+Wales: Beware “Atheistic Fundamentalism”

You know the attacks on Christmas are getting really bad when +Wales complains about them!  Now for some help defending Jesus’ divinity, virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death, being the only saviour from sin, bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven and return as judge.  How about it, +Barry Morgan?  We could really use some help over here talking to +KJS!

In his Christmas message, he said: “Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous.”

It sure would be nice if the speaker would define what he means by “fundamentalism.”  The word is so over-loaded that different readers will apply whatever definition suits them. 
The closest he comes to a definition is this:

[Fundamentalism] allows no room for disagreement, for doubt, for debate, for discussion. ... It leads to the language of expulsion and exclusivity, of extremism and polarisation, and the claim that, because God is on our side, he is not on yours.

But if so, then he reveals himself as a fundamentalist by his own definition.  For this very statement allows no room for disagreement, doubt, debate, or discussion.  The assertion that all statements are open to debate is itself a fundamental assertion.  So what is he really saying?

carl

I am glad to see someone of prominence put a name to this scourge.

The Enlightenment brought the idea that religion was not worth dying for into the mainstream of Western thought. This was certainly seductive after 150 years of wars between Christians. But the Enlightenment failed to end the wars…

Be careful being too supportive of this statement.

It may be, when you look at it carefully, the Archbp is as concerned about these people’s epistemic certainty (‘fundamentalism’) as about their non-belief in God (atheism).  The trouble is not that they are atheists, but that they think atheism is true, and are willing to act on it. He is equally opposed to Christians who believe in truth (apart from the certainty that we can’t be certain . . . see carl’s good comments above).

I have oocasionally referred to an acquaintance of mine as a “proselytizing atheist.”  He is not content to believe in nothing himself, but insists on spreading his “gospel” of nihilism.  Personally, I believe in freedom of religion, as defined in the Constitution.  I do not believe that most people have chosen wisely or truly considered their own religious beliefs, but I will stand by their legal right to make such choices.  However, increasingly in recent years, there has been a movement away from the Constitutional guarantees of “freedom of” to a status of “freedom from.”  Any of us with religious convictions are under increasing restraint- witness the story we read of Anne’s encounter with her supervisor at the “Christmas Tree” store.
    Those of us employed in the public sector have been under such restrictions for decades.  Of course, in many places, the restrictions are partly ignored- many school choirs still sing “Joy to the World” but often at a “Holiday” concert.  Where I work, we now have a “Tree of Knowledge”, so that atheists will not be offended, apparently regardless of the fact that some number of Christians and Jews might be offended, since tree of knowledge is a frequent English translation for the forbidden tree in Genesis.
    So, while I certainly disagree with +Morgan in his take on the faithfulness of TEC, on this one, I think he is making a point that needs to be made.  It seems that British society is even farther down this road than we are.  Like all rights, if we do not stand firm for the right to exercise our religious beliefs without state interference, we will lose those rights.  The same political forces that have imposed their will on TEC over the last 50 years are intent on imposing their will on the society at large, in this case, rather than perverting and abusing canons, they are perverting and abusing amendments and laws intended to insure religious tolerance.

A Professor of Philosophy at one of our area colleges has some good commentary on the “new athiests” - I’ve posted it here:
http://northernplainsanglicans.blogspot.com/2007/12/dr-david-ohara-job-and-new-atheists.html

I remember when I was interviewing during The Process for ordination.  One of the members of the Commission on Ministry (a seminary professor, no less) asked me if I was a fundamentalist.  I asked him what he meant by “fundamentalist” and he said:  “I’m asking the questions here.”
So, I said something like:  “If by ‘fundamentalist’ you mean someone who believes that every work of Holy Scripture is literally true such that the world was created in 7 24 hour periods known as ‘days,’ then no.  I am not a fundamentalist.  However, if you mean someone who believes the fundamentals of the faith as written in the historic creeds and shown in the Book of Common Prayer, then yes, I am a fundamentalist.”

We are all “fundamentalists” of one sort or another.  The only question is what are our fundamentals?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder