Fundamentalism/Literalism, why I think it's wrong

[Talon]

Certain religious sects espouse a worldview that their particular holy book must be adhered to literally.

Captain Picard of Star Trek: TNG summed up why this worldview is wrong quite nicely. The particular episode was forgettable, except for Picard's quote:

There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute!

Now here's my reasoning.

First, we do not live in the same time or place as those books were written. Situations will arise today that weren't conceived of in the ancient times. For example, the Muslim fundamentalists believe that a man who is killed fighting infidels will be rewarded with 72 virgins in heaven. Or so the old texts say. One problem: what about female fighters/suicide bombers today? Do they get a party of 72 male virgins? Or do the female virgins in heaven swing both ways? This phenomenon isn't addressed. Though I'm sure there were female fighters and martyrs back then, I doubt they would have gotten any honourable mentions. I heard one religious leader try to explain, but he was totally improvising - something that's supposed to be anathema to a fundamentalist.

Second, even if we assume the original author or authors of say, the bible, had some kind of divine inspiration. How can we be sure the author interpreted and transcribed God's vision to paper correctly? Humans are after all, flawed creatures. Ok, say the original author was momentarily possessed by divine forces and made no mistakes during writing. Problem again is they didn't have photocopying machines back then. Books had to be copied manually, by scribes. How can we be sure the scribes didn't make any mistakes? Now we come to the passage of centuries. How many iterations has the original language gone through? Small translation errors start to creep in, multiplied by the passage of time. The inerrant word of God can't be so inerrant if it had to be passed on by mere mortals.

And that's why I think fundamentalists are woefully kidding themselves.

[Boozy]

I agree with you. I suspect the rest of the Fratching community will agree with you, because we've got smart people here. But you'll never be able to convince a fundamentalist of anything.

You'd have to be a blazing moron to think that the Bible or the Koran can be interpreted literally. But the world has no shortage of blazing morons. Some of them choose to focus their idiotic energies on religious fundamentalism, but they could just as easily choose something else. The real problem isn't religion, it's ignorance. And they're committed to it.

[guywithashovel]

I agree with you. Literal interpretations of virtually any holy texts---particularly those written in ancient times---defy logic, common sense, and evidence.

To reiterate something Boozy said, I'm sure most of the rest of the people here are going to agree with you. There are some people here who adhere to religion in one form or another, but during my time on this board I have not witnessed any of the members espousing fundamentalist religious beliefs. So I'm afraid that most of the replies that you're going to get are going to be messages along the lines of "Yeah, I totally agree." This probably isn't going to generate much of a debate due to the reasons described above.

However, in defense of religious fundamentalists, I think it needs to be said that many of them believe as they do simply because they have been indoctrinated from early ages to do so. I'm not saying all of them fall into that category. I'm just saying that it's probably safe to say that most of them do. Most of them aren't "stupid," either. Many of them actually are quite intelligent. They just have unsupportable beliefs.

On the same token, though, I can certainly understand the frustration that can be felt towards fundamentalists and their attitudes. To be perfectly blunt, I find their overall lack of respect for science and education to be sickening. Most of them have zero respect for scientists, doctors, and other scientific professionals who devote their lives to advancing knowledge and improving our qualities of life. To illustrate what I'm saying, here is a quote from a cousin of mine who is a Fundamentalist Christian.

"Most of these doctors today have so much science in their heads that I think they think they ARE God. Heck, I don't even think some of them even believe in God."

To me, that kind of disdain and lack of respect for people who spend their entire careers fighting diseases and ailments so that we may live longer, healthier, and more enjoyable lives is just flat out sickening. Any person who becomes highly educated, especially in science or medicine, is pretty much guaranteed to attract the scorn of religious fundamentalists. This is a sad, disgusting fact of life.

Also, I'm sure most doctors do not think they are "God." If they do, they need to see doctors themselves, ones that specialize in mental health.

[Rapscallion]

Oddly enough, even though I think religious fundamentalism is blatantly a fool's game, I have a grudging respect for someone who adheres to everything that their bronze-age tribal history tells them.

Most religions around these days tend to ignore the inconvenient bits - whether that being that homosexuality is said to be wrong, or that someone shouldn't eat pork/shrimp, or that they should be nice to other people.

Actually, most fundamentalists ignore that last bit as well... Forget I said anything

Rapscallion

[Talon]

I agree with you. I suspect the rest of the Fratching community will agree with you, because we've got smart people here. But you'll never be able to convince a fundamentalist of anything.

