Fundamentalism

Question for Isaac Newton: Is religious faith compatible with scientific thinking?

Question for Isaac Newton: Is religious faith compatible with scientific thinking?

QUESTION:
Is religious faith compatible with scientific thinking?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

The question above was the headline with a November 14 PsychologyToday.com article by Joseph Pierre, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco — the latest of so many that address this perennial issue.

His answer was yes or no, depending. Atheists may say no, period. As we’ll see, many prominent scientists have replied with a yes.

Pierre explains that “many of our beliefs are difficult, and sometimes impossible, to falsify,” and religion seeks to offer satisfactory answers for many such scientific “unknowns.”

Examples: Does God exist? What happens when we die? With these kinds of inevitable questions humans ask, faith believes “in the absence of evidence” as science understands that term.

In his outlook, the best way to hold faith-based beliefs is to acknowledge “the possibility of being wrong” and allow “room for others to have different beliefs” without confusing faith with “absolute truth.” But, needless to say, most religions and most religionists do hold to absolutes.

He continues that “religious faith doesn’t have to involve denialism,” defined as rejection of the existing scientific evidence due to religious faith, as with those he labels “fundamentalists.” A typical example would be the “young Earth” creationists, whose literal interpretation of the Bible rejects science’s long-held conclusion that our universe and home planet have existed for billions upon billions of years.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Why editors in legacy newsrooms struggle with calling members of Hamas 'terrorists'

Why editors in legacy newsrooms struggle with calling members of Hamas 'terrorists'

It’s been a little more than a week since Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israeli civilians, killing more than 1,300 people. Many of those killed were children, some even babies, on the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.

Since then, the situation in that part of the world has become a full-blown war. Israel has responded by attacking Gaza, with Hamas leaders (and even hostages) mixed among civilians who, in some cases, have been prevented from evacuating by Hamas.

Palestinians now face a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions.

Not surprisingly, many in the elite media have gotten — and continue to get — this story wrong. For too many years, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was treated like a political story. It was a story about land. It was about colonization. It was about human rights.

It may be about all those things, depending on whom you ask, but it’s also a story about about Jews. It’s about Muslims. It’s about sacred sites in the Holy Lands.

In other words, it’s a religion story.

As someone who covered the 9/11 attacks and the years that followed, I am well versed and experienced when it comes to news about terrorism. I know what terrorism looks like when I see it. So do most reporters and editors.

However, not everyone seems to have open eyes these days.

Let’s start with the BBC, one of the biggest and most influential news organizations in the world. The British state broadcaster came under pressure last week when its leaders refused to call Hamas terrorists. In an explanation posted to the BBC website on Oct. 11, John Simpson, who serves as World Affairs editor, defended the decision this way:

Government ministers, newspaper columnists, ordinary people — they're all asking why the BBC doesn't say the Hamas gunmen who carried out appalling atrocities in southern Israel are terrorists.

The answer goes right back to the BBC's founding principles.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Eastern Orthodox converts, Russian spies, the FBI and the Bible Belt (#horrors)

Podcast: Eastern Orthodox converts, Russian spies, the FBI and the Bible Belt (#horrors)

Yes, yes. I will confess my (possible) sin.

Several years ago some friends of mine in Bible Belt Orthodox churches said that there were times when they wished America could be ruled by the late Queen Elizabeth II, as opposed to the last couple of guys who have occupied the White House. We were discussing our frustration with America’s two-party binary political system.

I laughed and agreed.

Does this mean that I am a potential Russian spy and enemy of the state? That was one of the topics discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). We were discussing two mainstream news stories that seem to be connected in the minds of some mainstream journalists.

First, consider this Religion News Service feature: “Riding a wave of converts, one group aims to fuse Orthodoxy with Southern values.” Then read this Newsweek story: “Russia's Trying to Recruit Spies From U.S.” It may also help to check out this earlier GetReligion post: “Concerning the new converts to Eastern Orthodoxy — Are they MAGA clones or worse?

But back to Queen Elizabeth II. We will get to the FBI in a moment or two.

The RNS feature focuses on a meeting of the small group of Orthodox converts — the Philip Ludwell III Orthodox Fellowship — down in the countercultural Bible Belt. I confess that I have never heard of this group, primarily since my East Tennessee parish is part of the Orthodox Church in America (which does have historic missionary ties to Russia), as opposed to the smaller Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (which formed in response to the birth of the Soviet Union).

The RNS feature notes: “Orthodox Christianity in the United States is a kaleidoscope of languages and cultures as diverse as Russia, Greece, Ethiopia, Syria, Bulgaria and, increasingly, the American South.”

That’s accurate. It’s hard to describe how complex Eastern Orthodoxy is in this country and that includes the growing number of Americans (like me) who have converted to the faith during the past four decades (a trend that began long before Orange Man Bad).

Now, concerning the inspiration for this small Orthodox network:

Philip Ludwell III, the fellowship’s namesake, became one of America’s earliest converts to Orthodoxy in 1738 and then translated Russian Orthodox texts into English. His family held government positions in the Carolinas and Virginia and shared ancestry with Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, born nearly a century later.

Obviously, we are talking about folks who are fundamentalist Confederate clones or worse:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Hey, Tennessean folks: Has SBC President Bart Barber changed theologically? Yes or no?

Hey, Tennessean folks: Has SBC President Bart Barber changed theologically? Yes or no?

This is a strange one. In a recent profile of the Rev. Bart Barber — the current president of the Southern Baptist Convention — the Nashville Tennessean team did something that was both unusual and totally predictable.

Unusual? My state’s dominant newspaper used a theological term when it needed to find an accurate political term, of some kind. Yes, you read that right. I just urged some journalists — in this case — to use accurate “political” language instead of mangled doctrinal language.

Predictable? The abused theological term was “fundamentalist.”

To make matters even more complicated, the Tennessean used an ACCURATE historical-political reference in the headline — “Bart Barber defied the Conservative Resurgence. How it is now shaping his SBC leadership” — and then turned around and used “fundamentalist” in the overture.

Dang it! (I will also ask: Is the pronoun “it” in the headline a reference to Barber’s decisive act of defiance or to the Conservative Resurgence itself?) Here’s that flawed overture:

Bart Barber defied the top brass.

In May 2018, the Texas pastor and his fellow trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth fired seminary president Paige Patterson, the architect of the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention. Following years of financial-related controversies, revelations about Patterson mishandling reports of sexual abuse pushed Southwestern’s board past a point of no return.

Barber, once a loyal foot soldier in Patterson’s movement, was a decisive vote in Patterson’s dismissal, thereby severing his allegiance. 

The emphasis on the “Conservative Resurgence” as a movement inside the SBC is accurate, since that is a commonly used term among historians. The Tennessean kind of explained that term later in the story, and we will get to that.

After making that wise choice, why use the church-history term “fundamentalist” at the top of the story? That’s a word that fit with some Southern Baptists who supported (as opposed to leading) the “Conservative Resurgence,” but not to all. Using that term also suggested that Barber has changed some of his theological beliefs, as opposed to his stance on crucial issues in SBC politics.

I see zero evidence in this news report that Barber has changed theologically. It that is the case, then ask him hard questions about that and then report the answers.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

The bottom line: The 'pew gap' remains a powerful reality in American political life

The bottom line: The 'pew gap' remains a powerful reality in American political life

As an emerging American voice, the Rev. Jerry Falwell visited South Carolina in 1980 to promote his new Moral Majority network, while urging evangelicals to back Ronald Reagan, instead of President Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist.

Then Furman University professor John C. Green was intrigued by mixed reactions on three Baptist campuses in Greenville -- his own "moderate" Baptist school, a mainstream Southern Baptist college and the proudly fundamentalist Bob Jones University. For example, Bob Jones, Jr., called Falwell the "most dangerous man in America today," because of his efforts to unite religious groups in political activism.

This potent blend of politics and religion was an obvious topic for political-science research. Colleagues agreed, but one said they needed to act fast, "since these kinds of trends burn out quick," Green recalled, laughing. "Here we are in 2023 and arguments about religion and politics are hotter than ever."

From the start, experts tried to show a clash between religion and secularism, noted Green, author of "The Faith Factor: How Religion Influences American Elections."

The reality is more complex than a "God gap." By the late 1980s, researchers learned that -- while most Americans remain believers -- it's crucial to note how often voters attend worship services. The more fervently Americans support religious congregations with their time and money, the more likely they are to back cultural conservatives.

This "religiosity gap" remains relevant. A new Pew Research Center analysis noted that, in 2022 midterms: "The gap in voting preferences by religious attendance was as wide as it's been in any of the last several elections: 56% of those who said they attend religious services a few times a year or less reported voting for Democratic candidates in the 2022 midterms. … But GOP candidates were the favorite among those who attend services monthly or more by more than two-to-one (67%, vs. 31% who voted for Democratic candidates)."

