From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (see Fundamentalism at Wikipedia for Schools). Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Left wing fundamentalism[edit]

The intro says "Fundamentalism is commonly used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "right-wing/left-wing fundamentalists")". While I've heard "right-wing fundamentalists" many times, I've never heard reference to "left wing" fundamentalism, and indeed Google shows very few results for this phrase except as a play on "right wing fundamentalism" (and this Wikipedia page, which ranks high on the list). If there are no objections, I'll remove the "/left-wing" part from the article. Teslasha (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


The article would benefit from some actual referenced work from sociologists of religion, and could also tackle the problem of fundamentalism in relation to modernity and globalisation.

All Religious Organizations Believe they Follow the Fundamentals of Their Religion[edit]

Synonyms of "fundamental" are "essential, basic, primary, important, and crucial". All religious organizations see themselves as following the most important, essential, basic and crucial aspects of their religion. If we define "fundamentalists" as people who accept their sacred texts literally, then we should be calling them "literalists". However, as the "Basic beliefs" section points out, there are no religions that take their scriptures to be entirely free of figurative or poetic language. Hence, if the two main interpretations of the term "fundamentalist" (which are essentialist and literalist) apply to everyone and no one, respectively, then the validity of the term itself must be called into question. The term "fundamentalist" has no objective meaning; it is simply an epithet that is used to refer to a religious person who, in the view of the writer, is taking a passage of scripture literally when they should not. This is why all definitions of the term have so far been inaccurate, inappropriate, and glossed over with weasel words.

-- I agree with the previous paragraph with the slight change: Religious Organizations may believe they follow the fundamentals of their religion, however, individuals that say they are a particular religion or faith may or may not be 'fundamentalists'--ie: they do not adhere to the beliefs to which they say they identify with. This distinction is important as I've heard the term 'Fundamentalist Christian' used and it sounds perjorative in the news media, however, it's really a compliment as it's saying that this individual is not a 'hypocrite' to their own beliefs--they actually follow what they say they believe. Davesdynamite (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

-- No. Wrong, wrong and wrong again. A Fundamentalist Protestant, for example, would say that he or she adheres to all the stipulations of the Bible and perhaps the basic Church teachings. A Protestant who does not call him or herself fundamentalist may interpret the Bible in a way that is not orthodox (by which I do not mean 'in keeping with the Orthodox Church', I mean not in keeping with the most widely accepted tradition) and may consider some parts of the Bible or Church teachings to be incorrect. They may also consider that Christian teachings do not include everything one needs to be a true Christian, in all possibility. The fact that they do not adhere to the fundamentals of their religion does not make them a hypocrite, it simply makes them not a fundamentalist. -- User:Halfknees

-- I would seriously take issue with the idea that a Fundamentalist "adheres to all the stipulations of the Bible". Most fundamentalists do not enforce the silence of women in their churches (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), nor are they in favor of the killing of disobedient children (Deut. 21: 18-21). Nor do their bar the children of unwed parents from their services for 10 generations (Deuteronomy 23:2), or advocate Hebrew slavery (Exodus 21:2-11) or Pagan slavery (Leviticus 25:44). Nor do they bar the crippled from entering the house of the Lord (Leviticus 21:16-21). The only difference between Mainstream Christians and Fundamentalist Christians is that they disagree on which Bible verses they should reject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How about we include the def. in the history?[edit]

I suggest that we put the original definition of fundamentalism in either the history or the Christian views section and replace it with the definition of fundamentalism as applying to all religions. That would mean including the fact that the word has Christian origins, but expounding upon the specifics later. The following text should probably be kept at the top:

In its broadest usage in general terms, it denotes strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles; or, in the words of the American Heritage Dictionary: "a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

I am opposed to this suggestion. It is being implied that there is widespread use of the word fundamentalism to describe groups and individuals for which the word Christianity is not appropriate. In the anecdotal evidence which I am aware of a qualifier like Islamic, Buddhist, or Non-theistic is always necessary to inform the reader that the writer is not talking about Christian Fundamentalism. In other words, the definition of Fundamentalism has not changed, and what these writers are saying is that it is like Christian Fundamentalism. There are at least two definitions one which is employed by people describing themselves i.e. “the original definition,” and a secondary definition which is used as an insult. I feel strongly we should not imply that the insult is the more common or the broadest definition without evidence. Scholarly dictionaries, unlike American Heritage Dictionary [citation needed], list definitions in the order in which they came into use which I believe is a fair treatment for this article unless someone can provide quantitative evidence that one definition is more common then another.--Riferimento 11:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the current introduction is inaccurate and misleading; however the original definition is inadequate and doesn't encompass some of common usage or meanings. To do it justice the introduction should in my opinion point out that:

  • firstly, the term has differing meanings and is controversial;
  • it can be used in many circumstances but typically has religious connotations;
  • the term originates from the christian movement, specifically US protestantism and the early 20th century split in the presbyterian church.
  • Common usage now relates to both christian and islamic fundamentalism, and religious fundamentalism in general is considered a global phenomenon.
  • Recent definitions of fundamentalism tend to equate it to a mindset that is both principled and passionate yet unlikely to be altered by any external arguments or contradictory evidence.
  • The term may be used pejoratively and may be considered offensive to certain groups.

If anyone feels these are reasonable points to include I will wrtie the introduction including the citations and NPOV. simonthebold 15:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the current introduction is inaccurate and misleading. No I don't "feel these are reasonable points to include," in the lead. Also agree: "the definition of fundamentalism as applying to all religions."...and other meanings tend to be derivative of the religious connotations. Here's 100 uses of "FUNDAMENTALISM" on the Web.

Also, the info in three citations in the first sentence:

  1. ^ "Fundamentalism", Accessed 14-05-2008.
  2. ^ Google define:fundamentalism
  3. ^ George M. Marsden, "Fundamentalism and American Culture", (1980)pp 4-5

...and the info in the lead section are a poor match. The info in the lead section seems to give a white-washed candy-coated (thus inaccurate) POV description of even the cited reality as well as most dictionaries. (And skimming, I did not notice there that modernism is a theology - it's not more like art-deco?)

Somebody here writes: "The term may be used pejoratively and may be considered offensive to certain groups." First of all should that even be noted, cuz face it, -- what religious or political description isn't? ...and considered as a slur by others? Liberal, conservative, Muslim, Christian, creationist, Democrat, Republican, socialist capitalist, secular, humanist etc..... If it's the facts, the best word, offensiveness is not a reason for censorship nor for softening. While somebody who self-identifies as a fundamentalist might be offended to learn how many-most people see him, too bad, that's the facts. And yes, some of the offended are likely to shout loud objections and denials, thus making it "controversial." ...Not a good reason to sweep the unpleasant reality and common perceptions under the carpet, else Wiki paint a cotton candy world. Therefore I disagree with: "To do it justice the introduction should point out that: the term controversial." Unless "controversial" has a serious meaning different than "the predicted people who would feel unflattered or offended by the experience of critical perception," can be documented. That discussion however might(?) be appropriate outside of the lead section, -- yet isn't whimpering to be expected and sorta self-evident, like the sky is blue? Is Wiki to call all unpleasant adjectives and depictions "controversial?" Is it Wiki's job to "soften the blow," of one's life choices?...or is enlightenment and mental stimulation the game? Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)

"Quantitative evidence that one definition is more common:" 33 dictionaries that include the word fundamentalism. It seems there are only three common usages or meanings. It's my opinion that the original 1920s origin is arcane and over-emphasized...should be in the origins sections, not the modern definition section (minor point for clear writing) as in the Encarta® World English Dictionary.
-- (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Weaselly writing in many places :-([edit]

There are a large number of "Some say that...", "Most foo believe...", "A possible criticism is..." statements, with which of course anyone with more than 10 edits to Wikipedia is probably already familiar. ;-) I tagged some of the ones that "leapt up at me" the most, and I see someone else has been busy too; the Non-theistic fundamentalism section in particular has a whole mess of [who said this?] tags (about one per sentence, actually — tagging the paragraph might have been easier!). I tried to tag statements from both sides of the argument for balance (since I frankly couldn't care less who "wins" the article).

It seems possible that the external links might, if of reliable-source quality, meet some of these needs; some of the other ones seem like a product of "back-and-forth" argumentative editing and should probably be refactored. I'll refrain from taking too active an interest since, in addition to being a yellow-bellied coward who steers away from controversial articles, I'm a fundie myself.;-) I hope I helped a little! --tiny plastic Grey Knight 13:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh heh heh heh... the problem now is, how to get rid of them? You labeled 36 phrases as in need of citations. ...I would think it better if you had actually checked the references to see whether or not the material was there, before actually requesting a citation. That's kinda lazy.
I'm not mocking your effort, only saying that it's much easier to challenge than to meet a challenge. (and far less time consuming.) Tcaudilllg (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Tcaudilllg, everywhere you go you're making personal attacks on people for their efforts please stop. I don't think it was quite within your right to be calling someone lazy. They didn't have to do anything at all to fix the mess. Instead of saying "why don't you do the work yourself?" every time, why don't you actually do some. For some people tagging the statements in question is all they have the time or interest for. Please respect that.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 04:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What Do You Do When the Scholars Disagree?[edit]

The fact is that there is not a commonly agreed-upon definition of fundamentalism. As a historian of American Fundamentalism, I think it's absolutely inappropriate to apply the tag "fundamentalist" to a class of unrelated movements in different religions and cultures. Many sociologists are going to feel just as strongly that fundamentalism is a totally appropriate term to describe what they identify as a single global phenomenon. The way you define fundamentalism (general vs particular) has as much to do with your field of study as any particular bias.

I don't know how this might be handled. The article, as written, describes the origin of the historical fundamentalist movement, and it's a good start. It might be reasonable to talk about how the term came to be applied to Muslims and then to other groups.

There's already an article on Christian fundamentalism which covers much of the same ground. I think that the best approach to this article would be to prepare a general summary of the usage of the word fundamentalism, noting that it was, for most of its history, applied only to Protestant Christians and has relatively recently come to be applied to non-Protestant groups. Atterlep 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly when multiple sources of roughly equal credibility and notability disagree, its generally prudent to include all the notable views, pointing out where they came from. In most cases I think you'll find there is a traditionally accepted definition that the majority holds while certain, generally smaller but still notable, groups oppose it. The most successful approach I've seen to that situation defines the subject in terms of the mainstream position, and then points out the differences between multiple parties. Fascism is a pretty good example of this (or at least it was. Its been a while since I've edited the article so I'm not sure if its been altered heavily).--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts for inclusion in the Atheist Fundamentalism Section[edit]

Is it worth mentioning the responses to "The God Delusion" in this section? Some Christians seem to be attaching the label atheist fundamentalist to Richard Dawkins (particularly to this last work). See, for example, "The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine" by Alister and Joanna Collicutt McGrath. Also, Dawkins' response to some of this in the Times (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it is probably worth a singlesentence addition to the Atheistic fundamentalism section, but not more. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is fair to say both religious believers and Atheists can be passionate about their point of view. However the way they express their view of the other, may reveal the answer to whether atheists are fundamentalists or not. A Religious believer's description of a non believer. You may know the phrase; "Oh ye of little faith". I have heard it numerous times; normally used in a derogatory fashion in an attempt to make me feel inadequate. As if something was missing. Of course the statement is indeed correct. The Atheist is of little faith. An atheist's view is, although not so well known metaphorically ; "Oh ye of little reason" when referring to faith believers. I wonder to what extent faith believers accept that tag? I would expect that the majority of Atheists would claim that their view is one based on evidence or lack thereof. Perhaps other Atheists' views tend towards philosophy more than classical science. The result is still an Atheist's view can be changed with supporting evidence or reasoning. A reason based and not faith based belief. I see the term "Atheist Fundamentalist" more as an attempt to discredit rather than accurately describe them. Technically speaking the majority of Atheists are not "Fundamentalists". They are reasoners who are at times passionate and base their view on current scientific evidence or philosophical argument. Soadyp (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(KW July 15, 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC) (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The opposite of belief is not Reason, but disbelief. A person can approach an idea with both faith and reason, but they cannot permanently regard that single idea with both belief and unbelief. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but belief and unbelief (by definition) are. Therefore, the opposite of belief is unbelief and it would be more appropriate for Atheists to refer to believers as "ye of too much faith" (with the implication being that any amount of faith is too much). And since believers regard faith as being a legitimate concept, they would be more inclined to accept the tag of "too much faith" than "too little reason".
Most serious religious thinkers would not take "faith" to mean "belief held despite a lack of supporting evidence and/or in spite of the existence of conflicting evidence." A great deal of time is spent by theologians and others hashing and rehashing the arguments for and against various religious beliefs. Looking at any particular religious faith from the outside (take Shia Islam, for instance), we may not be persuaded by the evidence and arguments they muster (if we were, we'd be Shia also), but that doesn't mean that truth, reason and rationality aren't important to them. They have simply been persuaded by arguments that we find unpersuasive (much as Keynesian economists are persuaded by arguments that other schools of economists find unpersuasive). EastTN (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Many (if not most) religious believers have a collection of evidences and arguments that they believe demonstrate the legitimacy of their belief in a way that is rational and reasonable to them. Most often, when these adherents learn of new evidences that (in their estimation) adequately refute their beliefs, they convert to a different religion or become non-religious altogether. If believers and religious people were entirely closed to accepting contradictory evidence, then religious conversion would not be commonplace, and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Evangelical Protestants would not be able to increase their numbers through their proselytization efforts.
You may find the rare believer who claims they would stand by their faith even if all their reasons for believing it were proven false, but the fact that conversion between religions (and from religion to irreligion and vice versa) is so commonplace demonstrates that believers are in no way immune to contradictory evidence. Likewise, there are the rare unbeleivers who claim they would adhere to their unbelief, even in the face of contradictory evidence (such as the protestor holding the sign that says "If Jesus returned, I'd kill him again.") But these people are not common, and (as with their believing counterparts) it is questionable whether they would actually stand by their unbeleif if credible contradictory evidence were presented to them. Thus, if we are to define a fundamentalist as a person who would maintain their belief (or lack of belief) regardless of contradictory evidence, then it would be reasonable to conclude that non-believers can be fundamentalist (at least in theory). A non-believer may say that an Atheist fundamentalist is not "truly" an Atheist. But at the same time, most Christians do not believe that Christian Fundamentalists (who maintain that an all-loving God does not love gays, and that Jesus' teachings about loving your enemies are illegitimate) are not Christians in any meaningful sense.

Arguments in Favour[edit]

Does anyone else think that the arguments in favour section is a bit small and that it misses the point. I always THOUGHT that the main argument in favour of fundamentalism was that either the bible/Torah/Koran et al were the word do God and so perfectly correct and the only option was fundamentalism or they were not the word of god so why bother at all? Sort of if its worth believing then its worth believing right. As well as that anything less than fundamentalism means that the religion will change with social trends and that means that it is no longer the ultimate truth but rather today’s ultimate truth, will change tomorrow.

I have not found any references for the above yet, if people agree then I will have a look and think about a re write. If I am being stupid please say so.


CaptinJohn (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalism is hardly amenable to "argument". You are a fundamentalist because you cannot help being one. Proffering "arguments" for or against would be much like proffering arguments for or against a tune stuck in your mind, a general morning grumpiness, or a dislike of jasmine flavour. There is really nothing rational about it, so there can also be no debate about whether it is "right" (unless you accept the axiom that a position needs to make sense rationally in order to be "right", in which case irrational positions like fundamentalism are necessarily "wrong"). dab (𒁳) 17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

-- Not all fundamentalists 'cannot help being one', that is a completely absurd statement. Many people rationally study philosophy and theology and find Fundamentalism to be what seems correct. Personally I can't see why you would find it the most rational stance to take, but the fact is some people do. And yes, there is very definitely an argument for it, the basics of which John brushed over in his original post.

I'm going to make an argument for fundamentalism being a rational position. When someone goes about trying to find who is guilty of a crime and he comes accross evidence that is so convincing that every other evidence that would lead one to think otherwise would pail in comparison to the proof of guilt that one would thereby be in the same position as a fundamentalist. If what happened with Jesus or Mohammed provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt then the commitment to follow the principals and to be on biased on the side of it being truth (and we are all biased, lets be honest)then the conclusion must be that the position is as rational as any other one would take.````alketamark22:13, 23 March 2008
If fundamentalist Islam or Christianity were presented as a case to a court of law, it would be summarily dismissed with prejudice and howls of derisive laughter. Groupthink (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If you study logic long enough you will find that nothing can be proven without making assumptions. Those that laugh at others are unable to see their own blind trust in unproven beliefs about reality. If you are incapable of respecting the beliefs of others it is probably the result of a lack of knowledge and not the result of too much knowledge. I would love for you to show me any belief structure or idea that can be proven without some basis in blind faith. In other words, show me the court that laughs and I’ll show you a court of fools. --N0nr3s (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for the tangent, folks, this is supposed to be a discussion page about the article itself, not its topic, but I have to respond to this. I have studied logic, and I know that "nothing can be proven without making assumptions" is a misstatement and an exaggeration. Logic is founded on axioms, not assumptions, and there's a big difference between the two. Logical systems are founded upon as few simple axioms as possible, drawing conclusions from those axioms based on formal reasoning. Contrast this with belief systems, which arbitrarily base entire realities on myths and then justify their dogma with "blind faith". Don't be fooled by this Evangelism 101 talking point folks: Compare this and this to see for yourself that N0nr3s is making a specious argument. One final point: This court laughed, and they're hardly a court of fools. Groupthink (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Groupthink check out these definitions for axiom (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you're insulted, but attacking your argument is not the same thing as attacking you. People of faith like yourself cannot attempt to put faith on par with science and then hide behind the shield of "you're disrespecting our religion and thus us." Sorry, but the marketplace of ideas is free, unregulated, competitive and ruthless. As for your link to those definitions of axiom... your point is what exactly? If anything, you've proven my point: there's a big difference between something that's held to be self-evident and something that's accepted blindly. Again, contrast Euclidean geometry, which is based upon axioms such as the parallel postulate, against Scientology, which is based upon tales of Xenu the space alien, or Hinduism, which is based upon tales of Haranaman the Monkey God, or Christianity, which is based upon tales of Jesus the magician. Science deals with the rational and the physical, whereas religion deals with the mythical and the metaphysical. They are not comparable. Groupthink (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
First, the purpose of the link was to demonstrate that an axiom is an assumption and that the major difference that you alluded to does not exist. Second, I presented only one suggestion in this discussion, all the arguments that you responded too are arguments which you made for me. My suggestion is still the same, that you respect the views of other editors and do not imply that their beliefs are foolish. Stop behaving like a troll. I also, think you should heed your own advice and use this page to talk about the article. --N0nr3s (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Axiom: "A self-evident truth that requires no proof." Assumption: "The act of taking for granted or supposing." Example of an axiom: "Given a non-intersecting dot A and line B in a Euclidean plane, there is one and only one line parallel to B that intersects A." Example of an assumption: "There is one God – not many Gods, not no God – and said God knocked up a virgin 2000-some years ago." End of discussion. Groupthink (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing you fail to qualify in your argument groupthink is that the case for Jesus is a historical matter. Historical matters have other criteria than those used in scientific experiments that can be proved in a labratory. In court cases, they look at witnesses, the character of the person, the things he has done and the motives as evidence that they have. In regards to the initial discussion about Dbauchman's comment about Fundamentalism being irrational, I'll add that if the proof for the crucifixion and the ressurection of Jesus is substantial, as may possibly be in a court case for something else today lets say, then a fair sentence should be comletely carried out unless the proofs can be overturned. This is not considered irrational in court of law so therefore should not be considered irrational in regards to the faith's for whom the word is used. If the proof is weak for what is considered adequate for trust in the reliability of a historical document or historical event then maybe a fundamentalist commitment could perhaps be considered irrational. I can definately sympathise with someone who feels that a fundamentalist who want to take over the world and kill all unbelievers as irrational. The rational, however, for fundamentalism is always based on whether or not the case for the divine origen of the faith at hand is adequately proven. Arguments for or against Christianity for example have been made for centuries and a fundamentalist can provide evidence that demands a verdict. The evidence leads one to makes a logical choice to follow based upon the evidence the self evident truth that need no proof. Do you know that there is more proof that Jesus was crucified than Napolean was defeated at Waterloo? Jesus himself was on trial for who he claimed to be and his court laughed at him and tore their clothes at the blashpemy. My point remains, however, that if the events for which fundamentalism exist are factual then it could not be irrational. Obviously arguing against it could be different and more passionate here for some because of the life committment that follows "a guilty verdict", thus the feeling of arguing against a tune stuck in your head that dbachman mentioned. There are however many fundamentalist who can argue with the same sound mind that one could argue for any other historical event..````alketamark —Preceding comment was added at 16:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As any good lawyer knows, witness testimony is the most unreliable evidence that can be presented in court. But hey, I agree with you to a certain point: There's plenty of historical evidence that an Essian Rabbi from Nazareth named Yehoshua was crucified sometime around 36 CE. However, the rest of the story is mythological hearsay. Groupthink (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

-- FYI, the "Arguments in Favor" section was itself removed from the article on 4 February 2008 by User:Dbachmann with the comment "rm openly argumentative and 100% unsourced section. restore once provided with quotable references."

Text of this section follows:

Arguments in favor of fundamentalist positions

Fundamentalists claim both that they practice their religion as the first adherents did and that this is how religion should be practiced. In other words, a Christian ought to believe and practice as those who knew and followed Jesus during his time on earth. A Muslim ought to give the same consideration to the followers of Muhammad. Analogous arguments can be made for most systems of religious belief. Fundamentalists justify this belief on the idea that the founders of the world's religions said and did things that were not written down; in other words, their original disciples knew things that we don't. For fundamentalist Christians, this claim is justified by the Gospel of John, which ends with the statement "there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25, NKJV) Further justification is adducted from the static or falling attendance of many liberal or reformed congregations, from the scandals that have struck, for example, the Roman Catholic church, and from the increasing difficulty of distinguishing between religiously liberal and avowedly secularist views on such matters as homosexuality, abortion and women's rights.

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The distinction that has been drawn between "axiom" and "assumption" is no longer as persuasive as has been suggested above. The classic formulation for an "axiom" is "self-evident truth," and Euclidean geometry is the classic example of the role of axioms. We've now seen well developed non-Euclidean geometries that are based on changing one of Euclid's axioms. (In particular, the fifth postulate that was appealed to above, in the form of Playfair's postulate, as an example of an axiom: "Given a non-intersecting dot A and line B in a Euclidean plane, there is one and only one line parallel to B that intersects A.") We've also looked at non-classical systems of logic that jettison one or more of the axioms of classical logic, such as the law of non-contradiction or law of the excluded middle. All of these principles were once considered "self-evident," but modern mathematics and mathematical logic have found that perfectly useful, self-consistent geometries and logical systems can be constructed assuming different sets of fundamental axioms. To get a sense of how this has changed current thinking about axioms, take a look at Axiom#Modern_development. Some core philosophical assumptions make more sense than others, and we should certainly all challenge our own thinking, but we're kidding ourselves if we don't think we're making any assumptions of our own. EastTN (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Fundamentals: Can we please clarify?[edit]

Could discussion of The Fundamentals (edited by Reuben Archer Torrey, funded(?) by Lyman and Milton Stewert) please be clarified and coordinated? I see various statements in Fundamentalism and The Fundamentals as to when these were published and what role the various participants played in their writing and publication. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


:*Merge a huge chunk of this article where it duplicates or originates information relevant to Fundamentalist Christianity. This should have only a summary statement with "See also: Fundamentalist Christianity". This article should centre on and discuss general information on all forms of fundamentalism. --Faith (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Clarify: NB I said "huge chunk" of this article, not the entire article. Separate qualified fundamentalism articles should remain, but this article focuses too heavily on certain types (with no citations through most of it), when it should be more general to Fundamentalism itself. Faith (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn. Most of the material was already on the other article. Faith (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not merge but do improve both articles so they compliment each other. If we do merge this article we will have to merge in Islamic fundamentalism and other religion-specific articles as well. By the way, I added the merger tag to Fundamentalist Christianity, it was left off when the merger was proposed and/or later removed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not merge Right now we have two bad articles both marred by individuals trying to push their own beliefs on others. The real reason for two articles is that allows individual editors the freedom to push their own personal agenda on others without interference. That said it will not work to combine the two because no consensus could ever be reached. Those that oppose Fundamentalism have worked long and hard to tailor an article that implies that Fundamentalism is closed minded and evil by definition and they will not tolerate an objective article. How long do we leave up that horrible merge tag, one week, two weeks, or do we let if sit there indefinitely?--N0nr3s (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(Re)moved from article[edit]

The following makes the article section far too long, chatters on with no substance, and is mostly OR. I'm moving it here for determination if any of it is worth salvaging. --Faith (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In 1909, Lyman Stewart, founder of Biola University, and his brother Milton, anonymously funded the publication of a twelve-volume series of articles called The Fundamentals, [1] [2] published between 1910 and 1915, and distributed free of charge to a wide range of Christian teachers and leaders, "Compliments of Two Christian Laymen." These volumes were intended as a restatement of conservative Christian theological teachings, primarily in response to the growing influence of modernist, liberal theology in the Church. In 1917 these articles were republished in a revised, four volume set by Biola. The term "fundamentalism" is in part derived from these volumes. The Fundamentals, were authored by a broad range of denominations in North America and the United Kingdom in which various core doctrines and traditional teachings (all considered basic to the Christian Faith) were defended against any movement which appeared to undermine the authority of Bible, the Holy Scriptures. Examples of those considered unfriendly, having the disposition of an enemy, and even hostile, were: Catholicism, Socialism, Modern Philosophy, Atheism, Eddyism (Mary Baker Eddy - Christian Science), Mormonism, Spiritualism ("Channeling" etc.), and above all, "Liberal Theology"[3] (a movement which held a naturalistic interpretation of the doctrines of the faith, German higher criticism, and Darwinism).

Almost immediately, however, the list of unfriendly movements became narrower and the “fundamentals” less specific. Some of the original defenders of The Fundamentals of Christianity began to dissent and re-organize into other denominations. In 1910, The General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church affirmed several essential doctrines in the church regarded as under attack: The Inerrancy of Scripture, The Virgin Birth of Jesus, The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ, Christ’s bodily resurrection, and the Historicity of The Miracles.[citation needed] These were reaffirmed in 1916 and again in 1923. Another version put the Deity of Christ in place of the Virgin Birth.

The term "fundamentalist" was perhaps first used in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws in the Baptist Watchman-Examiner[citation needed][4], but it soon became widely accepted as a common term identifying anyone who believed in and actively defended the traditional doctrines of Christianity. For example, in the 1920s the Baptist John Roach Straton called his newspaper The Fundamentalist. The Presbyterian scholar J. Gresham Machen disliked the word and only hesitatingly accepted it to describe himself, because, he said, the name sounded like a new religion and not the same historic Christianity that the Church had always believed.[citation needed]

Throughout the 1920s in the United States, the "fundamentalists" and "modernists" struggled against each other for control of the large northern denominations.[citation needed] Fundamentalists viewed this as nothing less than a struggle for true (i.e., historical) Christianity against a new naturalistic religion that had crept into the churches. In his book, Christianity and Liberalism (1923), Machen called the new naturalistic religion "Liberalism", but later followed the more popular fashion of referring to it as "Modernism".[citation needed]

Even though people such as Harry Emerson Fosdick professed to be Christian, fundamentalists felt that he and other non-fundamentalists could not be regarded as fundamental because they denied the traditional formulations of the doctrines of Christianity and replaced them with modern naturalistic doctrinal statements.[citation needed] The issue was as much each side’s approach to theology in the context of history, as it was each side’s view of Christianity. Fundamentalists believed that the manner in which Christian doctrines had been already formulated were correct and that attempts to reformulate them in modernistic terms and naturalistic views were bound to be a perversion of the truth[citation needed]. Their position was that the fundamentals were unchanging because of the Biblical passage, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever," (Hebrews 13:8, KJB) which they interpreted to mean that the nature of Christianity should remain eternally unchanged.

Church struggles occurred in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Protestant Episcopal Church, and even in the Southern Presbyterian Church, but the grand battles were fought in the Northern Presbyterian and Northern Baptist denominations[citation needed]. Machen was the undisputed leader among Presbyterians, joined by Clarence E. Macartney. Baptists created the National Federation of the Fundamentalists of the Northern Baptists (1921), the Fundamentalist Fellowship (1921), and the Baptist Bible Union (1923) to lead the fight. The battles focused upon the seminaries, the mission boards, and the ordination of clergy. In many ways, however, the real strongholds of the Fundamentalists were the Southern Baptists and the countless new independent churches spread across America’s South and Midwest, as well as the East and West[citation needed].

We may have pulled more out than was necessary. Some of this does is appropriately sourced, and I suspect the more factual aspects of the rest can also be found in general histories of the movement. I'd like to suggest that we put what's sourced back into the History section. Christian Fundamentalism is often discussed, but poorly understood - the more factual background we can provide the better. EastTN (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Under Buddhism, I've removed the section on New Kadampa Tradition. The debate is too complex to label 'fundamentalism' without a lot more analysis. See wiki page on 'Dorje Shugdan controversy' for details. Eyesofcompassion (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The removal mentioned here (of New Kadampa) appears to have been undone, but I think the removal is justified. The sources that are cited (Thurman & Prohl) are contradictory. Thurman later apologized for his statement, and never provided any justification for his view. Prohl's review of Kay's work contra-indicates application of the term Fundamentalist to this group. -- (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename article or change introductory paragraph[edit]

The article opens with the qualifying word religious infront of fundamentalism. Either this article is about religious fundementalism and should be so labelled or it should be reverted to the previous more general definitiion. simonthebold (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it should be renamed since the focus is on religion and not the other types if fundamentalism. Religion is one aspect. Anyone reading this article would think that it is only about religious fundamentalism. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the changes I wanted to and nobody has reverted them, so I'm happy that balance has ben restored. simonthebold (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Beginning Citation[edit]

"The collective use of the term fundamentalist to describe non-Christian movements has offended some Christians who desire to retain the original definition." -- Why is this the only sentence in the introduction without a citation? It makes me very curious. If I knew how to put the [who?] question in there, I would. Colonel Marksman (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I added the tag. EastTN (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubious OED statement[edit]

"Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary" is absurd; the first edition was published in its final form in 1933, and the first volume of the supplement to that edition was published in 1972. So what happened in 1950?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

removed WSS claim[edit]

I deleted the insertion from a WP:SPS which statements are made by a group of anonymous people without legal office and obviously follow extreme views as expressed on the website itself. There is still a quote from that group in the section on Buddhism, but it should not overshadow what has been published by WP:RS, also the claim is not neutral or has been balanced. This is what I have removed:

</ref> The Dalai Lama himself displays these fundamentalist qualities by refusing intrafaith dialogue with Buddhist practitioners of Dorje Shugden: "Because the Dalai Lama refuses even to acknowledge our correspondence, let alone enter into meaningful dialog, we are left with no alternative but to organize protest demonstrations wherever the Dalai Lama visits."[5]

--Kt66 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There is also another problem with the Western Shugden Society (WSS) in this context. While the fundamentalist claims were made with respect to a radical Tibetan faction in the Gelug school (see also Sparham, lecturer at the University of Michigan, Tibetan Review 1999,, the [Western Shugden Society]], as the name states, constitutes mainly of Westerners and is set up by a Western group with almost no Tibetans. Without understanding of the Tibetan society, history (which is easily to recognize reading the website articles) and political situation they take the accusations against the radical faction among Gelugs, who are accused also of killing, personally and confuse thereby the actual situation into a cross cultural confusion (see also John Makransky(2000). Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars, John J. Makransky, Roger Reid Jackson, p. 20, in Introduction to Contemporary Academic Buddhist Theology; Its emergence and rationale) Due to all of these confusions I think quotes from this anonymous website run via proxy servers should not emphasized too much. --Kt66 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Matthews, Dr. Terry L., Fundamentalism, in Religion 166: Religion in America, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, Fall 1996
  2. ^ Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
  3. ^ More accurately called Modernism, see Modernism (Roman Catholicism)
  4. ^ Newsweek, Sept. 5, 2005, "Special Report: Spirituality 2005", p.61 gives a definition of Fundamentalism, dating it 1883, Ontario, Canada.
  5. ^

Neutrality in section[edit]

I hate to use such a strong template, for a lesser objection, but the section Basic beliefs of religious fundamentalists has bad formulations indicating a western christo-fundamentalist opinion. The troublesome sentences are:

  • "This is made clear by the commands of Jesus in the New Testament concerning any kind of revenge ("Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord" for one).",

which is not clear at all, instead it requires an analysis,

  • if this is an intro to a generalized view onto fundamentalism in other religion, it fails because it is not a valid statement except in Judaism and Christianity,

instead the reasoning preferrably should refer to some sociological studies if available, making comparison between belief systems. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a template Template:POV-check that is more accurate for a mild objection towards formulations and examples, not a real dispute of the intent of the section. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
One complicating factor is that multiple senses or uses of the term "fundamentalism" are covered in the article. These include, at a minimum:
  • The technical definition of fundamentalist Christianity describing those who adhere to the "five fundamentals"
  • A more general every-day usage to describe a broad array of conservative or zealous Christian groups
  • An even more general usage describing the conservative, zealous or militant wing of any religion
  • Generalizing again, the use of the word to describe conservative, zealous or militant adherents to anything
There are some hints of (unsourced) sociological musings in some of the sections, but nothing that can be called a clear sociological definition (other than a side reference to "Robert Lifton’s definition of the fundamentalist self."). Looking at the article on Lifton, I'm not sure we have a definition of fundemantalism there - he seems more focused on "totalism."
I'm not sure how we get from here to there without finding several really good, neutral sources. It's going to be difficult to discuss the sociology without having a crisp definition of the groups that the sociological discussion applies to. EastTN (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think using Lifton's reasoning is like shooting kittens (not cthulhuids) with bazooka. He probably makes a good discourse on mindcontrol and thought reform, but I don't think there's a direct connection between fundamentalism and that cult stuff. As much as I've heard, cults (not their individuals) have a very flexible view on what can be regarded as fundamentals – the cult's main purpose of using this or that argument, is to keep their members (= income source) in control. I'll read throught the references of this article instead, and see what I can find. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I also think I shall remove the neutrality template and instead try to point at individual sentences by "citation needed" and such. If anyone complains to my removal, reinsert {{POV-check|section|date=~~~~~}}. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think I'll reinsert it for now. NPOV and adequate sourcing are slightly different issues (though I suspect that as we work out the sourcing we may well fix the POV as well). EastTN (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I agree with you on Lifton. It struck me as a bit off point. EastTN (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"The Origins and Nature of Fundamentalism in Society" by Niccolo Caldararo, PhD. contains most religions. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Although that guy is more like "socio-historian" than "sociological" or "psychosociological", by my estimate. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I still think we have the problem that he's using the term in a technical sense, while most of the article is devoted to non-technical uses of the word. The article could really benefit from some structural/organizational work that would clarify the different senses of the word, and which is being addressed in each section. Right now, I'm afraid they probably all run together for the average reader, perhaps causing more confusion than enlightenment. (Though I do think the Caldararo article is a great find.) EastTN (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the current structure of the article can be kept, while enhancing it to describe that the selfproclaimed US fundamentalists of old are used as a pattern for contra-modernity attack groups of any kind anywhere in the world, we just have to find a citable general pattern ("definition") to use when describing fundamentalists of other religions, the section Later usage could be improved to contain such a pattern. I don't know of such a general pattern, but I have perceived one non-citable pattern myself: by my estimate (my WP:OR, don't use!), what motivates a typical "fundamentalist" is a "defence-reaction" against an evil environment, a phanatism for an imagined easy solution to those evils of the environment, f.ex. "if everybody would be true christians then there would be no wars", instead of the usual constructed solutions, f.ex. diplomacy, negotiations, that ordinary humans perceive. The more constructed solution as conceived by a fundamentalist is keeping other humans in control by a repressive system, but that use to be a later conclusion. It seems the site is a resource that can be used for finding more sources on fundamentalism. I'll take a look to see if I can find Armstrong, Karen (2000) "The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam", Harper-Collins, somewhere – Armstrong impressed me by her book "A History of God", so the other one would probably provide an easy-to-read while yet reliable and informative source. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, that's the real issue, isn't it? What are the uses of the term "fundamentalist," and which is being discussed in each section. Rather than basing the discussion on a particular sociological construct, I'd prefer to see us take a more linguistic approach. How do people use the word in practice? Reading what we have, I see the following:

  • The technical definition of fundamentalist Christianity describing those who adhere to the "five fundamentals"
  • A more general every-day usage to describe a broad array of conservative or zealous Christian groups
  • An even more general usage describing the conservative, zealous or militant wing of any religion
  • Generalizing again, the use of the word to describe conservative, zealous or militant adherents to anything

Constructs such as Karen Armstrong's would fit naturally as part of the discussion of fundamentalism as used to describe the conservative, zealous or militant wing of any religion. What I think we must do for the reader in order to make this a good article is to make it clear, for instance, that Ms. Armstrong is using the word more broadly than the the original "five fundamentals" sense, and that people talking about fundamentalist atheism are using the term in a distinct, broader sense. Otherwise, we just confuse people. EastTN (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your points are valid. I think there is a natural "hierarchy" between the definitions, and that each of them can be derived from the previous one. I would wager that that generalizing order of yours is exactly that hierarchy, but I think the article could easily be enhanced to contain these definitions, each after the other. The main criteria for fundamentalism is conservative or reactionary, zealous and deliberately antagonizing, declaring this-or-that-jihad/crusade, extrovertly aggressive, searching conflict rather than defending fiercely from attacks. That seems to be constant from those original fundamentalists, see [Lecture 21 Fundamentalism section Weakness of Leadership second paragraph cites a certain J. Gresham Machen essentially declaring liberaltheological christians "non-christian", and misrepresenting them insultingly. I think stepwise extending the "definition" of fundamentalism could very well fit where the section Later usage is now, optionally creating two or three extra subsections to replace Later usage. What is needed, IMHO, is that we have a generalized discourse ready when Basic beliefs of religious fundamentalists starts. I don't exact know how I shall relate to this section The fundamentalist phenomenon yet. I would wish to have a reflective analysis preparing some sociological apparatus with which to analyse the various religions, but I think it is just necessary to have some general and citable description of fundamentalism in order to have a religion-independent pattern to apply to various international fundamentalisms. Having a shallow overview and a straight line from the self-declareds to the international F:s we can successively add detail till the article has highest possible information value, which may occur some time before it is splitup-time, c.f. the far-beyond splitup-time Stellar classification which converges to incomprehensibility. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
We definitely have to set up the context of what we mean by "fundamentalists" before discussing their basic beliefs. I'm not convinced that there's necessarily a clear behavioral and ideological link between the different groups the various definitions relate to. For instance, the first "five fundamentals" fundamentalists were reacting to entirely different issues than the ones we currently associate with "fundamentalists" - basically, they were uncomfortable with higher criticism and what they viewed as theological liberalism creeping into the church. Darwinism was important, but ultimately a side issue to them. Their big fight was the authority of the scriptures for the Christian, and they took on Darwinism because they saw it as being used to undermine that authority. That's a far cry from today's politicized "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist" atheism - and likely driven by different motivations.
In any case, we don't need to arm-wrestle over that. My sense is that these issues will sort themselves out if we can clarify our definitions so that it's obvious what each section and source is talking about, rather than applying sources on "fundamentalist" apples to "fundamentalist" oranges. EastTN (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I may have not expressed myself well. Basically, some uses of the term "fundamentalism" are dealing with "theological" fundamentalism, or adherence to certain theological beliefs (e.g., "the five 'fundamentals'"). Some uses are more ideological, and refer to a particular set of ideological beliefs (e.g., "fundamentalist" Keynesian). Other uses are more psychological, sociological or (ultimately) behavioral, and address the way people act and deal with others (e.g., "fundamentalist [insert your favorite group here]s" who are willing to blow up X in service of Y). In any particular instance, or for any particular person, these may or may not be correlated. It's important to distinguish between "fundamentalism" that describes a set of beliefs from "fundamentalism" that describes a set of social behaviors. EastTN (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Idea not attributable to Dawkins[edit]

The summary "Dawkins asserts that the atheists' position is not a set of fundamental beliefs, but one held based on the verifiable evidence" doesn't follow from the quote given (see the article). He isn't saying that the atheists' position (that a God does not exist) is based on verifiable evidence, but rather that the beliefs of scientists are conditional on not being presented with conflicting evidence. It's too much of a leap to rephrase his quote with the summary above.Sancho 21:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"one held based on the verifiable evidence"
Is that hard for you understand?
Your "rephrasing" (rewritting it to mean somthing completely different) is not accurate and dishonest.
Dawkins says theres no evidence for god so why pretend their is one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Can't find what you're referencing. Ljcrabs (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fundamental theology[edit]

There ought to be a separate entry in fundamental theology, which is a type of theology that is unrelated to fundamentalism, although it talks about many of the same subjects, such as the fundamentals of Christian faith and practice. ADM (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentalist Christians claim the Bible is 100% accurate, yet disagree with many parts of it[edit]

You get alot of "Fundamentalists" who will say the bible is 100% correct etc they are fundamentalists BUT......

Then deny the age of the earth is 6000 years (Calculated on the bibles geneoogy for Adam to Jesus)

All make excuses for where the bible says the sun goes back to where it came, or that the earth does not move.

Ignore the contradictions of Gen 1 and Gen 2, are they fundamentalists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that you have mistaken "unsure of" for "don't believe in" ? I class myself
as a fundementalist Christian who believes that the Bible is without error and there are
things I am not sure of. For example, on the age of the Earth - it's not stated
anywhere. 2 Peter 3:8 (NAS) says "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends:
With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
Gen 1:2 (NAS) says in part "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first
day." Lev 13:51 (NAS), discussing lepers says in part "He shall then look at the mark on the
seventh day" . According to Strongs Concordance, there are 27 words translated as
"day" in the NASB. So, I have come to the conclusion that the world is not "billions
and billions of years old" as suggested by some, but to say that it is clear that
the world is just 6000 years old lacks backing as well. --Dogzlipz (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy of "Jesus" and his Crusification[edit]

wikipedia version : Jesus could have been crusified, or "Stapled to a Wooden Cross", in his day and age because others didn't believe in his non-religious Fundamentalism in which the world he was living in. He could have already been born into a world of Religion without knowing what it was in the first place, and his philosophy was changing the world, into a greater place than which he saw with his own eyes. We live in a great day and age today but never ruled out the possibility that Jesus could have been non-religious to begin with; And for that Other "Human Beings" could have called him "Crazy" or "Out of his mind" because he couldn't control himself in what he believed, so he sacrificed himself for all his sins and he came back with religious beliefs but only because religion was there to begin with. He was trying Verbs before people even knew what a verb was, and how to make that verb into a superlative verb, he thought of himself greater than others but they were all equals, they just didn't see his points of view through his own beliefs; and now we have a religion based on Jesus Dieing for his sins, What were his sins? Being crazy? Being Out of his mind? Those terms weren't even thought up of back then, they were thought of as treason of a fee-off with free energy to do so in his own ability to do the "Wonders" that he did with the knowledge that he created with his own "Human Brain". People are dieing now due to cancer, Cancer isn't a sin, it's a disease of brain cells dieing, from not being in the process of working enough with the body, or to thinking to much and causing irregular growth patterns which can't be controlled because no "Human Being" knows how to control a brain other than their own. Jesus Controlled his own "Human Brain" and he made "Wonders" out of what he was thinking and processing, he was thinking like a computer playing a chess game but with religion involved. If their was no religion, would we have cancers today? Machines do most of the labor today in our world and life, we study on how those machines work, not on how to make more compact, complicated, fancy, self-efficient machines, or at least I have not found a way to do so yet, but I am making the same implications that there could be life on other planets, Human Being life, if we had the technology to put us there; We have technology here today to even begin with, but everything costs a value; Jesus didn't have money or value it. Every "Personality" of a human being is different, but aren't we all Thinking alike today? We work, we eat, we sleep. But do we Philosophisize?(The action of Philosophy), every human being is capable of doing so, but they don't think about it, or anything other than whats in front of them. We were born into a world with technology, but how did this technology get here so quickly? If "Jesus" were here today, would he be the next propulsion scientist to discover how to get to Mars and make it a Habitable place faster than our leading profession Scientists today? I Believe he would if he took the educational classes; But Jesus didn't believe in value of money, Schooling costs money today, Money that you make from labor of working. Money has to pay bills, for what we Eat, Sleep on, and Live in. What if Money was there to pay for our schools already? We would all be Propulsion scientists like Jesus thought about or even "philosophosized" about. What if We Made corporations out of what we learned in school, Noone would be in debt because there would be so many organizations to help eachother through loans and labor to earn the money to pay off those loans of units of currency. Jesus was a believer, not a prophet, and that's my fundaments in learning, or the basics, to learn far greater things than what we know and wish to know today. Start with him and you'll end up somewhere, and we have religion today because of him. Science + Non-Religious Fundamentals = Advancements & Evolutions of our minds and expanding the limits of those minds.

- (UTC)Michael Louis Hayes —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all we care about here is whether the article Fundamentalism is correctly written, or not. This is not a forum for religious discussions. This is a talk page that discusses the editorial quality of the article Fundamentalism, and very little else. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I take it this POV allegation is now closed. Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


Just found a link of incredible relevance, that I drop here for later possible usage – Johan Galtung Acceptance Speech:

There is also the CGT-syndrome well known in harder varieties of the three abrahamitic religions, Judaism/Christianity/Islam:
  • Chosenness, a Chosen People under God, A Promised/Sacred Land;
  • Glory, a glorious past and/or future;
  • Trauma, a people under permanent PTSD

FYI: PTSD - Posttraumatic stress disorder, CGT-syndrome not found... Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that "CGT-syndrome" is reference to the initials of the point he is making: Chosenness, Glory, and Trauma.Apollo883 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove redirect[edit]

Religious extremist should not redirect here, in doing so wikipedia is endorsing the pejorative/NPOV usage and conflating two different though related groups. --Dishcmds (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time[edit]

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting {{In Our Time|Fundamentalism|p00545gy|Fundamentalism}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Atheist Fundamentalism does not exist, does not belong in this article[edit]

The term entails a contradiction. (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The opening sentence of this article is "Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology". When the term 'fundamentalism' is applied to atheism, it is by way of (pejorative) analogy. It doesn't exist in any de facto sense, so I'm deleting the section. Meggaluvva (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources are reliable and from significant persons and Dawkins responded. All articles are about word usage and Atheist fundamentalist has significant usage to be noted. That being said: is the usage WP:Fringe enough to be cast into it's own article? Alatari (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not for us to decide that something described in reliable sources does not exist because of a logical contradiction. I'm going to restore the section since it appears well-sourced. If there are sources which say that it's a contradiction in terms we can add that POV too.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The examples given in the text now seem to reflect a clever attempt at making the term "atheist fundamentalist" seem trivial and silly, and the atheist camp without any real fundamentalism. I think the article would be better off w/this section gone rather than the way it is now. AngusCA (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


Anyone else think this is up to at least C, if not B, class? PrincessofLlyr royal court 02:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

distortions in the Buddhism section[edit]

The section was indeed biased and the "facts" are a skilful spin of the facts. Bluck was quoted out of context. There are not "most scholars" who disagree with that description by Kay but only one who hestitates but even this researcher accepts the over all argument of him. I quoted Prohl now fully to avoid that confusion/distortion as the WP rules suggest. It is also a utter spin of the fact to quote from a minor newspaper self claims of a group which lacks any creditability (see: ) and the self-published statement by Kelsang Gyatso which is only an unverified claim. Both are rather dubious sources and to add then after the quote of the Dalai Lama was nothing else than a trial to use self-published sources to spin the facts so that it appears he would be a fundamentalist. Hence I reomoved them. The section should be based on reliable third party sources and they do not accord with this. -- (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you surprised? Once again New kadampa Fundamentalists who roam the web have edited out valid links, inserted non3rd party sources and distorted the content of WP-nothing new there-Its typical fundamentalist behaviour to paint critics as fanatics46.64.92.141 (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Repaired sections: Non-religious "fundamentalism"[edit]

Repaired: 3 Non-religious "fundamentalism" and
3.1 Atheistic fundamentalism ...which were tied together editing.

Almost every paragraph was based on contrived or biased context. I added many important contextual details and refs about these people plus more quotes/refs. The given Economic fundamentalism def was near-opposite of the cited, -- fixed. In some cases contradictory new info or context required editing the newly obsolete conclusion for clarity and accuracy. Added no new arguments, people or concepts. The new info and proper context for existing arguments seem to balance or correct the old one-sided viewpoint. In most cases the added new info-context came from a cursory reading of the old listed citations.

