I often see the criticism that prominent atheists (eg Dawkins or Hitchens) are 'fundamentalist atheists’. What do you take from such criticisms? Is there any similarity between atheist advocates like Dawkins and religious advocates like Pat Robertson?
Posted: October 27th 2008
brian thomson www
In addition to the “propaganda” explanation, I have another theory: a form of “projection” in the psychological sense, which goes like this:
If you have grown up in an environment where dogmatic religion is the norm, it may be hard to imagine anything else. When someone says “I don’t believe your dogma”, your reaction is “what is your dogma, then?”
There’s a New Testament parable that uses the metaphor of a building built on rock, versus a building built on sand. So, when someone says they reject all dogma, it looks (to the dogmatic) as if they are talking about a building without a solid foundation: either talking deluded nonsense, or having no foundation at all (i.e. immoral).
Well, there are many ways to build a foundation under a building. It does not require rock: you can safely build on sand or gravel, in defiance of the parable, if you know what you are doing. Or, you might not be building a house at all: you might be building a car, or a plane. Those vehicles give you freedom to move around, relying on the strength of their structures, not a particular fixed location on the ground.
My point is: those who limit themselves to dogma, to a particular fixed view of the world, are missing so much. Just as a plane lets people travel through the 3rd dimension, safely opening up whole new vistas; a house may have a solid foundation, but it is fixed in place, with a single view of the world. If you have a solid structure supporting you, you can be free to see the world from many different viewpoints – or to look beyond this world.
Posted: October 28th 2008
SmartLX www
Atheist fundamentalism is a boogeyman created by the religious to frighten the religious.
It doesn’t exist, because atheist fundamentals don’t exist. There is no doctrine, no core text, no laws, no oath, no creed. Atheism is a conclusion, nothing more. It doesn’t even require its adherents to be certain about that conclusion.
Compare that with those who use the term: religious fundamentalists, adhering as closely as they can to their creeds, their commandments and so on. They have a great big cumulative fundament to aspire to and to impose on others.
Hitchens, Dawkins et al are equivalent to Dobson, Robertson et al only in their public profiles, their enthusiasm for their position and their disrespect for the opposite position. They’re open to evidence which might change their minds; they simply think there isn’t any available. Compare that to those who think the perceived Holy Spirit within them is all the proof they need.
“Fundamentalist” is one of a group of adjectives, together with “dogmatic”, “militant” and “arrogant”, which religious lobbyists and apologists have tried to permanently affix to the word “atheist” ever since the supposed advent of “new atheism”. It’s a PR exercise. I realise that, and once I’ve argued against it, I ignore it.
Posted: October 27th 2008