Meanwhile, Protestants supported the "GOP by nearly two-to-one." White evangelical support for Republicans hit 86%, while white Catholics "favored Republican candidates by 25 points, whereas Hispanic Catholics favored Democratic candidates by an even greater margin (34 points)." Jewish voters preferred Democrats -- 68% to 32%. Atheists, agnostics or "nothing in particular" voters remained loyal to the Democrats, with 72% supporting that party, and 27% backing Republicans.

In 2012, Green was part of the Pew Research team behind the landmark "Nones on the Rise" study, which documented the stunning growth of the "religiously unaffiliated."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

A journalism question that suggests an answer: 'Who's Afraid of Moms for Liberty?'

A journalism question that suggests an answer: 'Who's Afraid of Moms for Liberty?'

For nearly 20 years now, GetReligion has focused on discussions of religion content in what used to be called “hard news,” as in old-school journalism that attempted to do accurate, fair-minded coverage of public events, debates, trends, etc.

Long ago, I was taught that the more controversial and disputed the topic, the harder journalists should strive for “balance” in terms of content about participants on both sides, or all sides, of the debate.

Honest. People used to believe things like that.

Thus, your GetReligionistas have always tried to separate “hard news” from analysis, commentary and even outright public relations.

This brings me to a fascinating news feature in The Free Press, an important online news source that — from my point of view — grew out of the digital, social-media wars inside The New York Times. Founded by Bari Weiss, an old-school liberal, this new publication covers many controversial topics that have been overlooked, ignored or even cancelled in elite newsrooms.

Is The Free Press a “hard news” publication? It certainly publishes lots of new information, using sources that it quotes on the record. Much of the content is analysis, in the style of The Atlantic and similar publications.

In this case, we are talking about a Robert Pondiscio article with this double-decker headline:

Who’s Afraid of Moms for Liberty?

A growing cadre of angry mothers is taking over school boards and winning influence as GOP kingmakers. Why are they being called a ‘hate group’?

The overture makes it clear that, in this case, The Free Press team is interested in the lives and beliefs of the actual members (think “stakeholders”) of this organization, as opposed to the Republican candidates that court them. Ah, but do these groups overlap?

In a breakout session in a windowless conference room at last weekend’s Moms for Liberty “Joyful Warrior Summit” in Philadelphia, Christian Ziegler, the chairman of the Florida Republican Party and father of three school-aged daughters, is stiffening spines. Dozens of attendees, mostly women, are nodding and taking notes as Ziegler explains how to work with local news media. 

“Your product is parental rights. Your product is protecting children and eliminating indoctrination and the sexualization of children. You’re the grassroots. You’re on the ground. You’re the moms, the grandparents, the families that are impacted. The stories you tell help set a narrative,” Ziegler coaches them.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Who gets to pin labels on the armies fighting in those good 'ole SBC wars?

Podcast: Who gets to pin labels on the armies fighting in those good 'ole SBC wars?

Once upon a time, starting in the late 1970a, the Southern Baptists Convention had a big civil war — fighting about the authority of the Bible and “biblical inerrancy,” a rather inside-baseball term that was little known by pew-folks at that time.

There were two big armies, with the gray three-piece-suit players of the Southern Baptist establishment and on the other the rebels who, if my memory is correct, sometimes wore plaid. Cut me some slack, because it’s been a long time. But this background was crucial in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), focusing on early coverage of strife leading up to the 2023 SBC meetings next week in New Orleans.

The good guys back then called themselves “moderates” because they tended to seek compromise stances on hot-button issues — such as abortion and the ordination of women. Thus, journalists called them “moderates.”

The bad guys called themselves “conservatives” and took strong stands on the big Bible issues (with the exception, let’s say, of economic justice). Thus, many journalists called them “fundamentalists” — including some rather ordinary evangelicals who didn’t fit that f-word term.

The right said there were “liberals” all over the place and the SBC left said “liberals” didn’t exist. Truth is, there were very few doctrinal liberals around (in a seminary chair or two) who were weak in defending ancient beliefs — think the Resurrection and the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Journalists were not interested in investigating facts related to these debates, since the “moderates” said that was all, well, disinformation.

Flash forward to the present. The few remaining “moderates” have mainline Protestant demographics and often have quiet disputes about mainline Protestant-style issues (think LGBTQ+ matters).

The hot-button SBC 2023 issues are (1) how tough to be on fighting sexual abuse and (2) the ordination of women (and old issue is back).

Everyone defends biblical inerrancy (while maybe offering slightly different definitions). Everyone stands together on the big doctrinal issues. In the background, however, is an important issue — when it comes to an issue like ordaining women, does the SBC have “doctrines” or “opinions”?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Why is Amazon Prime trashing the Duggar parents and the wide world of homeschooling?

Why is Amazon Prime trashing the Duggar parents and the wide world of homeschooling?

This past week or so has been a bad media moment for homeschooling. First there was a Washington Post expose on “the revolt of the Christian homeschoolers” that ran May 30.

Mind you, this is a time when homeschooling in America is at all-time highs. Then, starting last Friday, Amazon Prime premiered “Shiny Happy People,” its four-part series on the woes of the Duggar family, the stars of the long-running reality TV special “19 Kids and Counting.”

The latter is one of the more bizarre examples of circumstantial evidence, imputed (but not proven) guilt and overkill that I’ve seen in a long time. I’ll get to the Post piece in a moment, but the pile-on @AmazonPrime simply must be addressed.

For starters, not only does the series go after the Duggar parents Jim Bob and Michelle, but it also trashes the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) or what a lot of us who attended it in the 1970s used to call Basic Youth Conflicts. Bill Gothard, its founder, resigned in 2014 after being accused by multiple women of sexual abuse.

The series starts with a number of unidentified people (we learn their names later in the series but still) accusing IBLP of “spiritual, emotional, physical, psychological abuse” and essentially being the spiritual engine that fed the Duggar family empire. That and the fact that the Discovery TLC Network became a multi-billion-dollar company partly due to them.

“Homeschooling is the linchpin of this whole project,” said one woman.

Does that include all the homeschoolers who made it into Harvard and other forms of elite education? There are many facets to this nondenominational, multiracial movement.

“World domination is their goal,” intoned another man.

The series (I’ve watched two of the episodes so far) careens back and forth from homeschooling to the Duggars to conservative politics to the IBLP, trying to throw as much dirt as possible on them all. Is everyone who was ever involved with the IBLP and homeschooling a wacko?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Tremors in a 'fundamentalist' empire: What kind of news story is unfolding at Bob Jones U?

Tremors in a 'fundamentalist' empire: What kind of news story is unfolding at Bob Jones U?

Attention religion-beat journalists: What we have here is a chance to use the hot-button word “fundamentalist” in way that is consistent with years of guidance from the Associated Press Stylebook.

Honest. Give it a try.

I am referring to news coverage of a rather mysterious power struggle at Bob Jones University in Greenville, S.C. At this point, there has been next to zero national coverage of this inside-baseball conflict, perhaps because it’s a fight between conservative Christians that does not appear to involve the words “Donald Trump.”

But there has been quite a bit of coverage at the regional level and in “Christian market” news, because this is a powerful and symbolic institution in the Bible Belt. You can see some major-league buzz words in the overture of the main story at The State: “SC Christian university president resigns, cites problems with governing board.” This is long, but essential:

The president of Bob Jones University has resigned amid long-simmering disagreements with the chairman of the board and grandson of the university’s founder over the discretion of the fundamentalist Christian school in Greenville.

Steve Pettit was named president in 2014, the first non-Jones family member to hold the job since the school was founded by Bob Jones Sr. in 1927. He was succeeded by Bob Jones Jr., Bob Jones III and then his great-grandson, Stephen Jones. Bob Jones IV elected not to work at the school.

In a four-page letter to the board, Pettit said board chair John Lewis had created disunity on the board, held a meeting without telling staff and was not taking seriously a comment made by a board member that “female students’ clothing and female student athlete uniforms accentuate their ‘boobs and butts.’”

Pettit said he had heard the board member took photos of women without their permission. He said he did not know if the information was true, but by law should have been turned over to the Title IX coordinator for investigation.

Ah, a Title IX fight. For those who have followed Bob Jones trends, that would lead straight into the crucial issue of whether this school will play ball with government agencies or outside educational authorities of any kind.

A big word here is “separatism,” along with “ultra-separatism” (click here for background). The key is the degree to which true “fundamentalist” would work with mere evangelicals who have associated, in any way, with liberal and modern trends in Christian faith.


Please respect our Commenting Policy