Heathen Dawn

They all say that. Substitute "Christianity" for "atheism" and you'll get the words of an evangelical believer. These religions all, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Naturalism, all are truth-worshipping religions, in which truth is the highest god, error the foulest devil, reason and evidence and logic the Straight Path, feelings and wishes and inclinations of the heart a snare and the road to hell (cf. Jer 17:9). The differences are in method alone, not in essence: those say "the Bible", the others say "the Qur'an", and yet other say "science"; but all share the commonality of holding that the discovery of the Truth is humanity's goal.

BigJim

But Science has built in checks and balances, and expects answers to continuously change and evolve. The Bible (not sure about the Qur'an), claims to be infallible, and absolute.

Jehanne

You are correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

But,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

The belief in Biblical inerrancy dates back to the Middle Ages:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100110.htm

Jehanne

Science does not make absolute claims to absolute truth, neither does atheism (at least the version that I subscribe to.)

Mageth

Which again brings the question of what you meant by "fundamentalists" before "modern" Fundamentalists.

Neither "biblical inerrancy" nor "biblical literalism" was not necessarily a belief in Christianity before, or even during, the Middle Ages.

Jehanne

Prior to Galileo, you will not find a single theologian, cleric, monk, etc., who believed or taught that the Bible was fallible. Consider what the Council of Trent stated:

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

Mageth

Infallibility is not the same as literalness or inerrancy

Perhaps that is true (but I don't see how one could prove that claim), but I suspect it was also relatively rare to find someone who thought the Bible was to be taken literally, and I would suspect that inerrancy was not much of an issue either. Infallible does not imply literalness or inerrancy. Infallibility is quite different than literalness or inerrancy.

In earlier times, Mythos was prominent (as opposed to Logos, or Reason) when considering religious texts. Under Mythos one was more free to openly interpret the Bible symbolically, rather than literally (e.g., Noah's Flood and the Creation Account, under Mythos, are not necessarily literally true, even though their "mythic truths" may be deemed "Infallible"). The "literalness" or "inerrancy" of the Bible was not an issue, was not a problem that needed to be addressed, under Mythos.

Jobar

Jehanne, I think that we all sometimes confuse believe and conclude. We skeptics may reach a point where all we believe are reasonable conclusions; we have no beliefs which are not at least slightly tentative, and which aren't open to reconsideration in the light of any newly acquired data. We have beliefs, but no faith in the religious sense.

I (tentatively ) believe that those who *do* have faith aren't necessarily mentally ill (although they certainly may be!), but that they are... well... deluded, or at least unwilling to examine their faiths in the light of all the facts at their disposal. They hold their beliefs emotionally, and are unwilling or even unable to overcome that emotional attachment, and examine the ideas in which they hold faith rationally, intellectually.

Your second point explains why this is so prevalent; most people fear death. So the emotional motivation to cling to an idea which promises that you don't *really* die is obvious. So a large part of becoming an unbeliever is to overcome (or at least face) that fear. (If your screen name comes from Jehanne Butler, you already know the Litany Against Fear!)

I don't think that most theists are crazy, but I do think they lack a certain sort of bravery and self-honesty that we atheists and agnostics have.
--------------------------------

Heathen Dawn, science, and most skeptics, don't search for some ultimate Truth. Instead, the small-t variety of truth is our goal; I think that we should be humble enough to admit that we are motes, and thus incapable of understanding some ultimate meaning and purpose for this practically infinite universe we so briefly inhabit. To me, theism is a sort of hubris.
-----------------------------

Welcome to II, Lenina- I hope you continue posting, as we have a dearth of believers as well educated and well spoken as you show yourself to be.

Lenina

BigJim, you sound a little antagonistic to me. Can I remind you that I am not the enemy?

I believe a large part of the Bible was never intended to be taken literally, and that sadly, modern people have lost that poetic, metaphorical way of thinking that would probably make much of this stuff obvious to them. If you compare Biblical writings with Babylonian or Persian documents of the same time period, you find a similar style. It is as if I told someone I had a frog in my throat, and they wrote that English women of the 21st century regularly swallowed amphibians. What I said would have been completely true, but not in the literal sense.

Theism is a logical response in that it is not insane and it does not contradict observable evidence (in my opinion). If you want a proof of the existence of God, I'm afraid that is beyond my abilities, but you'd be hard pressed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the contrary.

It isn't for me to tell other people what is a "correct" belief system and what is not, although I'll happily point out the logical inconsistencies if I see them. Is the Bible fallible? I don't know. I don't even know if the books we have in the present day Bible are those that God would want there to be. The book of Job seems a bit sus. OTOH, maybe it's there because it teaches a valuable lesson and I'm looking at it with a rational, 21st century brain.

You see, I don't think Christianity is supposed to be nailed down, liturgicalised, systemised, controlled by priests and rationed out to the people in little ceremonies. I don't think Christian morality is supposed to be black-and-white, laid out like the Highway Code (UK rules for driving), with no exceptions to prove the rule. I think life is messy, contradictory and confusing, and that religion must reflect that. It has to be flexible, and individual and require us to use our God-given brains to figure out the way ahead. The Bible is a light, not a map.

You are assuming I am trying to make you accept it. Maybe I feel it's up to you - that it is between you and God what you should and should not believe, and how? Maybe it's not for me to try to foist faith on anyone, but simply to be myself and to be honest. Maybe my only motivation is to share mutually, in the hope that we can learn from each other?

Jehanne

I doubt that many of today’s fundamentalists would be so "literal" in their interpretation of the Bible:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html