"How Fundamentalists Promote Atheism"

[Htom Sirveaux]

The image below is a composite of a Christian response to the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate, plus the scientific explanation of sunsets. It is frustrating that there are people who consider themselves Christians and yet seem to be making every effort to promote atheism. Why on Earth would anyone feel the need to choose between belief in God and belief that science can help us understand sunsets? Contrast this with John Farrell's recent piece for Forbes about medieval Christians who pioneered the quest to understand natural causes. Modern American fundamentalism is so far removed from historic Christianity, and yet it has duped many into believing the opposite, that it is its sole faithful representative.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/07/how-fundamentalists-promote-atheism.html

Here's an except from the cited Forbes article:

But the historical record on this is indisputable. This naturalism, as Lindberg notes, was one of the most salient features of 12th century natural philosophy.

It is found in commentaries on the days of creation (perhaps the best place for a natural philosopher to display his naturalistic inclination), but also in more general treatises on natural philosophy by scholars such as William of Conches, Adelard of Bath, Honorius of Autun, Bernard Sylvester, and Cherembald of Arras (most of whom were connected with the schools of northern Franc). These men differed on matters of cosmological and physical detail, of course, but they shared a new conception of nature as an autonomous, rational entity, which proceeds without interference according to its own principles.

As other scholars have pointed out (Toby Huff, for one) it is highly unlikely that science would have blossomed the way it did in the 17th century, had these monks and clerics not set the stage precisely through their insistence on seeking natural causes, natural explanations for phenomena.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2014/06/15/why-limit-science-to-natural-causes-and-who-said-it-first/

And here is PZ Myers cheering fundamentalists on:

Please, please, please keep it up — these Bible literalists do so much to help the cause of atheism. When you insist that a short page of fuzzy poetry must supplant all of biology and must be regarded as absolutely, literally true in every word, rational people are given cause to doubt…and once they begin to doubt the first page of your sacred holy book, they begin to question page 2, and page 3, and page whatever, and quite soon the dedicated priests of your cult are wondering why there is a sudden, catastrophic loss of believers.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/06/17/making-ken-ham-cry-some-more/

[Act_of_Reparation]

1. "Historic Christianity"

Something about that phrase doesn't sit right with me. It sounds like the author is suggesting there was, in times past, a cohesive Christian religion and that the Christians of today are somehow doing Christianity wrong. Neither, I think, are the case.

As for natural theology, I think the most that can be said of it was that it laid the groundwork for future scientific inquiry... chiefly in that it taught us how not to do science. Russell, in his critique of Aquinas, was spot-on. These guys weren't engaged in an honest inquiry. They developed their conclusions first and then set out to find arguments that best suited them. Unsurprisingly, they found those arguments... precisely zero of which hold any kind of standing in modern science.

[Htom Sirveaux]

2. If fundamentalists are promoting atheism more effectively

than Christianity, that's a pretty strong example of "you're doing it wrong" regardless of how cohesive or not Christians have been in the past.

Also, the article isn't claiming that the conclusions of natural theology were right. What natural theologians inaugurated was methodological naturalism, which is fundamental to modern science.

[Act_of_Reparation]

3. That doesn't follow.

If fundamentalists are promoting atheism more effectively than Christianity, that's a pretty strong example of "you're doing it wrong" regardless of how cohesive or not Christians have been in the past.

That is a non-sequitur. The "correct" practice of Christianity isn't measured by whether or not people are taken by your proselytizing. Each Christian sect has its own peculiar flavor of the religion, and its own measures of doctrinal correctness.

Also, the article isn't claiming that the conclusions of natural theology were right. What natural theologians inaugurated was methodological naturalism, which is fundamental to modern science.

I didn't deny their legacy. I merely find it prudent to point out that if we're going to use these guys as examples of scientific-religious compatibility then we need to acknowledge that their work was as much hampered by their faith as propelled by it.

[Htom Sirveaux]

4. But if a Christian sect claims that its goals include converting

as many people as possible, and they are deconverting more than they convert with their methods, then they are undermining their own goals regardless of what other sects think. There's an internal consistency problem even if you don't think that there can be an "essential Christianity" by which all sects can be measured.

They are doing it wrong even by their own lights.
-
I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge where faith went wrong in the past, and learn from that. If faith contradicts scientific fact, faith needs to change. That still leaves a lot of room for reconciliation.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. you are assuming that they measure success at their own goals

through evidence based reasoning. That seems problematic to me.

[Htom Sirveaux]

6. It's true whether they are aware of the problem or not. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Not clear what you meant by "They are doing it wrong even by their own lights. "

Sure rational outside observers would see it as a failure, but there is no reason to think that from within an ideology that does not work on evidenced based reasoning that they would observe this as failure at all.

[Htom Sirveaux]

8. The point is that they've agreed on a definition of Christianity amongst themselves

and it includes evangelizing and seeking conversions. They can now be held to that standard even if you think there is no cohesive "historic Christianity" to hold them to.

[Act_of_Reparation]

9. That's more a problem of methodology than ideology, though

Fundies are, by definition, largely inflexible on their interpretation of scripture, and they do not base that interpretation on popular opinion. That atheism is proving more palatable to the public than fundamentalist Christianity isn't indicative that their interpretation is incorrect, merely that there is a problem with their methods of proselytizing, that they aren't reaching people as effectively as, by their reckoning, they should be.

So, no. The falling popularity of fundamentalism doesn't mean the fundies are doing Christianity wrong, merely that they are doing their Christianity less effectively than in times past.

[Htom Sirveaux]

10. They'd like to think it's just their methodology.

Catholic church says the same thing. "People are against what we teach because they don't understand it properly, or they just hate us."

It's not their methodology. It's their ideology. By their fruits, you will know them. The fruit of the spirit is love. They are not loving.

(P.S. How many Southern Baptists still defend slavery with the same Biblical arguments they used before the Civil War? They can definitely change their interpretation based on popular opinion, they are just really stubborn about it.)

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. And that's the way it looks to you and me

Because we don't start with the presupposition that they are absolutely correct. They, however, do... because it's in their doctrine.

(P.S. How many Southern Baptists still defend slavery with the same Biblical arguments they used before the Civil War? They can definitely change their interpretation based on popular opinion, they are just really stubborn about it.)

I'm not saying they can't or won't change. They probably will, or they will fade away into irrelevancy like so many other sects throughout the course of Christian history.

I'm trying to address whether or not there is a such thing as "real" or "true" Christianity that can be used to measure the doctrinal correctness of all Christian sects. I don't think there is, and find the whole "they're not REAL Christians" argument lacking in substance.

Now, if you want to break that out on them, I won't say peep. But, as long as we're having an objective discussion here, I have to question that logic.

[Htom Sirveaux]

13. I don't like that argument either.

Mainly because I think it denies that they are Christians at all, and I don't think that's true. They are Christians. Bad ones. Bad Christians can still be real ones. I do appreciate the distinction you made between discussions with them and discussions with you, though.

[Warpy]

12. I don't think they've "helped atheism" in any way whatsoever.

What they have very nicely done is increase the number of people who are too embarrassed to admit to having any specific organized religion. Discarding a set of principles, books and dogmas is not the same as proclaiming a disbelief in all gods. Even the Deists who founded this country didn't eliminate the possibility of the divine, they just disbelieved in the kind of god who would concern himself much with the day to day affairs of humanity.

The people who claim "no religion" on forms are just as mistrustful of atheists as the ones who proudly proclaim themselves evangelical, born again, fundamentalist Christians.