Fundamentalists and Atheists

[MagusYanam]

In my experience, extremely conservative Christians and atheists have very similar ways of viewing the world.

Now, I'd like to clarify this a bit. Yes, I realise that atheists don't believe in God, while fundamentalists obviously do. Yes, I realise that atheists (by and large) discredit accounts of miracles, while fundamentalists credit them when they take place in Scripture. But it seems to me that the majority of atheists and the majority of fundamentalists both have extremely mechanistic ways of looking at the world.

In atheism, it is supernaturalism that is discredited. Generally (and I realise this is a generalisation), atheists are also substance monists, firm in the belief that there is only one type of substance (the material), and that the universe is mechanistic in its function. In fundamentalism, supernatural events play a central role, but even the miracles seem to be mechanistic in nature. When Jesus walked on water, they take it to mean that he literally walked on water, rather than delving into the literary and symbolic meaning of 'walking on water'.

So it seems to me that atheists and fundamentalists frame the debate in the same way. Jesus either couldn't literally walk on water, or he could. He either couldn't literally turn water to wine, or he could. The sun either can't literally stand still in the sky, or it can, et cetera ad nauseam. The God that atheists don't believe in is the same God the fundamentalists insist on believing in, a sky-father who intervenes with supernatural miracles and occasional wrath.

In my discussions with both atheists and fundamentalists on this website, both refuse to entertain the notion that when a phrase like 'fig tree' or 'walking on water' is used, something besides a literal fig tree or literal feet walking on a literal body of water might be indicated. Both refuse to even discuss the possibility that there might be cultural differences between the modern world and the world of 30 CE, or the world of 550 BCE, which would lead to a different reading of Scripture today than would have been the cultural norm in yesteryear. So, my question is, do atheists and fundamentalists, by and large, look at the world (and at Scripture) with the same kind of mechanistic mindset?

[McCulloch]

The God that atheists don't believe in is the same God the fundamentalists insist on believing in, a sky-father who intervenes with supernatural miracles and occasional wrath.

As an atheist, I find that my quarrel is more with the understanding of the literalist conservative Christians than it is with the moderate liberal tolerant Christians. If you want to believe in a benevolent God who benignly watches over humanity, who only intervenes subtly and imperceptively, who's teachings are in harmony with the great truths of science, then you are no threat to well being of society. It is the conservative Christian who advocates against science and wishes to turn our governments into theocracies that I address most of my debate against.

[Furrowed Brow]

I’d echo McC’s point. I'm against religious literalism.

But I’m also unmoved by religious metaphor. What is the word "God" a metaphor for, if it does not entail a supreme being that is the creator of the universe and man. Is such a claim just a metaphor? And a metaphor for what? When a metaphorical theist says "god loves us" then they don't actually mean God loves us, for this is then a metaphor. Yes? And then what does it mean to say such things?

Are ID or creationism metaphors for evolution?

I think there are something’s that do boil down to an argument over the facts of the matter. Either JC was crucified and resurrected or he was not. If the resurrection is a metaphor then I'd say Christianity worships a metaphor. JC did not actually suffer, or suffer for our sins, as this is just metaphor.

Bottom line I'd also have to resist the religious metaphor line you suggest because it implicitly admits that the metaphor represents or points to something else. Something beyond that which is literally represented. And as an atheist I deny there is anything "beyond". So what a liberal Christianity might see as metaphor I see as empty story telling.

On the important details then, if religious language is an attempt to represent a fact it is false, if it is an attempt at a metaphor then it fails.

I cannot help but see "religious metaphor" as a metaphor for nothing at all.

[Lacey]

From what you have written, it would seem you have been talking to allot of fundamentalist Atheists. Fundamentalists do take things literally and go way to far in enforcing their beliefs. However I do not believe that Atheists are the same. Atheists do discredit supernatural reasons for the worlds being but they are not fixed in their beliefs towards Religious events. By what you describe, Atheists believe jesus never did live, only because he is described in the bible.

To be an atheist is not to be resolute in their own opinions, but to be open to events that happened, provided that it was not of a supernatural or Godly nature. Fundamentalists are narrow-minded. As far as I've experienced, Atheists tend not to be. Atheists are one side of the spectrum, Fundamentalists are the other.

[MagusYanam]

As an atheist, I find that my quarrel is more with the understanding of the literalist conservative Christians than it is with the moderate liberal tolerant Christians. If you want to believe in a benevolent God who benignly watches over humanity, who only intervenes subtly and imperceptively, who's teachings are in harmony with the great truths of science, then you are no threat to well being of society. It is the conservative Christian who advocates against science and wishes to turn our governments into theocracies that I address most of my debate against.

I would agree with you on this point. But the question isn't one of politics - I suspect that politically you and I are much alike - the question is one of hermeneutics. When you choose to debate with fundamentalists, I notice that you play by their hermeneutical rules when I see no need to use their playbook. I think reading Genesis as a cultural mythology and treating it like literature (even holy literature), people get more out of it than if they use it simply to determine the age of the earth. The latter, to me, is a triviality, and when so much emphasis is put on that triviality you can surely understand how it might become almost offensive.

[McCulloch]

When you choose to debate with fundamentalists, I notice that you play by their hermeneutical rules when I see no need to use their playbook. I think reading Genesis as a cultural mythology and treating it like literature (even holy literature), people get more out of it than if they use it simply to determine the age of the earth. The latter, to me, is a triviality, and when so much emphasis is put on that triviality you can surely understand how it might become almost offensive.

Fine, if you put Genesis on the same footing as Gilgamesh, The Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson, Chaos, Oceanus, Eurynome, Ophion, Gaia and Uranus, then yes, it is just another ancient creation myth which perhaps has some underlying spiritual truth. Your hermeneutical rules can basically make the Bible say whatever you wish it to say and not say whatever you wish to avoid.

[k-nug]

My personal experience has been that If the God of the bible is who he claims to be, all powerful, all knowing, then his Word must be perfect, and beyond reproach. This would mean to me that the flood did happen, because God said it did. The same would be said for all the other supernatural claims in the Bible. God really did create the earth in 6 days, Jesus really did come down to earth to perform miracles and commit suicide. It is impossible for a God to have created the Universe then have a Bible that is unclear in it's assertions whether or not the things He says happens actually happens or if it's all just metaphorical. If God did not really actually flood the earth, that would make God a liar, even if he meant it as a metaphor, because he never says, 'this is just a metaphor'

Basically I'm approaching the whole thing as if an omnipotent God controls every word written in the bible.

[bernee51]

In my discussions with both atheists and fundamentalists on this website, both refuse to entertain the notion that when a phrase like 'fig tree' or 'walking on water' is used, something besides a literal fig tree or literal feet walking on a literal body of water might be indicated.

As an atheist I am quite happy to entertain the notion that the stories in the bible are all allegorical. This includes the virgin birth, the sacrifice of the 'only begotten son', the resurrection ascension etc. The main problem I face is that many believers do not wish to see it that way. Not only do they not wish to but for them the whole Christ story has to be factual or it loses meaning. I for one can see a meaning in the myth. Seeing a meaning in the myth does not necessitate the existence of gods.

)
Both refuse to even discuss the possibility that there might be cultural differences between the modern world and the world of 30 CE, or the world of 550 BCE, which would lead to a different reading of Scripture today than would have been the cultural norm in yesteryear.

This is one off my chief bugbears...many biblicists insist on reading the bible as if it was authored yesterday. They are unable or unwilling to realise that these stories are tribal myths designed for and appropriate to agrarian cultures from millennias past.

For example, given these stories arose in the desert it is no wonder that 'paradise' is a garden of plenty.

So, my question is, do atheists and fundamentalists, by and large, look at the world (and at Scripture) with the same kind of mechanistic mindset?

I can't speak for all atheists but this atheist, in order to communicate at the same level as a fundamentalist beleiver, has to treat the stories in the same light as they do...despite their obvious allegorical nature.

[seventil]

First off, good post Magus, very well said. I agree with your sentiments.

The God that atheists don't believe in is the same God the fundamentalists insist on believing in, a sky-father who intervenes with supernatural miracles and occasional wrath.

As an atheist, I find that my quarrel is more with the understanding of the literalist conservative Christians than it is with the moderate liberal tolerant Christians. If you want to believe in a benevolent God who benignly watches over humanity, who only intervenes subtly and imperceptively, who's teachings are in harmony with the great truths of science, then you are no threat to well being of society. It is the conservative Christian who advocates against science and wishes to turn our governments into theocracies that I address most of my debate against.

Well McColloch, our goal is one and the same then. It's nice to see; we can be on different sides of the table (which we usually are in our debates), yet our purpose is exactly the same. Weird world isn't it?

[MagusYanam]

When you choose to debate with fundamentalists, I notice that you play by their hermeneutical rules when I see no need to use their playbook. I think reading Genesis as a cultural mythology and treating it like literature (even holy literature), people get more out of it than if they use it simply to determine the age of the earth.

Fine, if you put Genesis on the same footing as Gilgamesh, The Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson, Chaos, Oceanus, Eurynome, Ophion, Gaia and Uranus, then yes, it is just another ancient creation myth which perhaps has some underlying spiritual truth. Your hermeneutical rules can basically make the Bible say whatever you wish it to say and not say whatever you wish to avoid.

As to the first, yes, I think there is value in Babylonian legend, Norse epic poetry and Greek myth - they are also cultural narratives and each one can have valuable insights into the values and social mores of each culture (if you read between the lines). The same is true with Genesis. Of course, being a part of the Abrahamic culture being represented by Genesis, the text has more relevance to me as Holy Scripture.

Secondly, if you are accusing me of using a hermeneutic based on wishful thinking, making Christianity a kind of fuzzy feel-good religion, that simply isn't true. Even mythologically and symbolically, the flood story is, quite frankly, disturbing to me. And don't even ask me about Abraham and Isaac - a lot of Christians might applaud Abraham for his faith, but I look at that story and I cringe. How might I feel if my father felt he had to kill me as a test of his faith, or would I upon hearing a command from God be compelled to kill my own son? You can dismiss my hermeneutic all you wish, but the fact of the matter is, I'm also constrained by the text - perhaps even more constrained than the fundamentalists, because I'm willing to be intellectually honest about it.