Religious fundamentalists are the third common type of conservative one finds in America. Religious fundamentalism began in the early 20th century when a number of different sects and synods of Christianity agreed that there were certain fundamental tenets of Christianity that could not be ignored or altered, as many of the more progressive and liberal churches had begun to do. Along with this belief in the fundamentals of Christianity came a new importance on a purely literal reading of the Bible.
The problem with Religious fundamentalists is that 1) typically their religion is shallow, 2) they willfully ignore evidence from non-theological sources (scientific and philosophical), and 3) many of them are very unprincipled in their beliefs. All three of these points need some elaborating.
1) Fundamentalist religion is typically shallow. The meaning of this is twofold. First, fundamentalist religion tends to be a reaction to a scientific criticism of religion. Scientists, starting in the 18th century, began attacking religion on the grounds that many of the stories in the Bible didn't make literal sense, or couldn't be scientifically verified. In this situation someone like a Thomist would respond first, by making the philosophical point that not all knowledge is scientific, which implies that just because something is not scientific does not mean it isn't true, and second, by making the theological point that the Bible is not to be taken entirely literally. In contrast to this, the fundamentalist typically accepts the critic's argument that Biblical story cannot be scientifically verified, and from that infers that science itself must be suspect! This response is different not just in degree, but in type from that of the Thomist, or any sophisticated advocate of religion.
The second way in which religious fundamentalists are shallow is that they never move beyond the fundamentals. Religions grow and adapt (which does not necessarily mean that they change dogmas or adapt to the fads of society) in part by accumulating an oral tradition. This includes commentaries on scripture, stories and legends of Saints, folk tales, traditions, and a host of other things that make a religion more rich and suited to being lived by its adherents. The fundamentalist abandons all of this in the sake of a religion Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone).
2) The fundamentalist willfully ignores evidence from non-theological sources. This fact makes religious fundamentalism inherently dubious (not to mention uninteresting) to those who do not share their faith. Faith they may have, but reasons, they do not. And without reasons of some sort, one is not inclined to engage with them or trust their ideas, because they declare from the outset that they intend to ignore whole disciplines that seem worth pursuing.
3) Many fundamentalists are unprincipled in their beliefs. What this means is that fundamentalists seem very passionate about a seemingly random collection of topics, yet oddly ignore others. For example, fundamentalists are very worried about issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and birth control, but oddly silent about other Biblically sanctioned topics like usury. It would be quite refreshing to hear a Republican moral-majority candidate rail against student loan providers and credit card companies for their sinful interest rates, but alas, this does not happen. There are many other examples that could be brought forth, but I do not think they are needed.
The relationship between religion and conservatism (let alone religion and philosophy) is a highly complex one. One idea that is extremely interesting is that religion is needed for a stable society. Civilization needs law and order and this is exactly what a robust religion offers. It offers it by giving the average person incentive to act like a mature human being, where the secular law fails to do so. This is the role that Leo Strauss claims religion played for the wise men of the ancient world. In this case, religion and politics would have mutual interests and stakes in society. This topic cannot be taken up here, but the ideas of Leo Strauss and religion will surely be taken up again, and hopefully soon.
-Cato the Youngest
No comments:
Post a Comment