Malise Ruthven -- Fundamentalism: the search for meaning
==========================================================

Why this book is important -- We, in the U.S., recently had a
president who was a fundamentalist Christian; it was disastrous.
And, looking to the future, as Matt Taibi recently wrote about
Michele Bachmann in RollingStone magazine:

    "... consider this possibility: She wins Iowa, then swallows the
    Tea Party and Christian vote whole for the next 30 or 40
    primaries while Romney and Pawlenty battle fiercely over who is
    the more "viable" boring-white-guy candidate. Then Wall Street
    blows up again — and it's Barack Obama and a soaring
    unemployment rate versus a white, God-fearing mother of 28 from
    the heartland." (from "Michele Bachmann's Holy War", by Matt
    Taibbi, RollingStone magazine, 6/22/11)

Definitely something to be concerned about.

The following paragraphs are considerations on some of the ideas
that Ruthven will lead you to think about.

Ruthven claims that there is currently a strong, and successful,
reaction against modernism, pluralism, and secularism.  This is, he
seems to say, especially true in the U.S.

A basic point is Ruthven's conception of the shift from
traditionalism to fundamentalism: traditionalism has none of the
defensiveness or re-activeness of fundamentalism.  The
traditionalist is not aware of an alternative view, and is not
defensive of his own views against those who criticize them.  The
fundamentalist is.

Fundamentalist Christians are literalists, although what they seem
to be most often supporting is inerrancy, i.e. the idea that the
Christian Bible cannot contain errors.  However, some interpretation
of terms seems to be allowed, famously, the length of a day as the
term is used in "Genesis".  But, no textual criticism is allowed.
Fundamentalist are strongly opposed to the view that the language of
the Bible is a human construct that reflects the knowledge and
prejudices of the period in which it was written.  There is also the
fundamentalist position that a believer should be able to understand
the Bible merely by paying attention to the "plain meaning" of the
text.

One defensive strategy is "inerrancy": the claim that the Bible
cannot be wrong because it is God's words.  Therefore, if *seems*
wrong, that's because we do not understand it correctly, and not
because there are errors in the text itself.  Both papal
infallibility and scriptural inerrancy became prominent when liberal
theology and biblical, textual criticism became significant.
Challenges to literal truthfulness prompted defensive responses.

Although inerrancy can wiggle around miracles and complexities,
inconsistencies and conflicts within the text must be dealt with.

Fundamentalists also totally reject the subjectivization of the
understanding of the Bible.  It is *not* poetry to be understood
metaphorically or as a fable that can be subjectively interpreted to
teach some lesson that is determined personally.  It's not myth;
it's history.  It is not to be understood personally and
subjectively; it is the literal, objective truth.

Another strategy is to explain miracles as possible natural
phenomena.  For example, water in a river backing up is explained as
the result of an earthquake that creates a dam.  Of course, if you
believe in miracles and belief that God performs them, then why
would you need or even want to search for a naturalistic
explanation.

The Bible, and a literal interpretation of it, is sometimes used to
justify radical action, even violent action.  And, where it is not
used to promote action, it may lead believers to an acceptance of
actions and political policy that have serious consequences.  I'm
thinking especially of the acceptance of our inaction to prevent
global warming.

Fundamentalism and the control of women -- Fundamentalism supports
of a patriarchal society.  Fundamentalists reject the equality of
men and women.

Given the treatment of women in Fundamental religions, why do women
join?  Ruthven offers several explanations: (1) Because of the
appeal that charismatic, male preachers have for female followers.
(2) Because of economic reality; because women cannot earn a living,
or because they earn less than men and have difficulty supporting
themselves if they do not accept fundamentalist religious values and
join a family, i.e. find a husband to help with economic support.
(3) In modernism, when gender roles are changing and confused, the
sexual bipolarity encouraged by fundamentalism may be reassuring.

The cost of this gender bipolarity is a destructive anti-gay
crusade.  It also leads to limitations on the rights of women.

The possibility that fundamentalism and religiosity in general would
dissipate and become less and less of an active force in social and
political life has turned out to be an illusion.  This has
increasingly been true not just in the rural sphere, but in the
urban world as well.  And, it has been true of Christianity as well
as in Islam.  Secularization is not inevitably linked to increasing
modernism.  And, universal education does not inevitably lead to
modernism and an enlightened perspective either.  It now seems that
Western Europe and Australia may be an anomaly in their movement
toward increasing secularism.

For those who believe, the world is being re-enchanted and
resacralized.  It is filled with miracles, spirits, angels, devils,
and demons.  Among the "saved" the miraculous and the suspension of
(belief in ) natural laws and processes is often routine and
commonplace.  For example, believers watch televangelists and
Christian TV channel wanting and ready to believe in miracles. To
those who believe, these TV miracles, seem like an expected
confirmation of their beliefs and of "God's power".  For those with
this mind-set, there really is not need to believe in the
inevitability of the laws of nature, nor to have confidence in the
predictions of science.  Ah, the burden of having to believe those
pesky scientists has been lifted.  After all, God must surely be
powerful enough to force science and the laws of nature to obey his
wishes.

With a voting public like this, like that which we have in the U.S.,
you can pass some very damaging and foolish legislation.

The revolution in communication, enabling audio-visual communication
with a mass audience, in particular, through television, has
empowered those who communication through spoken word and gesture,
and these are especially empowering for those making a strong
personal and charismatic appeal.

Fundamentalism, whether Islamist or Christian, works best in
opposition.  As a political appeal, it gains power by being able to
claim to be oppressed and embattled, for example by claiming that
it's values are being defiled.  We can hope that once in power, it
will lose much of its appeal.  However, that may happen only after
having very destructive and damaging influences, e.g. to the
environment, to education (through promotion of the teaching of
creationism), to the rights and lives of women, etc.

A possible saving feature of our modern age is that technology and
communication technology, especially, make diversity and pluralism
visible across the world.  There is no guarantee that we or the
next generation will choose it, but there can be no doubt that the
option is being offered.  However, fundamentalists, whether Islamic
or Christian ones, know how to use technology, especially
communications technology, especially well.  And, humans seem to
have a need to believe in something other than what the real world
gives us.

07/22/2011

.. vim:ft=rst:fo+=a: