Reasonable Dissent

War of the fundamentals

I’m sure it comes as no surprise that there is a huge fight on both sides of the theism debate to characterize each other as “fundamentalists”. Indeed, some on the Christian side occasionally take pride in such a term (I have yet to see quite the same from non-theistic proponents, though their fervor can be hard to match as well). And then still more fight the term on principle, maybe because they think that it’s getting a poor reputation, surely yet another tactic in this battle. So how do we sort out the madness? How do you actually say that someone is wrong and you are right – definitively? Well, it’s not the saying that’s hard. Everyone already does that, but how do you make it a good argument?

Obviously, I’ve already got a side on this issue, and I think you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who did not. And I think it benefits both sides to consider from the point of view of the other. In my research and conversations with Christians, one thing that really sticks with me is the argument I sometimes hear about evangelism, converting unbelievers. Think of it this way: If you believed, really, truly believed, what they say that they do – that all of humanity was in danger of eternal hell, that there was only one way out, that they alone could guide you into salvation – what kind of person could not be adamant, even pushy about it?

Unfortunately, I think that they use this argument selectively. I generally find it hard to believe that most Christians actually believe to the level necessitated by this argument. If they really, truly believed, what would that imply? Should you go to a doctor? If you happen to die because you didn’t go to a doctor, is that a sin for not trying to preserve life, or are you in God’s hands at that point? Do you wear a seatbelt? I mean, if you’re saved right now, and you happen to get into a car accident, wouldn’t it actually be better to just jump to eternal bliss right now? If you really believed, wouldn’t you sell all of your possessions and follow Jesus with as little as you need? The implications for this kind of belief are many, and I don’t usually see it.

On the other side of the coin, what about the anti-theists which is a big difference, though not mutually incompatible, with atheism? If you really see religion as an evil in the world – teaching children that blind belief is more virtuous than common sense, that it adds guiltless justification for atrocities which far outweigh any redeeming benefits – that you would fight tooth and nail to get it out of here? There are proponents on both sides, and getting inside their heads sometimes sorts out the confusion a little bit. To honestly hold such a world-view and not be almost confrontational about it would be hypocritical. So who is right?

It’s not so obvious how you might show that you are correct. The real problem is a difference of basic principles. Anti-theists tend to hold reason and evidence as of utmost importance (I happen to do this too), and theists usually have “divine inspiration” on their side. And while some of them may claim that it’s a very logical and provable proposition to believe in God, I’ve yet to see anyone actually defend that well. In all of my experience, when we push down to it, they always admit that there is a leap of faith, however small in their eyes, required to get where they are. And who am I to say that this is wrong?

But the key difference I see is that in most things, they want to rely on reason and evidence as well. Intelligent governance depends on sound ideas, and a common position that I see a lot on both sides is that a theocracy mangles both the government and the religion horribly. This is something that I think the FFRF works for, quite nobly. And I see such ’separation of church and state’ as the only possible way of coexistence (and even then it’s a stretch). There are specious arguments against this too, such as a recent commentary out of Memphis which says,

Every “freethinker” in the world screams for tolerance… They are an example of the adage that if you tell a lie — such as the myth of “separation of church and state” — often enough, it becomes accepted as truth.

That phrase does not appear in our country’s founding documents. The First Amendment guarantees that one particular religion or denomination would not be forced upon the country, that no one would be allowed to infringe upon our rights to exercise and express our religious beliefs. It was, quite clearly, freedom for religion, not from religion.

I disagree completely with this interpretation, because it rests on the fundamental assumption that everyone has a religion. It’s the letter of the law, not the spirit. It also opens the door for someone to get fed up and say, “Fine! Call atheism a religion and lets enjoy the freedom that entails.” This is extremely harmful in the long run, and defeats the whole purpose. We’d open the floodgates of, “See! You have just as much faith as me!”, undermining the whole idea of rational belief in atheism. And I’ve said this before: even if that’s exactly what the law meant, that doesn’t mean it’s right. If that’s what it means, then we need to work to change it.

There’s no simple solution for the war of fundamentalists, because to truly believe what each one says they do, you simply must act the way they do. But if we keep it out of our government, then neither side steps on the other’s toes. We can have our debates and our fights and disagreements, but they don’t have to destroy the way everyone caught in the crossfire lives their lives. I think to both sides, this had better be an acceptable goal, since they both claim to care about us so much.

Tags: atheism, fundamentalist