In all the debates I've ever witnessed, I don't think I've seen anyone use the "language-creep-over-time" argument I used. But you're right, the only people who would ever consider such an argument wouldn't be fundamentalists anyway. Oh well.

[Boozy]

In all the debates I've ever witnessed, I don't think I've seen anyone use the "language-creep-over-time" argument I used.

Really? I have always found it to be the most commonly used argument against Biblical literalism.

[Talon]

Oh. Guess I haven't witnessed enough debates then.
But considering the literalists tend to repeat the same non-sequitur arguments, such debates get old very quickly.

[AFPheonix]

However, in defense of religious fundamentalists, I think it needs to be said that many of them believe as they do simply because they have been indoctrinated from early ages to do so. I'm not saying all of them fall into that category. I'm just saying that it's probably safe to say that most of them do. Most of them aren't "stupid," either. Many of them actually are quite intelligent. They just have unsupportable beliefs.

This is a very large portion of it. It is augmented with how insular the life of a fundamentalist can be. If all your friends are from sunday school, if your parents put you in a religious school, if all you listen to at home is religious music and radio station, if all you get are religious books, then you pretty much grow up thinking this is the right way.
Further, you are put into a mindset that the rest of the world is out to get you, and that people who disagree with your rigid interpretation are either evil, misguided, or possibly under the power of satan or demons, you don't try to understand where normal people are coming from. You are in a battle: Christians in an army of righteousness, with the full armor of God, fighting against the iniquity of an imperfect, sinful world.
They also tend to prey on people who've had a rough go of it and can be susceptible to the thought that even though life sucks here on earth, if you think and believe the "right" way, you'll get to go to a better place when you die.
I know, I lived it. Thank god for secular college.

[lordlundar]

Second, even if we assume the original author or authors of say, the bible, had some kind of divine inspiration. How can we be sure the author interpreted and transcribed God's vision to paper correctly? Humans are after all, flawed creatures. Ok, say the original author was momentarily possessed by divine forces and made no mistakes during writing. Problem again is they didn't have photocopying machines back then. Books had to be copied manually, by scribes. How can we be sure the scribes didn't make any mistakes? Now we come to the passage of centuries. How many iterations has the original language gone through? Small translation errors start to creep in, multiplied by the passage of time. The inerrant word of God can't be so inerrant if it had to be passed on by mere mortals.

Funny you should bring this point up. The best example I can come up with was the King James version of the Bible, which was intentionally modified to justify the witch hunts.

[AdminAssistant]

Does anyone else find it funny that the first major English translation of the Bible was named after King James - the most openly gay King in the history of England?

[AFPheonix]

I just find it funny that some fundies are dismissive of other translations like NIV and deem it to not be as accurate as KJV, even though the flaws in that particular translation are well documented.
It's pretty bad when you're so extremist as to think mainstream translations of your own holy work are the work of the devil.

[Teysa]

Hmm, where to start. I was raised as a Christian fundamentalist and I still adhere to many of the beliefs. That being said, I try to treat others as I would like to be treated whether they have the same belief system as I do or not. I'm a strong believer in leading by example. I don't wear a bunch of Christian paraphenalia at work, nor do I go around quoting Scripture. Speaking of which, it is quite possible that some things have been lost in the translation over the centuries;however, the overall message remains the same. The problem does not lie in the message: it lies with those who receive it and twist it to their own ends.

As far as interpreting it literally goes, much of the Bible is written figuratively with many of the stories being used to teach a lesson. That does not make it any less inspired. In my opinion, if everyone simply took the 'love your neighbor as yourself' part literally, the world might be a better place. If you truly love someone as much as love yourself, you're not going to lie to them, steal from them, kill them, sleep with their spouse, etc. Anyways, I don't think believing that is so wrong.

[Evandril]

In my opinion, if everyone simply took the 'love your neighbor as yourself' part literally, the world might be a better place. If you truly love someone as much as love yourself, you're not going to lie to them, steal from them, kill them, sleep with their spouse, etc.

Heh, the world would be a better place if people would learn *TO* love themselves, honestly. From my experiences, too many people would have little problem lying to themselves, stealing from themselves, ect.

[Teysa]

Sadly, I'm afraid you're right, Evandril. Maybe it's something to strive for at least.

[Evandril]

Now, THAT, I would highly agree with