Is fundamenatilsm really < moderatism?

ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Is fundamenatilsm really < moderatism?

There is a view that moderate religious groups hide fundamenalists. That the fundies are a small minority.

But I wonder.... Lets make a list (or scatter-graph, whatever) with fundies on one side, moderates on the other and a healthy grey section in the middle.

Blows self up, or otherwise kills for god - fundy.

Non-practitioner, uses religion for ceromonial purposes (weddings etc) - moderate.

Evangelists - fundies

Goes to church occasionally but doesn't let it alter their world view (predjudices etc) - moderate.

Doesn't care about the environment because revelations will come first - fundy

Believes that homosexuals, athiests whoever are evil just because they were told so - fundy

Does not eat certain foods because they were told not to - ??? (if religion can control what you eat what other control do they have over you?)

Wears/does not wear certain things (including jewelery) because they were told to - ??? (if religion can control what you wear what other control do they have over you?)

Pathological need to go to church every Sunday - ???

Talks a lot about who's going to hell - fundy

Voted for Bush - ?

...

I think the sides are more even than people think.

I actually have a catholic friend at work who I would regard as a moderate because she has very modern views on everything (goes to church on sundays to keep her mum happy), she was really shocked when a fundy at work told her she was going to hell for believing in evolution! Had to come to the athiest for solace, ha ha ha...

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Coopaloop
Coopaloop's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2008-02-09
User is offlineOffline
From my own experiences I

From my own experiences I would have to say the sides are about even. I think it seems as though there are more fundamentalists because they are the ones making all the fuss and attract the most attention.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
According to these criteria,

According to these criteria, I'm a moderate fundamentalist.  LOL

I would view a moderate as one who had watered down the message of Christ to the point where, to quote the Lutheran (I think) theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, "a God without wrath welcomes Man without sin into a Kingdom without judgement through the ministry of a Christ without a Cross."

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
I guess the main thing that

I guess the main thing that I don't like about religion is the way it tells people what to do, think and believe. It is hard enough for society and individuals to shed the biases of the past and ignorance without having an authority reinforce those biases.

So I would define a moderate as someone who believes to a certain extent but does not let religion tell them what to do or think. If you are religious, being moderate is definately a positive thing.

TT, I may be mistaken, but didn't you once say that you were uncomfortable with the idea that good people (who for all intent and purpose follow god's rules) whose only failing is not believing are condemned to hell? Does that put you in your own moderate catagory?

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:TT, I may be

ronin-dog wrote:
TT, I may be mistaken, but didn't you once say that you were uncomfortable with the idea that good people (who for all intent and purpose follow god's rules) whose only failing is not believing are condemned to hell? Does that put you in your own moderate catagory?

Yeah, I am a bit uncomfortable with that notion.  I'm certain that there are those who lead decent lives without religious belief.   But finding salvation without faith certainly must be difficult.  I know that I believe, and even with that belief manage to frequently fail spectacularly to live up to the Christian ideal.

But as far as being a moderate, I don't think I am.  I wouldn't label myself as a "fundie" either though.  I think that my actions are definitely informed by my religious beliefs.  I strive to live the Gospel.  God is not a "touchy-feely", warm and fuzzy kinda guy all the time.  Absolute truth exists, that Truth has been revealed to us in the Person of Jesus Christ.  My religious views, being those of orthodox Catholicism, are essentially conservative.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I don't even like the labels

I don't even like the labels "fundy" and "moderate."  I can't find any appreciable difference in kind, just degree.

Put simply, fundies believe and practice more wacky shit than moderates.  I don't see any epistemological justification for drawing a line between them.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism