clipka wrote:

> Of course the picture I painted is somewhat exaggerated to the respective
> fundamentalists' perspective.

Unfortunately, "fundamentalist" is one of those terms much abused by the 
media.
It ought to mean something like "believing or adhering to the 
fundamentals of",
whereas, it has come to mean something like "one ready to exercise violence
against those who disagree with his beliefs"
> 
> Further, I'd question the definition of a christian by his behavior, as behavior
> may be founded on a much different basis than christian belief.

You are right. It is much clearer to define a christian as one who 
accepts some form
of christian belief than simply one who exhibits what is generally 
accepted as good
behavior. There is, for example, no specifically christian morality or 
ethic. The behavior
enjoined by Jesus in those regards don't belong solely to christianity 
(as you say below).

> It's also a question what actually constitutes "christian" belief; if you're
> trying to separate it from concepts such as God, Satan, heaven, angels, saints,
> the Bible, or any some such, then you don't leave much that christians can
> exclusively claim their own, and "ethical person" may turn out a more fitting
> term.
> 
I wouldn't try to separate it from those concepts. The concept of God is 
fundamental to
  but not exclusive to, christian belief (and so is the Bible in a 
somewhat different way).
For instance, the essential difference between Christianity and Judaism 
is the acceptance
of Jesus as divine. A lot that many christians believe about Satan, 
heaven, angels, etc. is,
I think, accumulated tradition. Of course some no doubt regard the who 
of christian belief as
accumulated tradition.

>>> In science, everything inexplicable is just a flaw in the accepted theories.
>>> People refusing to accept those theories are obviously blinded by superstition.
>>> If some experiment confirms their predictions, it's proof that the theories are
>>> correct; if some experiment contradicts them, the system of theories just needs
>>> some more refinement and consolidation.
>>>
>>> Duh...
>>   Duh? This seems to be a pretty good description of the "scientific
>> method", which
>> I guess we could say is bothe the power and the weakness of science. :)
> 
> "Duh" because seen this way, I don't think there's much of a difference between
> religion and "fundamentalist" science either.
> 
> If a scientist claims that *everything* is (or will eventually become)
> explicable by science and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by
> superstition, then he's just as fundamentalist as a christian claiming that
> *everything* is explained in the Bible and anyone not acknowledging this is
> mislead by Satan, or a conspirationist claiming that *everything* is the work
> of The Powers That Be and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by the very
> same.
> 
> So the only point of view that seems somewhat different in this respect is that
> of the agnostic who claims he simply doesn't know - but even those may come in
> a fundamentalist flavor, claiming that we *cannot* know and anyone not
> acknowledging this is mislead by pride.

I agree. We should always beware of assigning motives to others, though 
few of us
observe that caution. Perhaps we might say that differences in beliefs, 
however important
and however strongly held, should never result in discourtesy (in a 
broad sense). :)

David

Post a reply to this message