It seems to me that the paragraph mentioning the writers Sam Harris and RJ Eskow could be deleted since it may be more about religious tolerance and intolerance than fundamentalism. ...And conservative V. liberal. Eskow claims Harris is saying about Muslim suicide bombers: It's the religion, stupid.
-- (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

They really need balancing.
Ion Zone (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentalism is not exclusively religious[edit]

The page treats "fundamentalism" as the same thing as "religious fundamentalism". Belief systems can be fundamentalist without being a religion. Materialistic Scientism is a fundamentalist belief system. HansNZL (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. In fact, a fundamental tenant of fundamentalist atheism seems to be denying that atheists can be fundamentalist....
I've removed the quote tags around the word "fundamentalism" as it seems snarky. If anyone disagrees and thinks that non-religious or atheistic ideologies can't be fundamentalist....then they really need to get out more. The whole page still needs some serious work, though.
I think we need to swap the perspectives, start with wider political and idealogical fundamentalism and then narrow it down to specific types. As it is now it is very messy.
Ion Zone (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the article will get out of control if it is expanded to too many things called "fundamentalism". What about "communist fundamentalism", "socialist fundamentalism", "capitalist fundamentalism", "feminist fundamentalism", and many others getting thousands of google hits? And tons of specific nationalist fundamentalisms. I think this article should be renamed "religious fundamentalism" in order to control its scope. Atheist fundamentalism can still appear within limits (hopefully better written than now). Zerotalk 08:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You make a valid point. If the usage continues to expand like you describe then we will need a main article on fundamentalism and then sub-articles. This one does read as mostly religious fundamentalism. Is it time to break the article up? The See Also list's increasing length is another sign. Alatari (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional fundamentalism entry[edit]

Entry added that needs a little work before prime time inclusion. The first source will not work unless I log in which violates WP:RS so it needs replacement. The second source is from a partisan democrat but the sentence is about vagueness of the constitution authorship which can be sourced more neutrally from a constitution scholar. The third source is from a senior Newsweek journalist and is fine but all the sources need to use {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} style citations which are a much higher class referencing scheme. The text is fine with me. --Alatari (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The section is primarily a criticism of Tea party folks, and does not attempt to explain their so-called "fundamentalism". It seems to mean close fidelity to the original text. However the Supreme Court pays very close attention to the original words of the Constitution, --indeed that is standard practice in the U.S. The sources turn out to be journalists and bloggers and not constitutional experts. In a word: the material is not based on RS, is primarily argumentative designed to ridicule a political position (ie POV) and is not encyclopedic. Rjensen (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If the original editor comes back he can defend his position. I'm trying to help him through the transition from newbie to experienced editor. --Alatari (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional fundamentalism[edit]

In recent years, a trend has developed among the political right in the [[United States]] of seeing the [[United States Constitution]] and its amendments as being [[inerrant]] and perfect. [] This kind of rigid fundamentalism has been criticized on the ground that the [[Founding Fathers]] intentionally wrote much of the Constitution's language to be vague so it could evolve with the times [], that it makes unfounded connections between [[The Bible]] and the Constitution [], and the fact that the [[Founding Fathers]] did not unilaterally agree on everything, and some rules in the document, such as the 2 [[Senate]] representatives for each state, but [[House of Representatives]] numbers based on population, were forged out of compromise.


I don't get why people keep deleting my section on constitutional fundamentalism. It has a lot of Google hits; it's not just some concept I made up. If you think that though, thanks for the honour, I must be a pretty good pundit. Abootmoose (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

possible merge[edit]

Someone suggests a merge with Religious fanaticism yet I see no discussion of the merge on either talk page. This concerns me a bit, as I see no good reason for merging the two articles.Marikafragen (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Add section and link to Jewish Fundamentalism?[edit]

Jewish fundamentalism certainly fits the definition and should be included.

Tina Kimmel (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of maps[edit]

I am removing two maps, which are based on Gallup polls of measures like general "religiosity". Fundamentalism is a specific movement or subset of religion, and is not the same as general religiosity as polled by Gallup and represented by this map. I think that juxtaposing these maps is highly misleading because I think it can lead people to wrongly conclude that countries graphed in bolder colors on the map are "more fundamentalist", when this is not what the poll was measuring. I think it confounds the general idea of "religiosity" with fundamentalism. I can't read the first source, but the second source doesn't even mention the word fundamentalism. Cazort (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusing Section[edit]

Many Muslims object to the use of the term when referring to Islamist groups, and oppose being placed in the same category as Christian fundamentalists, whom they see as theologically incomplete. Unlike Christian fundamentalist groups, Islamist groups do not use the term fundamentalist to refer to themselves. Shia groups which are often considered fundamentalist in the West are generally not described that way in the Islamic world.

There are four or five ambiguities in this section.

  • Does it mean Islamism is the same as Islamic fundamentalism, or that non-Islamist Muslim fundamentalist groups have no objection to the term fundamentalism?
  • Are "many Muslims" objecting because they do not want Islamists in the same category as Christian fundamentalists (even if they don't personally subscribe to Islamism), or is it really Islamists that are objecting?
  • Does it mean "Shia groups, which are often considered fundamentalist in the West, ..." or "Groups which are often considered fundamentalist in the West, and which also happen to be Shia..."? The latter interpretation is a literal reading of the text, but in the absence of citations, it's hard to tell if that was an intentionally omitted comma.
  • Most Muslims worldwide do not have English as a first language. Are the last two sentences strictly referring to using the English word "fundamentalist" in English, or also the use of "fundamentalist" as a loan word, or the use of words equivalent to "fundamentalist" in whatever language? In the case of the Shia, it could also mean that "aren't described as focusing on a set of irreducible religious fundamentals, regardless of the language spoken or the specific terminology used".

Does anyone know of any reliable sources which document any of this? Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, these are good questions.
I think the article tries to cover these by saying in the lead that the term was coined to define "Christian fundamentalism" at the beginning of the 20th century. It goes on to say that some consider the term a pejorative, and disagree with its use. English speakers call certain Muslim groups "fundamentalists." I think this should be documented. Probably somewhere, it could be stated that most Islamic groups disagree with the term because they associate it with Christianity. This seems like a preposterous statement to me. Like saying "I don't want to be called 'short,' because Napoleon was described as 'short.'" I'm not sure everyone gets to debate in this article whether or not they are termed fundamentalist by English speakers or not. Maybe in their article, it is a different story.
Are those who disagree saying that they are flexible on interpretations of the Koran (and commentary)? Or do they interpret it strictly and literally? Strictly and literally is fundamentalist IMO. For this article. Student7 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
No, for the purposes of this article, being described as fundamentalist by a reliable source is fundamentalist. Deciding for ourselves what makes a fundamentalist is improper synthesis. The claim that most Islamist - which is not at all the same as Islamic, by the way - groups don't like to be called fundamentalist isn't quite the same as not wanting to be called short. The word short is much older than Napoleon, and refers to many other things. Regardless, the validity of the claim isn't up for debate here, only the verifiability. And I think it's highly relevant to include groups' own opinions on whether they are called fundamentalist. The use of the term is entirely within the scope of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte Aryanne (talkcontribs) 07:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)