Some atheists think fundamentalists are morally reprehensible, lacking in critical thinking skills, superstitious, unable or unwilling to comprehend or acknowledge the results of science, and willing to go to great lengths to justify their already-held beliefs rather than being open to evidence which contradicts those beliefs.
On these counts, they will more than likely happily side with moderate-to-leftish Christians who believe in evolution, don't claim they can prove the existence of God, don't believe people are condemned to hell simply for not being Christians, don't believe people are eternally condemned to hell at all, believe in taking care of the earth, believe in taking care of the poor, happily agree women can and should "lead" as well as men in every arena, and don't condemn people on the basis of sexual preference. They will probably agree these folks are more sensitive to and committed to truth, better critical thinkers, etc.
But the one thing some atheists won't say is that fundies are bad readers, and they can never agree that moderate Christians are good readers (except when it comes to science, I suppose). This fact just mystifies me. On every issue, they disagree with fundamentalist Christians except the issue of interpreting the text. They somehow think fundamentalists are the most logically and intellectually sound on this one issue.
Some might protest that these atheists agree with the fundamentalist reading and this is why they reject the Bible. Well, to that I say: good for them. But to explain my confusion, try to understand in what case you think that a better reading of an ancient text is going to come from the group who is morally insensitive, lacking in critical thinking skills, and inflexibly ideologically committed before entering any discussion.
It seems to me pretty silly. Better readers of ancient texts are those who possess imaginative empathy, those who are not ideologically driven but open to new ideas, those who are committed to truth and willing to adapt their beliefs, and those who read a much larger body of ancient texts with and accept the results of archeology and developments in our understanding of languages. But for some reason when it comes to the Bible, there's a whole set of atheists who seem all too happy to ignore this fact. I just don't get it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It works better for them this way.
One group is stupid and backward; the other group is compromising their Christian values in light of recent scientific and social "advances."
It allows them to say the "true" Christianity is fundamentally flawed.
Out of curiosity, which do you prefer, moderate or fundamental Christians?
Well I think it's pretty clear I don't fit in the fundamentalist category...
I was kidding. :P
Even the terminology of "fundamentalism" carries with it (deserved or undeserved) negative connotations.
What do you think I am?
Post a Comment