Article on Fundamentalism

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Excuse the interruption, but I feel the need to interject here. For an argument to qualify as a strawman fallacy, it must needs use a type of "Red herring" as it were.

A "red herring" and a "stawman" are two different fallacies. "Red herring" is the use of a distraction to draw a debate away from an issue. A "stawman" on the other hand, is the fallacy of mischaracterizing an argument in such a way as to make it appear to be easier to knock down. A strawman takes the following form:

Argument Y is not the same as Argument Z
A makes Argument Y
B responds by characterizing A's argument as Argument Z
B then responds to Argument Z

[lunamoth]

The article is a strawman, then. It takes the extreme position in Fundamentalism and makes it out to the the typical one. I certainly agree that the extreme Fundamentalist attitude described in the article is disagreeable and dangerous. I just doubt that it is the typical one.

lunamoth

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

The article is a strawman, then. It takes the extreme position in Fundamentalism and makes it out to the the typical one. I certainly agree that the extreme Fundamentalist attitude described in the article is disagreeable and dangerous. I just doubt that it is the typical one.

lunamoth

Not exactly. The author defines what he means by "fundamentalism." If you think that you or someone else doesn't fit the description, then you are not a "fundamentalist" of the sort the author is speaking of in the article. You are mixing your own definition of "fundamentalist" with the author's. He may not be using the word the way you would prefer to use it, but he does define it. That is not a "strawman." It's a difference in the definition of a word.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Not exactly. The author defines what he means by "fundamentalism." If you think that you or someone else doesn't fit the description, then you are not a "fundamentalist" of the sort the author is speaking of in the article. You are mixing your own definition of "fundamentalist" with the author's. He may not be using the word the way you would prefer to use it, but he does define it. That is not a "strawman." It's a difference in the definition of a word.

Then perhaps what we have here is "The Old Bait and Switch."

I was in a similar discussion not too long ago about faith. Another poster defined faith as "that which is believed without evidence or in spite of contrary evidence." The dictionary definition of faith does not say belief in something in spite of contrary evidence, although that might be true in some examples. Building a case in which his definition of faith was actually a vice, he then implied that all faith is vice.

One makes a claim about something one has narrowly defined and leave the audience to make the jump that the claim applies to the broader or more typical definition.

By the way, we have reached (and surpassed) my limits in logical debate, so I'll concede your next move, counselor.

peace,
lunamoth

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Then perhaps what we have here is "The Old Bait and Switch."

I was in a similar discussion not too long ago about faith. Another poster defined faith as "that which is believed without evidence or in spite of contrary evidence." The dictionary definition of faith does not say belief in something in spite of contrary evidence, although that might be true in some examples. Building a case in which his definition of faith was actually a vice, he then implied that all faith is vice.

One makes a claim about something one has narrowly defined and leave the audience to make the jump that the claim applies to the broader or more typical definition.

By the way, we have reached (and surpassed) my limits in logical debate, so I'll concede your next move, counselor.

peace,
lunamoth

I don't view his definition as substantially out of line with the "broader or more typical definition." He uses the term "fundamentalism" the way I have usually seen the term used. "Fundamentalists" are usually defined in terms of their behavior rather than their beliefs - it's a method, not a specific worldview. Which is precisely how Falkenberg is understanding and using the term. It's also why it can't be considered a strawman, because he isn't debating their argument (so it goes without saying that he isn't mischaracterizing their argument). Rather, he is pointing out their method and some problems with it.

[lunamoth]

Hi AdD,

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to defend (or attack) fundamentalism no matter how one defines it. And, the attitude and methods described in the article are dangerous and destructive. But I still don't see where the author says he's talking only about a certain type of fundamentalist. In religion fundamentalism is a contemporary reaction to liberalism and specifically it is claimed by those Christians who fully accept the tenents of religion laid out in the pamphlets called The Fundamentals issued between 1910 and 1915. This included the five dogmas: 1) inerrancy of scripture, 2) the Virgin Birth of Christ, 3) Christ's atonement of our sins on the cross, 4) his bodily resurrection, and 5) the objective reality of his miracles. I think it is misleading to imply that fundamentalism typically leads to bombing abortion clinics or even shrill streetcorner preaching. But it sometimes does.

peace,
lunamoth

[Abogado del Diablo]

As I'm researching, I'm finding that there is no widely accepted or understood definition of "fundamentalism." I guess that makes it all the more important to read what a particular author means when he or she uses the term.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi AdD,

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to defend (or attack) fundamentalism no matter how one defines it. And, the attitude and methods described in the article are dangerous and destructive. But I still don't see where the author says he's talking only about a certain type of fundamentalist. In religion fundamentalism is a contemporary reaction to liberalism and specifically it is claimed by those Christians who fully accept the tenents of religion laid out in the pamphlets called The Fundamentals issued between 1910 and 1915. This included the five dogmas: 1) inerrancy of scripture, 2) the Virgin Birth of Christ, 3) Christ's atonement of our sins on the cross, 4) his bodily resurrection, and 5) the objective reality of his miracles. I think it is misleading to imply that fundamentalism typically leads to bombing abortion clinics or even shrill streetcorner preaching. But it sometimes does.

peace,
lunamoth

When talking about the history of a certain Christian "fundamentalism" I would be inclined to agree that historically it had that meaning - it was at one time a reference to Christian separatists and splinter groups claiming to follow the "five fundamentals" (whether that is actually what these early groups were about is a matter for another discussion).

Today, the word is more often used as a general term describing a way of approaching religion and religious belief rather than any particular belief system. Which is why you can talk about "Islamic fundamentalists" in the modern world and people aren't confused as to why Muslims would be following the "five fundamentals" of Christianity.

There is a dangerous element to any religious (or political) ideology whose adherents perceive themselves as the true messengers of the "One Truth" in a cosmic battle between good and evil being played out in the events on Earth. Once you accept the worldview that those who do not completely agree with your interpretation of things are not only wrong, but evil, or heretical agents of the devil out to murder the souls of the faithful and innocent, it's a short ride to killing people in the name of one's "faith." That's not to say that all adherents to such extreme ideologies participate in or approve of such activities. However, there is a way of thinking that makes such acts "morally available" to believers. Moreoever, even if it never rises to the level of physical violence, a worldview that holds that those who disagree are agents of the "anti-christ" or the devil, is violent in its nature because it tends to deny others' humanity and prevents empathy, love, tolerance, understanding, forgiveness and all the other things that faith should be about.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

When talking about the history of a certain Christian "fundamentalism" I would be inclined to agree that historically it had that meaning - it was at one time a reference to Christian separatists and splinter groups claiming to follow the "five fundamentals" (whether that is actually what these early groups were about is a matter for another discussion).

Today, the word is more often used as a general term describing a way of approaching religion and religious belief rather than any particular belief system. Which is why you can talk about "Islamic fundamentalists" in the modern world and people aren't confused as to why Muslims would be following the "five fundamentals" of Christianity.

There is a dangerous element to any religious (or political) ideology whose adherents perceive themselves as the true messengers of the "One Truth" in a cosmic battle between good and evil being played out in the events on Earth. Once you accept the worldview that those who do not completely agree with your interpretation of things are not only wrong, but evil, or heretical agents of the devil out to murder the souls of the faithful and innocent, it's a short ride to killing people in the name of one's "faith." That's not to say that all adherents to such extreme ideologies participate in or approve of such activities. However, there is a way of thinking that makes such acts "morally available" to believers. Moreoever, even if it never rises to the level of physical violence, a worldview that holds that those who disagree are agents of the "anti-christ" or the devil, is violent in its nature because it tends to deny others' humanity and prevents empathy, love, tolerance, understanding, forgiveness and all the other things that faith should be about.

Hi AdD, well actually I agree with all you've said above. It's just that I live in a part of the country where a lot of very nice people consider themselves fundamentalists. I don't agree with fundamentalists on every point but I acknowledge that the Body of Christ has both liberals and conservatives, progressives and fundamentalists. And at least from my perspective we are all Christians. People do change their worldviews, sometimes radically, but I don't think we need to wait for everyone to come to the same worldview before we work toward unity and peace. I guess I'd rather look for bridges rather than broad stroke labels that divide.

peace,
lunamoth

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

A "red herring" and a "stawman" are two different fallacies. "Red herring" is the use of a distraction to draw a debate away from an issue. A "stawman" on the other hand, is the fallacy of mischaracterizing an argument in such a way as to make it appear to be easier to knock down. A strawman takes the following form:

Argument Y is not the same as Argument Z
A makes Argument Y
B responds by characterizing A's argument as Argument Z
B then responds to Argument Z

Ouch, I guess I deserved that. Serves me right for using the phrase in my explanation. Good call counselor!