Reply to the articles below on Fundamentalism

[C. Jordan]

On reading Andrew Russell's thoughts about fundamentalism, posted in this thread and in that thread, I thought it a shame that no one commented. I thought I'd take the time to do so.

The leitmotif of Russell's first article is that fundamentalist believers are bound by concrete thinking. The leitmotif of his second article was that young people are attracted to fundamentalist beliefs because they fear the unknown. In both cases, he has a point. I see some more to be said.

The first one that strikes me is that fundamentalist belief is a question of authority. A Christian fundamentalist by definition conforms his or her life to the authority of the Bible; sometimes, he or she will tell us that Preacher So-and-So is the final authority on the Bible. But in any case, the most important point for the fundamentalist believer is that there is an authority whose words are not open to question. If we point to a Biblical verse and say: "This makes no sense"; or: "That is wrong" -- then obviously we don't know what we are talking about. We are sinners. The fundamentalist believer will probably tell us so.

An Objectivist fundamentalist substitutes Ayn Rand as the final authority; and if Ayn Rand once decided a man streaking at the Academy Awards was out to nihilistically destroy all values for being values -- that is also not open to question. If we question this, then we are dishonest and evading the truth. This is what fundamentalist believers will be quick to tell us, given the behavior of Diana Scorpion*.

Another point is that fundamentalist believers have a problem with the word interpretation. This is not completely different from Russell's discussion of concrete-bound mentalities; but I am approaching it from another direction. Russell wrote:

...Since all the principles contained within the scriptures are, to the concrete-bound mind, equally important, to challenge one is to challenge all the rest. To consider one allegorical is to say that of all the rest...

When I mention the possibility to a fundamentalist believer that this or that part of scripture may be symbolic, or allegorical, or just misunderstood -- then we come to the problem with interpretation. People have accused me of missing the point, of being so into analysing the words that I ignore what the Bible is saying. The most naïve reply I've received is when I was told that God would not allow His words to be misunderstood.

The problem with that argument is that, if you have read the Bible and understood it, then you have interpreted it. The problem is, the fundamentalist believers to whom I've spoken have never understood what I mean. All they did was repeat their previous point. Some said it was obvious I was a sinner, and I was refusing to believe in the Scriptures.

Does that remind anyone of the phrase "willful evasion" which some people use as a verbal weapon?

In any case, the Christian fundamentalist believers seem to think that "to interpret" means "to interpret any damn way the listener chooses." This is consistent with Russell's position, that fundamentalism is related to concrete-bound thinking. It is also related to the point about authority.

What the Fundamentalist believer wants is one consistent message, one consistent interpretation, handed down to her or him by authority. Then, once she or he learns the authoritative message, then she or he will always know the answers. Such a person will be able to decide things, based on the authority of [this scripture] and usually also on the authority of [so-and-So] who is an acknowledged authority on [this scripture]. This will be true whether the Fundamentalist believer is religious or not.

A parallel that comes close to home, is the way Dr. Peikoff cites Ayn Rand as though her words were now "this-scripture." Other people cite Dr. Peikoff in particular, because he is an acknowledged authority on Objectivism.

It would be interesting, later, to consider why people want an authority to explain everything. I will only begin here, by reminding us that Christians say "Our Father" to mean God. An interesting parallel is in Kong Zi [Confucius] who said that the relationship between Heaven and Earth was the same as that between Father and Son: and he meant that in each case, the former was dominant, and the latter submissive. I wonder if fundamentalist believers are not longing for a perfect parent to explain everything.

Enough said about that. Russell's second article addresses the fear of the unknown which young people have -- which explains why an authoritative scripture appeals to them. He is right; and there is still more.

What are the other benefits of accepting an authoritative scripture? (Here I mean, benefits in the judgment of the fundamentalist believer.) By accepting authority, the believer can then (paradoxically) become an authority. He or she can lecture others on how to live their lives; and if other people challenge his or her beliefs, he or she can dismiss them. "What do they know? They're sinners because they don't accept the authority of [this scripture]."

The longing for an authority to be obeyed is not mutually exclusive with the longing to have others obey -- but that goes beyond the bounds of this present discourse.

All of us would like to belong to an ideal community. All of us: even Ayn Rand. Or did she not seek out the company of "the men of the intellect?" Fundamentalist believers are no different from the rest of us, in this respect.

The difference is that fundamentalist believes seek an outside authority to give them that sense of community. If we believe that [this scripture] is literally true, then our true friends are our fellow believers. They will like us if our interpretation of [this scripture] is in conformity with theirs. As you can see -- a different approach to the issue than Ayn Rand took.

But still, I ask myself why anyone would want to join an Objectivist group, if they are required to conform their thinking to others -- particularly to the likes of Dr. Peikoff. A very reasonable answer is that some people must consider that a fair price for the privilege of belonging to the group. I don't think that what I've said is the whole answer; but it is a very real part of the answer.

Enough from me. What do others think?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just saw this in the Articles section awaiting approval. I moved it to here.

Michael

[galtgulch]

Ayn Rand made it clear that her philosophy is not a dogma that has to be accepted on faith. Objectivism is based on reality and requires one to use reason to understand it from its axioms on up. It is a shame that anyone substitutes any of the personalities within the Objectivist movement for their own judgment in any issue, even Ayn Rand herself.

In order for anyone to understand Objectivism they have to use their own judgment and reason without just blanking out and quoting Rand or Peikoff as authorities.

People must be so used to operating on faith and accepting authorities, from their own parents, their priests and rabbis, their teachers and political leaders, their bibles and torahs, that they are not used to using their own judgment in certain realms.

It was curious to watch the movie Doubt in which Streep's character decides whether Hoffman's character is guilty based on her inner certainty or just knowing, whereas the younger nun contends that there is no evidence to justify such a conclusion.

No matter how right Rand or her characters are, she and they stress not to base one's own decision on their certainty. Hugh Ackston says that to Dagny in the valley. (or is it a gulch?)

gulch

[Mike11]

Eh, this article didn't go nearly far enough. The reliance on Authority is part of the problem, the fact that Randists are taught to think in dogmatic ways is the greater issue.