things is based on the assumption of uniformity based on present observation that things decay at a constant rate. From this they model what the initial fraction must be based on what they theorize from other scientific findings. If the past was always the same as the present then this is warranted. We assume the past is the same as the present based on repeated observations. Without such an assumption, science could discover nothing about the past.

But on the other hand, if something in the past changed and was not uniform present state of things (say having been created out of nothing) then we got a problem. For example most people will concede that the flood couldn’t happen without a miracle, and scripture calls it an act of God. Scripture does call in an unnatural event. And here we are saying it didn’t happen because we are assuming natural mechanisms.

Right–that’s a fine argument as far as it goes. As I said, I once believed it myself. The problem is that it doesn’t account very well for most of the actual evidence, according to scientists who are not naturalists.

I mean, it’s quite conceivable that you could have scientists saying in case after case, “wow–it really looks as if these strata were laid down by a catastrophic event–but of course these must all be separate catastrophic events because a worldwide flood is miraculous.”

That really is sort of what happens in the case of the resurrection. Most fair-minded non-Christian scholars say something like, “the evidence seems to indicate that Jesus’ earliest followers thought Jesus had really risen from the dead.” That is to say, up to the point that evidence can speak, it speaks in favor of the resurrection. Non-Christians (quite reasonably on their presuppositions) draw the line at actually believing the resurrection, and the evidence isn’t strong enough to compel belief. But it’s good as far as it goes.

But in the case of “flood geology,” the hypothesis doesn’t make the best sense of the evidence and is rejected even by most conservative Christian scientists.

I have a hard time believing that God waited till about 2000 years ago to save humanity when all those millions of years passed and prehistoric humans were behaving like barbarians, killing, raping and eating each other.

Well, for one thing I’m not sure we know that much about the moral behavior of early humans–we have some instances of what seem like atrocities, and certainly they were sinners, as we are.

But more to the point, why is it a problem to think that God would allow this for millions of years and not for 4000 years? And why is your difficulty in imagining why God would so something particularly relevant? If you didn’t know that God had done so, wouldn’t you have a lot of difficulty understanding why God would allow the Holocaust? Given that appalling fact that we know happened, I find your objection completely unconvincing.

I have a hard time believing all saints were wrong when God gave them visions and locutions discussing the flood. I find it hard to believe that Jesus spoke literally about something that never happened.

You’re assuming that visions, locutions, and apocalyptic language are naturally to be taken literally. I find that odd.

You’re illustrating the “fundamentalist mindset” quite nicely. You “find it hard” to believe that things are non-literal, because this seems to threaten your faith. Exactly.

Fortunately I have personal experience with a supernatural God and I know the crucifixion is true, so I am sticking with what I know for sure rather than what I don’t. Many people, however educated they are, are wrong for not believing in the Resurrection. I feel that if they knew it was true they would be more keen to discuss the limits of the scientific method.

I believe in the Resurrection because I trust evidence, not because I don’t.

Mind you, I agree that the Resurrection cannot be proven by natural means, and that other things our faith requires us to believe (like the virginal conception) are more difficult to argue for by normal historical methods.

But I’m not a fideist. There are good reasons to believe in the Christian faith, though not 100% conclusive ones.

Edwin

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic of the OP please.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Hmm? I actually believe there is evidence for flood and Sodom being burnt to a crisp like the city burnt by brimstone but that scientists will never give anything more than “that is stupid” because it threatens their faith in what they have learnt.

Sorry back on topic.

 

[JRKH]

Aren’t we a bit off topic here???

Certainly the different reading/understanding of Genesis YE v OE is a part of the fundamentalist mindset…But the discussion of this matter seems to be highjacking the thread…

We need to get back on topic…

For any who have forgotten the OP…Here it is repeated…
What in your opinion, is the psychological/emotional reasons people are attracted to fundamentalist Christianity?
I am asking this of both Catholics AND Protestants, since both are afflicted with this phenomenon.
I would say that the discussion of YE v OE contributes very little to answering this question…Unless one wishes to study the exchange and try to draw psychological/emotional conclusions from it.

Peace
James

 

[InJesusItrust]

Sorry for going OT. Carry on.

 

[Contarini]

Hmm? I actually believe there is evidence for flood and Sodom being burnt to a crisp like the city burnt by brimstone but that scientists will never give anything more than “that is stupid” because it threatens their faith in what they have learnt.

But that’s the easy way out. You can claim anything you like, and dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as being obviously “threatened” by this “evidence.”

The problem is that when you look at the kind of “evidence” that young-earth creationists and Biblical literalists generally present, over and over it falls short.

I’m open to this kind of evidence when it actually holds up. For instance, I think it’s possible that some dinosaurs did survive long enough to coexist with humans–which is heresy from a mainstream scientific perspective. I find the mainstream explanation that dragon legends come from the discovery of dinosaur skeletons less than fully convincing.

You’re just wrong when you claim that people only disagree with these kinds of claims because of fixed presuppositions.

But the reverse is true. You and other Biblical literalists aren’t open at all to the possibility that *your *evidence might be wrong.

Again, the basic problem here is your misreading of the Bible.

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

Aren’t we a bit off topic here???

Certainly the different reading/understanding of Genesis YE v OE is a part of the fundamentalist mindset…But the discussion of this matter seems to be highjacking the thread…

We need to get back on topic…

For any who have forgotten the OP…Here it is repeated…
What in your opinion, is the psychological/emotional reasons people are attracted to fundamentalist Christianity?
I am asking this of both Catholics AND Protestants, since both are afflicted with this phenomenon.
I would say that the discussion of YE v OE contributes very little to answering this question…Unless one wishes to study the exchange and try to draw psychological/emotional conclusions from it.

Peace
James

 

[Taestron]

I think that trying to use religious authority as an answer to epistemological anxiety (which I follow William Abraham in regarding as a deeply mistaken move) is a broader phenomenon than fundamentalism, but fundamentalism is certainly one of the forms of Western religion most characterized by this habit.

I actually think that religious authority has a better claim for epistemological authority than any other authority including reason. I’m not sure that he goes this far, but I agree with Alvin Plantinga on this. But why, when we cannot have epistemological certainty on fundamental issues like reason itself, shouldn’t we subscribe that God is more reliable than anything we can do?

Obvious to whom?
If someone, professor or otherwise, is giving you the answer to a question that he says is “obvious”. that’s called blind acceptence, not learning. Humans were given by God the ability to question, to ask how and why. Not to simply believe an apparent “authority” on a subject because he says it is “obvious”.
If fundamentalists encouraged reason and thinking, they would cease to be fundamentalists. Once that certainty is establishished, it resists any attempt to question it.

Obvious to the one who holds to the answer. When we learn, we learn all sorts of evidences to defend the answer. There are very few of my beliefs that I don’t think are correct, and I think that it is “obvious” considering the evidence. You should know that some of the smartest people I have ever met would be considered fundamentalists. To say that they discourage reasoning or thinking shows that you don’t truly understand the complexities of this group of people.

In response to the original inquiry. I think the attraction of fundamentalism is really just people thinking they are correct. Perhaps they are mistaken, but if they don’t see the alternate evidence as convincing, why should they entertain the possibility that they are wrong? It might be good to note here that fundamentalism is not a very flattering term. Perhaps it is only ascribed to those who obstinately hold to a different type of evidence than us.

 

[Hunter24]

Its a simple idea with clearly defined barriers and though, providing a sense of superiority as one of gods chosen elect, and not requiring a particularly great amount of though. what they beleave is presented to them in the Bible which is supposed to be word for word historicly, scientificly, and spiritualy accurate. their entire belief system laid out in just one book, pretty convinient.