I'm writing this to address the claim made by Reza Aslan in this opinion peace for the Washington Times (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/harris_hitchens_dawkins_dennett_evangelical_atheists.html) in which he makes mention of the existence of an atheist fundamentalism. That is to say: it doesn't exist.
First, let's begin by defining fundamentalism.
1.
A movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2.
the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3.
strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.
Given that the first two definitions clearly apply to religion, we need not bother examining them. The 3rd definition applies best to the type of atheist fundamentalism you often hear people talking about but, they attempt to use this in the context that atheism is a religion, which it is not. If I hold the idea that the Toronto Maple Leafs are the greatest hockey team of all time and adhere to that idea despite their dismal record, you could call me a fundamentalist given this 3rd definition. However, in this way, it loses any negative connotation that those who argue in favour of the existence of atheist fundamentalism are trying to imply.
My Leafs analogy brings me to the next point I want to make. People appear to be confusing "atheist fundamentalism" with a passion for atheism. It is this passion that when strong can lead to statements that may not be wise to make. When you are speaking passionately about something, when you love the idea, your emotions flow and with that comes the good and the bad. For example, referring to believers as "stupid". It's not an accurate or kind description of believers and even comes off as being too simplistic in light of knowledge and research done into why people believe (http://blogcritics.org/books/article/book-review-gods-brain-by-lionel/). The point is, we should not allow a person's strong opinion on an issue be viewed as fundamentalism. Otherwise, we start throwing the word around too easily.
No comments:
Post a Comment