Have you ever considered that fundementalism is more about lack of faith?

Question

I was really surprised earlier to see someone say that scientists shouldnt even look at the origins of the earth, that the bible tells what happened and that was all we needed to know. It put me in mind of a quotation I read several years ago about fundementalism being a wall to protect people from their lack of faith. I apoligize for not having the exact quote. I have been looking for it without success. Interestingly, it was from a catholic priest.

Anyway, I do have to wonder. Do you think that some religious fundementalists are actually afraid of facts that might disagree with their belief system, so they shut down any inquirey?

Answer 1

You may be on to something there concerning fundamentalism. Scriptures tell us to test all things. The Bible is certainly enough of a formidible document to be able to withstand the scrutiny that it has undergone over the years. The science that is out there today is very conflicting for the evolutionist. As far as a lack of faith goes. All believers have struggles of faith. We feel tested, but we can't put our heads in the sand. We study and pray and continue to do life with those around us. As we learn and grow there is no reason to "shut down" when we questioned about our beliefs.

Answer 2

"Have you ever considered that fundamentalism is more about lack of faith?"

No.

I think that fundamentalism is a reaction to modernism. It's a fairly recent thing.

In the modern era (post 1800s) the scientific method was accepted as the only valid proof for anything. That was a mistake in terms of religion.

Religious truths are not like the proofs of the scientific method, and trying to apply scientific proofs to religion is a bad idea.

THAT is what has resulted in Fundamentalism - the idea that in order for anything to be "true" it must be scientifically accurate and provable. And because that idea was so universally accepted, religious people spend a lot of time and effort in trying to defend the "accuracy" of stories that were never intended to be taken as scientific or historical fact.

Religious truths are not like the proofs of the scientific method. They are more like the intuitive insights of poetry or art.

I think, personally, that religious people should simply stop trying to "prove" the truth of their religion's poetic and symbolic stories by twisting their interpretations of holy writ. It looks desperate.

And, truly, if your religion has value, it need not be scientifically provable. That's not what religion is FOR. Science can tell us HOW things work - but has nothing to say about human suffering or the ultimate value of human life (if there is any). Religion has a lot to say about that, but is not a good measure for understanding the mechanics of the universe.


Trying to apply religious truths to science is a bad idea. It's an equally bad idea to try to apply scientific rationalism to religion. This only results in bad science and bad religion.