Journal articles on the topic 'Secular world and Reactions to Fundamentalism'

One of the serious threats that modern humanity faces is religious fundamentalism. The author, highlighting the origins  of fundamentalism, tries to bring out the fact that it is a threat to the secular world. Fundamentalism of different religions is touched  upon to analyze the salient features of religious fundamentalism. Arguing that fundamentalism is a reaction to the advent o f the mod­ ern secular world, the author spells out the possible reactions to the phenomenon of fundamentalism.  

Grundtvig og fundamentalismen[Grundtvig and fundamentalism]By Kim Arne PedersenThe chosen starting-point is Ole Vind’s perception of Gr as a Biblefundamentalist. Vind constructs a concept of fundamentalism along idea-historical lines and focuses on what he perceives to be Gr’s literal reading of, especially, the Old Testament; but he also emphasises that for Gr the Scriptures were directly inspired by God.Through the introduction of a theological-historical and secularhistorical definition of the concept of fundamentalism, Gr’s relationship to the Bible is examined with the aim of mounting a critique of Vind’s interpretation. Gr’s view of the Bible in the period 1810-11 to 1824-25 is characterised against the background of that struggle with himself which his conversion in 1810 entailed, and with the introduction of the theological-historical definition of fundamentalism.This finds its starting-point in fundamentalism as a concrete historical phenomenon in the USA at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. It is distinguished by the resolution of traditional Christianity into five dogmatic points, including the dogma of verbalinspiration (every word in the Holy Scriptures is divinely dictated), to which is added the individual Christian’s personal inner experience with its basis in conversion.With this as background, Gr may be called fundamentalist in the period 1810 to 1824-25, since Gr (1) has been through a more or less pietistic conversion, (2) rejects a historical-critical approach to the Bible, (3) holds firm to verbal-inspiration, (4) rejects a modem interpretation of Christianity, (5) holds firm to traditional Christianity against the rationalists and would certainly have been able to subscribe to the fundamentalists’ five points, (6) rejects a scientific explanation of the world, and (7) believes that a form of scientific alternative to the world-picture of the natural sciences can be worked out on a Biblical basis. However, the theological-historical definition of fundamentalism needs to be supplemented by a secular-historical determination of the concept. Here a link is made with Uffe Østergaard’s demonstration of the significance of the art of printing in the Reformation as a prerequisite of fundamentalism, in that verbal-inspiration is thus placed centre-stage. Østergaard’s point is that fundamentalism is not only a reaction against modernisation, but is itself a modem phenomenon, and here he focuses upon the fundamentalists’ insistence upon a direct access to Scripture independently of religious tradition’s mediating influence. Here Østergaard’s observations are supplemented by the viewpoint that the revivalist movements of the 18th and 19th centuries are the foundation of fundamentalism; and the German concept-historical school’s concept of modernity is introduced, supplemented by Habermas’s Kant-inspired determination of subjectivity as the core of modernity, and of secularisation as a consequence of the differentiation of spheres of validity it entails.Finally, it is proposed that fundamentalism in a secular-historical sense must be seen as a consequence of secularisation as an historical phenomenon, affected by industrialisation and the dominance of the natural sciences after 1850. Thus fundamentalists belong in the period after 1850 as the second phase of modernisation, and they seek to direct society back to an idealised golden age.The core of the theological-historical definition of fundamentalism is the conflict between traditional religion and a modem interpretation of it; the core of the secular-historical definition is the conflict between modernisation/secularisation and a religious reaction against this, which desires the whole of society or a state within the state free of secularisation.After Gr’s struggle with aspects of his understanding of Christianity in 1824-25 his view of the Bible becomes freer and he breaks explicitly with the dogma of verbal-inspiration. However, Gr’s location in time itself, and his complex attitude towards modernity is of more importance. (1) Gr can hardly be lumped together with that group of modem intellectuals, people with education, who are related to industrial and post-industrial society and who are going through a fundamentalist conversion. Grundtvig belongs in another age, in modernity’s first phase from 1750 to 1850 - and his concept of modernity can be extrapolated from analyses of his complex attitude towards Kant’s concept of autonomy. The facts that (2) between 1811 and 1824 he is an adherent of verbal-inspiration, and (3) in his battle with Enlightenment theology (and in that connection with the ecclesiastical authorities) he turns against the traditional theological teaching institutions, and (4) he wishes to reform theology, are not sufficient grounds for characterising him as a fundamentalist, for Gr (5) does not want, as do the fundamentalists, a return to an idealized golden age. In Gr’s notion of the sequence of national congregations, and the fact that the one succeeds to the other, lies hidden a historical mentality stamped with the idea that the different congregations embody different characteristics. To conceptualise change is modem, and in that sense Gr is stamped with modernity. (7) Ultimately, Gr does not seek to stifle the scientific attempt to clarify the Bible and the world independently of a literal reading of the Old Testament. This Vind overlooks, when he alleges that even after 1825 Gr can be called a fundamentalist.The decisive characteristic which divides Gr from fundamentalism is really not his break with Bible-Christianity in 1823, 1824 and 1825, nor his related rejection of verbal-inspiration, but rather the opening of his mind in relation to the naturalists, and therewith the theologicallyorientated foundation of this opening upon two central concepts: his educational idea - that is, the separation between church and school - and his idea of freedom. The educational concept and the concept of freedom are indissolubly bound together, and Gr’s thematising of freedom in respect of things scientific is tied up with his consciousness of modernity.

Puritanism is historically a form of Protestantism, resulting from the movement of John Calvin affirmed in England, from the 1560s in reaction against official Anglicanism considered too close to idolatry. Puritans will leave England where they were persecuted and settle in the East of the United States later known as New England. This puritan community will serve as a model of a Protestant state based on religious principles. The rigor of the Calvinist doctrine determined social relations and guided the destiny of handpicked people for their moral rectitude. The principles that governed this Puritan society were already laying the foundations for a theocracy whose imprints are still visible in today’s American society. The puritans were pretending to be the light that should shine above the world and enlighten it with its values, and on this basis, they excluded any relationship of equality with others. Despite this theocratic ideal, the Protestant identity will gradually fade in favor of a secular state with a religious diversity and pluralism.

A significant part of the crisis of our contemporary European societies can be attributed to misplaced and abused religious zeal in various forms of religious fundamentalism, both domestically grown as well as imported and shared by the immigrants to Europe from third-world countries. To deal with this complex phenomenon in the European environment, it is necessary to conceive the analysis of the presented issue into a sociological scheme based on three premises: (1) diagnosis of migration processes in the context of growing population movements in Europe, (2) identification of determinants and factors that cause these movements, as well as (3) a proposal to solve the current situation in the spirit of social teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Our paper is an attempt to interpret and compare the opinions of selected experts on this sensitive issue and, with the help of their opinions, to present some guiding ideas on the path to possible solutions to the current situation. We begin by describing the ideological deconstruction of the moral and cultural world as evidenced in the postmodern society, accompanied by processes of subjectivization and individualization, which acquired a societal context in Europe and North America in the 1960s. We then turn to exploring the context of religious change (from a theological-sociological perspective). The religiosity of postmodern man becomes a mixture of various correct, albeit often contradictory, discontinuous elements , involving a small dose of love for one's neighbor, often taking the form of friendly affection and showing emotions towards animals and the external environment, ideologically correct psychology as well as parapsychology, supplemented by esoteric, occult and astrological notions, while staying open to the possibility for Eastern philosophies and the sects. Islamic fundamentalism is seen as a reaction to this religious-cultural context that is perceived (by conservative Muslims and Christians alike) as hostile to traditional values, ideas about the world, and ideals. The context of contemporary Islam’s influence on the European religious landscape and culture is scrutinized in the next section of our paper. In Europe, the number of Christians will fall from 74.5% to 65.2% between 2010 and 2050, while the number of non-believers (nones) will increase from 18.8% to 23.3%, and the number of Muslims will also almost double from 5.9% to 10.2%. The growth of Muslims in Europe will be affected by both birth rates and migration. A part of our critical analysis points to the self-destructive tendencies of some European elites and cultural influencers/policy makers. After outlining some forecasts and developments, and offering initial critical views on the transpiring phenomena, we move on to delineating possible solutions to this situation. Due to the complexity of the problem, there is no ready-made, simple way to handle this situation. While immigrants have always played in important role in the European history, a growing number of political scientists talk in particular about the internal protection of Europe, that is, the inevitability of protecting its constitutive, fundamental values and rights. If Europe is not to lose its face and cultural/moral fiber, it is important to uphold its constitutive values. This will not be possible without an intentional struggle to reinvent its moral and spiritual heritage with every new generation without forfeiting the fundamentals upon which our culture and civilization has been built. The concluding section of our paper focuses on the Catholic Church's position on this issue and its recent proposals for resolving the migration crisis. The Church’s teaching that state officials and others who profess Christianity but reject refugees are hypocrites because Jesus would accept these people should be balanced by a critical call to be aware that our obligation to love and care for our neighbor extends not only to the immigrants and their families but also to the families and individuals of the European host countries. Our fear of Islamization of Christian Europe may be an indication that we Europeans have very little confidence in our own faith. Accordingly, we will not be able to preserve the Christian faith by living it secluded in our churches, but by presenting our Christian spirit - by accepting these refugees and by helping them in their concrete circumstances, and by engaging them (as well as our secular counterparts) publicly with due respect in an open-ended discourse of metanarratives.

THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT OF AMERICAN HUMANISM by Stephen P. Weldon. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2020. 285 pages. Hardcover; $49.95. ISBN: 9781421438580. *The Scientific Spirit of American Humanism by Stephen Weldon recounts with approval the rise of non-theistic, and even antitheistic, thought in modern science. At the outset, I will confess to being a biased reviewer (perhaps, even, an antireviewer). If I were to tell this story, I would lament, rather than celebrate, the seemingly antireligious stance lauded in this history. I must also confess to being an active participant in this history, both as an amateur student in the fundamentalist/modernist controversy in the Presbyterian churches and in my own active involvement in faith-science discussions among evangelicals in the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA). No historical account is objective--it will always reflect its author's perspective. This is true of this book and of this review. *Weldon tells the history episodically highlighting key people who contributed to this story. He begins in chapter 1, "Liberal Christianity and the Frontiers of American Belief," with Unitarians (theists/deists who reject the deity of Christ), liberal Protestants, and atheistic freethinkers. After a few chapters, he turns to a largely secular story dominated by philosophers rather than ministers. Chapter 12 presents charts that show how the 1933 Humanist Manifesto had 50% signatories who were liberal and Unitarian ministers, while the 1973 Humanist Manifesto II had only 21%. By the end of book, humanism becomes secular/atheistic humanism. Weldon describes humanism as "a view of the world that emphasizes human dignity, democracy as the ideal form of government, universal education, and scientific rationality" (p. 5). While not explicitly mentioned, but likely included in the phrase "scientific rationality," is atheism. The 1973 Humanist Manifest II begins with this theme in its opening article about religion: "We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity." *Chapter 2, "The Birth of Religious Humanism," tells the early 1900s story of ministers John Dietrich, Curtis Reese, and philosopher Roy Wood Sellers, all who were or became Unitarians. "'God-talk' was no longer useful." Unitarianism ends up being a haven for religious humanists, even for those who have eliminated traditional religious language. These are the roots of today's secular humanism. *In many ways, this era is the other side of the religious history of America that this journal's readers may know. The ASA has roots in the more conservative and traditional end of American Protestantism. The old Princeton Presbyterians, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and B. B. Warfield, represent a strictly orthodox Christianity, but one open to the advances of modern science. One did not have to be theologically liberal to be proscience. The phenomenon of young-earth creationism is a relatively recent development. Conservative Protestants were not as opposed to conventional science as Weldon's treatment suggests. *The Humanist Manifesto (1933) is the subject of chapter 3, "Manifesto for an Age of Science." It was written by Unitarian Roy Wood Sellers and spearheaded by people associated with Meadville Theological School, a small Unitarian seminary, originally in Pennsylvania; after relocating, it had a close association with the University of Chicago. The Manifesto begins with the words, "The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes." The first affirmation is "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." *"Philosophers in the Pulpit" (chap. 4) highlights the University of Columbia philosophy department and John Dewey, in particular. Dewey was one of the more prominent signers of the Humanist Manifesto and a leading advocate of philosophical pragmatism. This chapter also tells the story of Felix Adler, also associated with Columbia, and the founder of Ethical Culture, an organization with nontheistic, Jewish roots. *"Humanists at War" (chap. 5) and "Scientists on the World Stage" (chap. 6) recount the increased secularization of humanism. Humanists in the 1940s increasingly struggled with the religious character of humanism. Should the category of religion be used at all? During this era, natural scientists, such as evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley and Drosophila geneticist Hermann Muller, rather than philosophers, led the most prominent forms of humanism. This humanism was increasingly secular, scientific, and even atheistic. *Weldon is not hesitant to expose the foibles of this movement. Chapter 7, "Eugenics and the Question of Race," traces how selective population control became part of the conversation. In addition to Huxley and Muller, Margaret Sanger is also part of this story. Philosopher Paul Kurtz makes his first appearance in this chapter and continues to be a significant player in the rest of the book. He was the editor of the Humanist Manifesto and used its pages to explore the question of race and IQ. *Chapter 8, entitled "Inside the Humanist Counter'culture," describes a period dominated by questions of human sexuality and psychology. Weldon's use of the word "counterculture" is apt. In the 1960s, the feminist Patricia Robertson and lawyer/activist Tolbert McCarroll expressed the zeitgeist of the sexual revolution. The psychology of Carl Rogers, Erich Fromm, and Abraham Maslow moved humanism from a more objective/scientific focus to a more experiential one. They are representatives of the third force (or humanistic) school of psychology, in contrast to Freudian psychoanalysis or Skinnerian behaviorism. Although agreement was rare, by the end of the decade, under Paul Kurtz (influenced by B. F. Skinner), the public face of humanism returned to a more scientific leaning. *Chapter 9, "Skeptics in the Age of Aquarius," is one chapter where I found myself, as a traditional evangelical, to be in nearly complete agreement. This chapter describes how New Age beliefs, along with an ascending occultism, came under fire from the scientific humanists under the leadership of Paul Kurtz. Weldon even cites a Christianity Today article that makes common cause with the secular humanists in their resistance to the growing occultism of western culture. I found this chapter to be a useful critique of New Age thinking. *"The Fundamentalist Challenge" (chap. 10) and "Battling Creationism and Christian Pseudoscience" (chap. 11) recount the clash between secular evolutionists and fundamentalist creationists, especially regarding the public-school science curriculum and the teaching of evolution. Here the author clearly demonstrates his prosecularist/anti-fundamentalist inclinations. On a more personal note, the mention of Francis Schaeffer, R. J. Rushdoony, and Cornelius Van Til, strikes at my own history. While some elements of this conservative Presbyterianism were clearly anti-evolutionist, others in the conservative Reformed camp were open to the proscience (including evolutionary biology) views of Warfield and Hodge, even in the early days of anti-evolutionism among fundamentalists. While some in the ASA would count themselves among young-earth creationists or flood geologists, the majority are open to old-earth geology and even to evolutionary biology. The reaction of Weldon himself, and other critics of this era, seems more akin to a religious fundamentalism of its own--albeit a fundamentalism of naturalism. Fundamentalists are not the only ones engaging in a culture war. My own view is that old-earth geology, old universe (big bang) cosmology, and evolutionary biology should be taught as the mainstream scientific consensus even in private religious schools. But dissent and disagreement should be allowed among teachers and students alike. Sometimes it seems to me that these fundamentalist creationists and atheistic evolutionists are all more interested in indoctrination than education. *Embedded in chapter 10 is the history of the Humanist Manifesto II (coauthored by Paul Kurtz). It clearly espouses positions antithetical to traditional Christian orthodoxy, especially in the explicit anti-theistic and prosexual revolution statements. But it is striking to me how much agreement I can find with people who so strongly disagree with traditional Christian faith. This tells me two things: while fundamental religious differences may exist between people, there is something about being human in this world that brings Christians and non-Christians together on many very fundamental questions such as liberty, human dignity, friendship, and peaceful co-existence. Such values are not the unique provenance of humanists or Christians or other religious groups. The second thing is that we are much better at emphasizing differences and seeking to force others to conform to our way than we are at tolerating differences and persuading those who disagree. *The opening of chapter 12, "The Humanist Ethos of Science and Modern America," brought me once again to a personal reflection that is relevant in reviewing this book. My own love of the natural sciences can be traced to Sagan, Asimov, Clarke, Gould, Dawkins, and others who brought the wonder of science to the broader public. Without denying their a-religious, and even antireligious posture, it is noteworthy that the truths about the natural world are independent of who discovered them or communicates them. And they are wondrous whether or not you acknowledge the hand of God in creating them. The process of science works whether the world was created by God or is the result of properties of the universe that just are. It is interesting to me that a brief discussion of post-modernism appears in this chapter. Postmodernism's undermining of the objectivity of natural science leads one to wonder whether this undermines the whole book by hinting that a postmodernist perspective is the consistent non'religious/atheist view. In contrast, the ASA's faith statement states: "We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation." According to Christians, natural science is possible because creation is orderly and intelligible. Atheists and skeptics simply assert the world's orderliness and intelligibility. *Like myself, readers of this journal are likely to have a different perspective on the events traced in Weldon's book. Nevertheless, the history recounted here helps us to see why there is such a divide between science and those who continue to be influenced by more conservative religious views. As such, it is a worthwhile read and of interest to those who follow the science-faith literature. *Reviewed by Terry Gray, Instructor in Chemistry, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

The term “religious fundamentalism” has attracted attention all over the world because of its adherents being involved in conflicts and violence. The phenomenon has been perceived twofold: one is returning to the core teachings of religion without accepting any modern changes and second is the palpable desire to establish a cosmic order (religious law) on canonic law in order to establish a just system which fundamentalists believe secular law has failed to establish. This paper endeavors to understand the nature, dimensions, and prospects of Islamic Fundamentalism under these two dimensions. It also aims at understanding the contestations and clashes it has with secular law, which makes it pass through the clout of clash of civilizations. It is a descriptive/exploratory research and the data has been collected through content analysis of secondary sources to reach the objective.