Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism

quote:

---

The liberal voices in the churches have long been reluctant to say anything too critical about fundamentalists, on the grounds that they have every right to live by the beliefs they feel most comfortable with. In view of the obvious devotion and commitment displayed by fundamentalists, liberals have often leaned over backwards to accommodate their viewpoint. That tolerance continued even after fundamentalists became more assertive from the 1960s onward.

​

Although tolerance is always commendable, it unfortunately slows down the educative process. A great gap has opened up between biblical and theological scholarship on the one hand, and what went on at the parish level on the other. The ordained ministry, on the whole, failed the churches by not passing on to their congregations what they themselves were learning at their seminaries. Because they did not wish to upset their more conservative parishioners, they often left the churches in ignorance of the radical changes taking place. The time has come, and is indeed overdue, for the liberal voice to be heard loud and clear in the churches, even if it does lead to some controversy. In fact, the churches have always been at their strongest when they have been engaged in real debate, either internally or externally.

---

I doubt that this will be very effective in convincing fundamentalists, however. Fundamentalists are just as suspicious of and resistant to liberal Christians as they are of atheistic naturalists. I think a better approach is to find conservative Christians who the fundamentalists will trust, but who have a broader perspective than modern fundamentalists. I've mentioned a few here already (James Orr, G.F. Wright, B.B. Warfield).A number of present-day writers from an evangelical perspective (not liberal Christians, but also not fundamentalists) could also be helpful, including:
Deborah & Loren Haarsma, "Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution"
Darrel R. Falk, "Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology"
Denis O. Lamoureux, "Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution"
John H. Walton, "Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible"
Peter Enns, "Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament"
Kenton L. Sparks, "God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship"

I strongly agree, everyone should be familiar with this work. IMO it is the most powerful antidote to the disease of irrationality in existence.In the extremely rare cases where a fundamentalist or any other anti-logic types actually try to read this work, they will either renounce their ways, or much more likely run away screaming that they are being picked on, never to post again.This stuff is pure poison to fundies, none in my experience can survive a reading from beginning to end without change. Can any fundie left here take the challenge? Full text free on the web at the above link.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Thanks, AnglagardI have referred Altemeyer's work to several conservatives and fundamentalists on several discussion boards, local newspaper blogs, as well as people in 'real life' and have gotten the same response. They will not read it or take the test because it is biased and flawed and liberal.They are unable to see that the test is really about submission to authority, not about current political belief. A hardcore fundamentalist Christian in America could score the same as a hardcore atheist communist in China.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Thank you for the link to Altemeyer's book. I'm reading it right now and I am finding it fascinating and very informative. I look forward to reading the rest.A thread with just the test and people posting their scores would be interesting, I think. I obviously feel very strongly about things. lol

Hey roxrkool. See Are You an Authoritarian?Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Wonderful! Thank you.

Shalamabobbi: Thanks for the link to this thread.It is not possible to "convince" a Creationist. It is a basic philosophical difference whose gap is so deep it cannot be bridged. Simply put, a Creationist's view of life in this universe is firmly planted on the simple "I believe" (in this case the inerrant word of God as written in Genesis). The only way to shake that is to destroy that belief. I don't know if that destruction is either wise or in most cases, doable.A scientist (atheist or a theist who accepts science, and yes, this does imply that Creationists are not only anti-Evolution, but anti-science, in general) accepts only the statement, "show me and prove it through the scientific method". These worlds cannot be reconciled.The solution is to take, say Mississippi and Louisiana (so a lot won't have to move), toss all the Creationists in there. Call it Creoland. But, make sure they get none of the benefits from science, i.e. let them wallow in what the say they want. And let them take the consequences of their belief. The USA can be the rest of the country. Borders will remain open for immigration both ways, but no Creationist evangelism will be allowed in the USA and no teaching or bringing the benefits of science will be allowed in Creoland.It's vicious. It's impractical. Humans seem bent on saving others from their errors. But it's the only way I can see to deal with Creationists that will work, at least theoretically.(as an aside, this could also apply to other deep philosophical divides, like Marxism and Capitalism - i.e. let them live with what they espouse and get benefits from nowhere else. Lincoln (IIRC) said something like "you've made your bed, now lie in it".

Hi Sarawak,It is not as bleak a picture as you paint. I know very many who have made the transition from YECism to accept evolution. Most of these did so w/o affecting their faith. Admittedly for some the process is slower, but the cat is completely out of the bag now with the internet.Maybe the solution is to take the creationists to court on fraud charges, not with the intent of winning/punishing, but to get more publicity on TV.

You must know a different cut of Creationists than I do. I've lived in Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas and the only Creationists you might sway there are the ones who don't really believe and are about to leave their religion anyway. I had to work with one out of ORNL and spent a lot of time biting my tongue (the things one will do for money).BTW, most of them that I have met professionally are engineers, something that makes little sense to me. Every pastor of the fundamentalist variety will say "If you [scientist] are right then we are wrong - it is one or the other". And they say that regularly on Sunday mornings.We might see it as "lying for the Lord". They see it a witnessing and one of the best things they can do. How can you sue them for fraud (since fraud involves doing something, knowingly) when to do that you have to disprove their faith, something that is as impossible to disprove as it is to prove the existence of God.This is not going away except with the passage of a long period of time. Some will defect, yes, but there will also be defections in the other direction (some will be reborn).It doesn't even make a difference that they look silly etc., their faith covers all that up.The killer is not the Internet, since a Creationist doesn't care what the facts are. The killer will be modern science and medicine which will do so much that eventually almost all will ask why there is a need for them to believe in God. While we are making great progress, it's still a long way off.

Engineers don't have any biology requirements to fill. At least I didn't.You are east and south. That explains a lot. I was raised in California.As far as the fraud charges, I was thinking along the lines of organizations like the ICR or the Discovery Institute. There may be some possible way for an individual to sue them on fraud charges depending on the circumstances. It could be someone who has given them money via donation. It could be someone whose life was damaged in some significant manner by accepting their dawdle as fact. An enterprising lawyer could probably find something.As far as change being a long way off we'll have to wait and see I guess. I think that human chromosome 2 and ERV pattern evidence is substantial enough that most of the younger generation at least will be on board with evolution. This has rather recently been made available and the internet as a means of dissemination via youtube is a fairly effective vehicle.

Consider that most (parents) believe that a God is responsible for our existence, so I'd go the Government route to ramrod in those guidelines. A tough choice, but if you think it'll hold up...go for it.

---

- Sky-

ERV pattern evidence and human chromosome 2 evidence did not exist when most parents went to school. Most parents will not want their children to be handicapped with false teachings anymore than they will want them to be taught that Galileo was wrong and the earth really is the center of the solar system and universe.

Fundies will be converted by the love and grace that shines from your heart regarding all you say and do as you interact with people. No "killer" topics in science or medicine will do the job.

---

- Sky-

That's the "What we learned last week" tactic. I have used that one.So that would mean the idea didn't actually come from "facts" but that some "facts" were scraped up to support the theory. Which happens to be how R&D often works.I would suggest that such an all encompassing "law of nature" would be prevalent at every level of awareness. If you were raised by seals on seal island, you should see enough evidence to be able to figure out your origins using "seal" intellect.And I believe one can. Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.

---

- Sky-

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden