Tag Archives: fideism

Deep South problem: Ignorance, racism, or just plain stupidity?*

Posted on by
2

Barack Obama as a Muslim: Ridiculous idiocy from the Hard Right On most days, my intake of news consists of the CNN summary on my Android phone and the day’s Cheat Sheet published by The Daily Beast. (The Daily Beast’s Cheat Sheet is a daily must-read in this household!)

My most significant reaction to today’s political news resulted from the following:

A survey by Public Policy Polling reveals that a majority of Republicans in Alabama and Mississippi —- states with primary elections on Tuesday —- believe the president is a Muslim. Forty-five percent of Republican voters in Alabama think Obama is a Muslim, while 41 percent are “unsure.” Only 14 percent believe he is Christian. In Mississippi, belief in the president’s supposed Muslim faith is even stronger. Fifty-two percent of Republicans there think Obama is Muslim, while 36 percent are unsure and only 12 percent believe he is Christian.

Deep South perpetuates its backwoods-hick-low-I.Q. image by claiming the President to be MuslimIt couldn’t be any more obvious that this is an issue of discrimination (not to mention intellectual dishonesty)… The only question is whether this is racial discrimination or political discrimination; neither would be surprising.

I don’t recall any previous presidents being accused of being Muslim, even if the accusations DO come from a group with such a small amount of juice — a group with such limited believability.

Oh, wait — that’s because no other U.S. presidents have been black. Chalk it up to racism. Thanks, Deep South.

Deep South perpetuates a backwoods image by claiming Obama to be MuslimFervent Hard Right, religious fundamentalist Deep South voters pictured here

Not really, of course; however, by claiming such challenged beliefs (Obama’s a Muslim… Gosh, y’all!), the Deep South voters are only perpetuating their negative caricature of idiocy. Isn’t it time to move on?

MID-POST NOTE: O.K., so I’ve had a little fun here… the truth is, I used to have a set of the Dr. Bukk fake teeth featured in these three images poking fun at the Deep South — and I’ve never laughed harder! However, I hope it doesn’t detract from the message, which is:

NO ONE actually believes that President Barack Obama practices Islam! Those who say they believe such nonsense are merely parroting their peer group and displaying their eagerness to be led like a herd of sheep. The lackeys on the Hard Right continue to be taken for a long ride… Either the Republican machine has perfected the ART of SPIN (and the Republicans truly are among the best spinners on the planet) or its followers will believe whatever their leaders tell them to believe, eagerly lapping up whatever happens to be served to them. (IMHO, it’s actually a bit of both.)

Deep South perpetuates their low-IQ image by claiming the President to be MuslimThe Hard Right machine is a uniquely American contraption built upon generous banks of religious and political fundamentalism, which by default designates everyone outside their ranks as being “wrong” (or even evil).

Obviously, this “news” would be far more brow-raising and interesting if it were coming from a state with a minority of fundamentalists as opposed to a state where most people really do believe in a talking snake, a literal Satan [1], and a young earth (e.g., belief in a literal Genesis, making the earth less than 10,000 years old).

I feel sorry for people who are apparently so feeble-minded as to be swayed by the trash-talking points coming from the Hard Right. Sadly, America has more of these kind of sheepish followers who’ll believe anything they hear (as long as it agrees with their hatred) than most of us would care to admit.

But on a hopeful note, fideistic beliefs such as talking snakes, the evil Left, and man’s superiority to women will surely continue to wane, eventually sharing the fate of the now-extinct dodo…

The proper way forward is for all of us to embrace basic, universal spiritual principles.

Notes

sheep[1] Most Americans no longer believe in a literal Satan/devil… (IT’S ABOUT FREAKING TIME!! Happy happy, joy joy… Now I’m wondering if any fundies out there are thinking, AWW, I wanted Satan and Hell to be REAL!! Damn…)

The majority of American Christians do not believe that Satan is a real being or that the Holy Spirit is a living entity, the latest Barna survey found.

Nearly six out of ten Christians either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the statement that Satan “is not a living being but is a symbol of evil,” the survey found.

Forty percent strongly agreed with the statement while 19 percent of American Christians somewhat agreed.

In contrast, about 35 percent of American Christians believe Satan is real. Twenty-six percent strongly disagreed with the statement that Satan is merely symbolic and about one-tenth (9 percent) somewhat disagreed. (Source:
Most U.S. Christians don’t believe Satan, Holy Spirit exist – Christian Today)

Resources: Is the Deep South’s main problem ignorance, racism, or stupidity?

sheep

*Afterword

Look, we really do try to refrain from insulting people, and we are not calling all Deep South residents stupid, racist, or ignorant. We respect other respectful systems of belief. However, when intellectual dishonesty rears its ugly head so prominently, we occasionally speak out. This is such a case.

Simply put, there is no way that intelligent individuals of modern America truly believe that our president is a Muslim or that he practices Islam; folks who say so are merely but blatantly toeing a ludicrous party line. Such “views” deserve no respect whatsoever — mainly because such views are not real; they only represent efforts to disparage Obama and to sling mud — that’s all. By stating such things, they only hurt themselves and negatively affect their own reputation.

Removed content
…the digital age is at least beginning to educate the masses — those desiring education, anyway — and thankfully,…

Why pick on Hard Right religious fundamentalist and fideistic beliefs?

Posted on by
Reply

To discourage irrational, intolerant religious extremism…

messages from Hard Right Christian supremacistsThe usual disclaimer: Traditional, respectful, tolerant, spiritually-principled flavors of Christianity and other religions are not the subject here.

Far-right religious nationalists should keep their religion to themselves if we are to hang on to what makes our country great, preserve the tradition of pluralism, and maintain the wise vision of our Founding Fathers. Rigid fundamentalism should remain in its place if we are to remain a people of tolerance and acceptance and if we truly prize religious freedom.

politicsLast but not least, the far right dominionism that has been infecting conservative politics for years ought to remain within the churches and the communities that desire it; extremism cannot be permitted to spread, take hold, and then — God forbid — send the United States careening down a path of horror.

It would be encouraging if humanity could learn from its mistakes, take lessons from history, and avoid the costly mistakes of book covers: religious fundamentalismreligious extremism — and especially, religious statehood.

A brand-new reader recently commented and asked Search for Truth the following:

At first glance, I assumed you were against religion until I read the About page. Is there a quick, simple acid test to determine whether or not you consider a particular religion (or religious group) to be extremist, fundamentalist, fideistic, or otherwise "less than ideal" so as to meet with your discouragement?

Search for Truth answer

Clever… Good one! We believe the "golden rule" applies here: That all respectful, tolerant religions should be respected and tolerated. IMHO, one of the best litmus tests I can think of at the moment might be the simple list of basic, universal spiritual principles: The practical guidelines, rules, suggestions, and practices agreed upon by virtually all religions. (That’s rather affirming, don’t you think?)

Accordingly, we believe the central role of Christianity — and religions & spiritual paths in general — is the delivery of a positive spiritual message of compassion leading to inner peace and unity, as opposed to any type of religious message designed to induce belief in fanciful, supernatural stories, beings, or events — which, by default, can only lead to division because the supernatural stories inevitably disagree!

Finally, it seems religious fundamentalism and similarly rigid worldviews contain too many inherent conflicts with universal spiritual principles to represent truth.

I have once again digressed… Back to the story:

One fine day on the way to the Nashville flea market, politics was the subject of discussion. After briefly attempting to explain the fanatical quest of a few squeaky dominionist wheels on the far, Hard Right (e.g., those radical religious supremacists who have declared war on secular society & wish to banish separation of church and state) — whose goal is to re-assert Christian control over the nation’s political and cultural institutions — Dale said:

A Bible-based society for the United States sounds OK to me. Besides, what’s wrong with a country that lives according to basic spiritual principles?

religionNeedless to say, Dale’s uninformed agreement with Christian nationalism and dominionism came as a total & complete shocker.

The description of Dale’s comment as uninformed was accurate, not derogatory. The fact is, Dale had never given one moment’s careful thought to the idea — to what it would mean for dominionism to take hold in the U.S. Dale never even considered what it might mean to so many peaceful, hard-working non-fundamentalist U.S. citizens, for our country to merge one group’s religious ideas into our national politics, scrap our long history of religious pluralism, and ultimately allow the new breed of Hard Right dominionist to define religion and spirituality for the rest of us….

Thanks, but no thanks. (No way!)

The writer of the heartfelt letter below was merely attempting to explain to Dale why it is not acceptable for the United States to adopt such rigid, divisive, controversial, intolerant views.

My dear fundamentalist friend,

inner peaceIt’s quite simple to point out exactly why we wholeheartedly discourage the beliefs (without condemning the believers) of extreme Hard Right religious fundamentalism and religious fideism. (Fideists are those who believe that science, philosophy, reason, and logic are enemies of religious faith, essentially claiming irrationality as a benefit!)

There are thousands of distinct, varying flavors of Christianity covering virtually every possible combination of religious and/or spiritual belief. Many Christians are labeled by the more conservative and devout as being liberal or moderate Christians, a large portion of whom cringe right along with Buddhists, New Thought adherents, the spiritual-but-not-religious, Perennial Philosophers, agnostics, and so on when they hear the extremist, divisive teachings of Hard Right Christian fundamentalism.

unity As hard-core supporters of religious freedom and pluralism, we believe it’s perfectly acceptable to hold virtually any religious beliefs one can imaginable –- as long as those religious beliefs and practices do not adversely affect the rest of us, just as I may freely practice and believe as I choose, as long as I do not trample upon the rights or the peace of others.

Unfortunately, that’s where modern, Hard Right Christian fundamentalism consistently crosses the line from peaceful to intrusive — or worse.

Perspective is everything: Revealed religions
There are a handful of "revealed religions"; the most popular are Christianity and Islam.

political debate related posterAccording to one of the fastest growing "revealed religions" in the world, those who believe Jesus was divine — and those who fail to follow the admonishments of the most recent prophet of God, Mohammad — are destined for eternal hellfire. (Of course, the religion is Islam.)

The Koran contains an approximately equal amount of "proof" or evidence that Muhammad is God’s true prophet as the Bible does to support Jesus as God’s literal son.

The following statement probably applies to those who:

  1. Practice and believe the same religion they were raised to believe as they grew from child to tween to teen to adult, AND
  2. Have not deeply contemplated or studied alternate worldviews, religions, or spiritual paths

In all likelihood, the most significant determinants as to which of these two popular "revealed" religions (Christianity & Islam) a given individual believes and follows are:

  1. Where one was born, and
  2. How one was raised

knowledge from reading free books onlineThat’s the bulk of it, for the non-curious types who studied only one religion. (Admittedly, we fail to grasp that mindset.)

If you are a Christian fundamentalist in the United States who has never seriously explored any religion or spiritual path apart from Christianity — the religion of your upbringing — then it’s rather clear that, had you been born in the Middle East, you would be a fundamentalist Muslim.

The reverse holds true for fundamentalist followers of Islam. (If you are a Muslim born and raised in Afghanistan who has never examined any other path, and you had instead been born in the United States to a Christian family, it’s virtually certain you’d be a Christian.)

x-ray of homer simpson's brain - knowledge from reading free books onlineRemaining true to the beliefs one was raised to embrace certainly does not make a person defective or dumb; in fact, it demonstrates some positive qualities — such as loyalty and perseverance.

Simply put, we as individuals have widely varying traits. What is right for one may not be right for another. Circumstances that cause intense curiosity in some of us might not even warrant a second glance — much less, closer investigation — by others. And this is a crucial point when it comes to the HOWs and the WHYs of our religious choices.

If you aren’t naturally prone to exploring underlying causes, applying critical thought, or exercising a reasonable degree of skepticism, then it may be completely natural for you to remain devoted to the beliefs of your culture, your peer group, your family, and your friends. Again, I stress that this is acceptable… for those "built" that way.

For others — this blogger, for instance — the failure to deeply explore world religion and spirituality is almost unthinkable.

Resources: Why pick on Hard Right fundamentalist and fideist religious beliefs?

Removed content
(Objectively speaking, there’s rather little hard evidence on either side).

Obviously, there’s no need to get our approval for a set of religious views!

Hard Right goal: A Bible-based United States of America

Posted on by
Reply

The chorus of voices coming from the Hard Right sounds something like:

Hey, everybody – let’s do the right thing; Let’s realign the U.S. with her Christian roots by eliminating the separation of church and state and transforming the U.S. into a Bible-based society!

Bible, Genesis: Painting - Garden of Eden It is indeed hard to believe; despite knowing the horrid dangers of mixing religion with national politics, some Americans want to repeat old experiments[1] by forcing their religious beliefs into government, effectively merging church and state. What wisdom!

When we hear a noisy minority going on about their dreams of a Bible-based America, it almost always emanates from the Hard Right. What this means is that the additive they believe will heal the United States is not merely religion, but a specific brand of fideistic religious fundamentalism.

The audacity of transforming America into a Bible-based society does not spring from an aversion to religion itself, but from pervasive dissatisfaction regarding today’s inaccurate, ridiculous interpretations of religion.

Perspective is everything!

Haphazard comments about such potentially divisive "religiopolitical" views is dangerous because there is no universal understanding of what is specifically meant by such language. Regardless of the initial intent, such irresponsible communication will be too broadly (mis)interpreted to be of any use; instead, the comments will be harmful and divisive.

Example of ambiguity:

"Let’s be more like Germany."

In terms of meaninglessness, saying “We want a Bible-based America” is like announcing, “We want America to model itself on Germany’s strengths.”

What do they mean?

Without clarification, irresponsibly unclear political statements will be interpreted into wildly varying scenarios, shaped and molded by the creativity, imagination, and even by the fears of those who hear them.

From a variety of perspectives, Germany is presently one of the most successful nations on earth. For instance, Germany is in large part the financial rock on which modern Europe is built. However, a portion of Germanic history is unspeakably dark. Exactly which German model might have been desired by the speaker (in the above example of irresponsible commentary) is left entirely to the listener’s imagination.

The religious folks now clamoring for a "Bible-based America" are equally vague. Such an ambiguous position is not tolerable to the citizens of the United States as a whole because it is inherently meaningless.

Spiritual message or fideistic message?

Many of us believe that the message of Jesus and the Bible is a wholly spiritual, completely non-religious one. (The same can be said of all religions.) Thomas Jefferson was such a believer. However, the voices now demanding the wholesale removal of separation of church and state are coming from a place that seems to have missed the spiritual message of religion, and instead chooses to interpret ancient texts in a more-or-less literal fashion.

Such interpretation strips away much of the spiritual message and replaces it with a rigid worldview of religiosity that places less emphasis on uniquely human reason, philosophy, logic, scientific thought and discovery. At the same time, more emphasis is placed on supernatural events, beings, and religious dogma — considered by many to be matters of pure speculation.

When literary and poetic devices are translated and interpreted as though literal meanings were intended from the start, the entire message can be warped beyond recognition.

Meditation, affirmation

May we continue to spread positive messages of oneness, unity, tolerance, and compassion instead of divisive talk that separates us and underscores cultural and religious differences.

Notes

[1] Old experiments. Previous American experiments with combining religion with government have not gone so well. For instance, New England was once a religious state; one direct result was the Salem witch trials: burning alive a few people who appeared to blaspheme the state religion.

Resources – Hard Right goal: A Bible-based United States of America

Removed content
and its transformation into incoherent fideism and rigid fundamentalism.

Religious fundamentalism, fideism, and critical thought

Posted on by
Reply

religionHere’s something to chew on for a minute.

How can Hard Right religious fundamentalists and "faithful" fideists — those who count standard truth detection tools such as logic, reason, philosophy, and science as enemies of their religious faith — possibly justify their wholesale disavowal of critical thought when it comes to the worldview they have chosen to believe?

How can they criticize other religions and spiritual paths as being unbelievable or silly? What yardsticks do they have left to make such judgments?

There seems to be an almost unbelievable aversion to critical thinking on the Hard Right; mental sloth seems to be counted as a virtue by "true believers." For them, successful arguments might include:

  • It just is.
  • The Bible says so.
  • Our preacher verified it.
  • That’s how it’s always been.

religionEvidence that would be tossed out (or even ridiculed) in a junior debate class somehow becomes acceptable. I hesitate to ask, but isn’t that the opposite of progress? Doesn’t that represent some kind of dumbing-down — a throwback to pre-Enlightenment times? How can this rejection of secular life possibly benefit the world, or help to make it a better place, considering that religious discrimination continues to drive numerous conflicts around the world?

There’s also a seething hypocrisy inherent in each of the justification statements listed above (e.g., “It just is.”). Even though these replies are sometimes given to those who would ask them why they believe in a particular thing, they are not accepted by the very people who speak them, when the same words or excuses emerge from the mouths of Muslims, Mormons, or Jews. If the answer, “Because the Koran tells me so,” is unacceptable to them, it should be a no brainer that their saying, “Because the Bible tells me so,” is ultimately without any real meaning.

On the other hand, think about some of the other highly questionable ideas and stories believed by large numbers of people, even today in America… Astrology, horoscopes, psychics, The World Weekly News and other sensationalist publications, paranormal events, demonic possessions, and the list goes on. Maybe fundamentalist belief systems are not so unique, after all. Nevertheless, primitive religious belief systems cannot stand against reason, logic, history, geology, biology, astronomy, cosmology, and most of the other sciences — and as a result, the flow of adherents away from those systems will increase, while conversions and new adherents dwindle.

That being said, I remain an ardent supporter of religious freedom and pluralism in our great country. Those fideistic religious worldviews are perfectly fine for them to believe and practice. Their religion is completely tolerable and acceptable — as long as their religious beliefs don’t intrude upon the freedoms of non-fundamentalists or negatively influence the basic rights enjoyed by those outside their ranks.

Can we agree that the religious beliefs and practices of any particular group should never adversely affect those who believe differently?

A growing, potentially harmful, troublesome threat to the pluralism and religious freedom we now enjoy in the United States is fideism — an irrational worldview which is steadily burrowing its way (quite deeply, some would say) into modern conservative American politics.

Definition: Fideism is the exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy. (Source: Dictionary.com)

religion: fundamentalist ChristianitySo they want to transform the U.S. from a pluralistic republic to a fideistic theocracy. Why don’t they understand or care that not all of us want American society to be based on their literal interpretation(s) of the Bible? If they believe it would be acceptable to thrust a strictly Bible-based society upon Americans that don’t share their religious views, yet would be unwilling to live in a society based on a religion other than theirs (a fundamentalist treatment of Christianity based on their Biblical literalism), then their desires and wishes for the United States as a whole totally reek of ego and self-interest.

Apparently, the fideists consider their own belief system to be vastly superior to anyone else’s — and now they are pushing their funk into our national politics.

religion: fundamentalist ChristianityThen again, the superiority complex and negative attitude toward all other spiritual practices and religious traditions are the very hallmarks of religious fundamentalism; their actions should not surprise those familiar with religious fundamentalism and the endless problems that are perpetuated by fundamentalist worldviews of all stripes and flavors.

How sadly ironic this Hard right political business really is, in light of our country’s origins! Our fantastic, one-of-a-kind country ought to more frequently reflect on why the United States ever came to be a country in the first place. In a nutshell, Europeans originally migrated to the New World in order to practice religious freedom! Now the Hard Right — in another tip o’ the hat to ancient times — actually wants to do away with the separation of church and state and infect national politics with their fideistic-flavored religion.

(Rick Santorum does not support the separation of church and state; he abhors it.)

On one hand, it is proclaimed by fideistic fundamentalists that religious belief must be the bedrock upon which all other aspects of life should be built; work, school, social and leisure time, and all other activity should thus be based on the central pillar of their religious faith.

Yet, by implication, those ultra-conservative religious beliefs are apparently not important enough to be subject to critical thought, deconstruction, or objective analysis.

It is somehow acceptable that the most important thing in life (as it is supposed to be for the religious fideists) is too weak and flimsy to withstand the forces of human reason, philosophy, logic, and critical thinking. It is somehow appropriate and justifiable for their own religious belief systems to make no logical sense and even to contradict science. Yet they still point to other religions as being unrealistic and false!

It seems the religious fundamentalists have gotten it backwards; for them, the less important things in life CAN be subject to close review and critical thought, but the most important thing — their literally interpreted religions — must NOT be objectively examined, or even questioned.

Something is very wrong with this picture. Closed-mindedness is increasingly infectious in some quarters, that’s for sure!

Let us hope and pray their fideism doesn’t go viral.

The future success of humanity will require more movement toward unity, not toward further division. This means more folks are going to have to place more emphasis upon self-evident, global, secular ethics and basic universal spiritual principles in dealing with others.

Notes
[1] Uncle Straight Talk resides at AmericaBlog

[2] Fideism is essentially the belief that reason, logic, and science are enemies of religious faith, making their religious beliefs somehow irrefutable (in their own minds, at least).

Resources: Fundamentalism, fideism, and critical thought

Afterword: On criticism and negativity

This writer intends to avoid personally criticizing other people. Any negativity in this blog is meant to be directed not at the peole themselves, but at the fundamentalist belief systems and the sometimes negative effects they have on others, on society, and in politics.

We do not have anything against the individuals themselves, most of whom are probably doing the best they can, doing what they currently feel is the right thing to do, etc.

We strongly encourage everyone to emulate the intelligent discourse and constructive critical thought about religion of the sort practiced by great people such as Thomas Jefferson, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Wayne Dyer, Aldous Huxley, Albert Einstein, and so many other great spiritual examples and teachers.

If you remain devoted to the religion of your upbringing and have never honestly, seriously, or objectively studied any alternatives, then we earnestly hope to get your attention and encourage you to take your spiritual seeking to the next level.

It’s time for a spiritual paradigm shift.

Removed content
How can religious beliefs that contradict basic common sense, reason, logic, and science be genuine beliefs?

Well… they can’t, really – can they? (I wonder what Uncle Straight Talk [1] would have to say about fideistic religious fundamentalism…)

Political Compass: From Libertarian to Authoritarian, from the Left all the way over to the Hard Right

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

With Islam as the fastest-growing religion in the world, will they continue to allow religion to infect politics by majority vote when (/if) Muslims finally outnumber Christians? I bet they would change their tune then.

Closed-mindedness in religious fundamentalism

Posted on by
1

When strong beliefs are adopted without honest, deep, objective research, it has probably been caused by fundamentalism (religious and/or political): the major cause of wrong prejudgments in the United States.

lenticular cloudsHere’s one of my all-time favorite quotes [1] concerning that all-too-common closed-minded attitude that prevents people from pursuing the truth:

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance: that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

Contempt prior to investigation

meditation practice provides many benefitsThe practice of rejecting or ignoring an unwanted, unwelcome, challenging, or offensive idea outright – without even giving it a chance – is unfortunately a daily reaction for some people. In some parts of the United States, anyone bold enough to broach subjects like…

  • the benefits of regular meditation practice
  • the errancy of the Bible [2]
  • Buddhism, Taoism, or God forbid, Islam
  • the statistical relationship of intelligence to fundamentalist religious belief

…is likely to receive harsh reprimands — or even become the victim of violence, if overheard by the ignorant. Predictably, this quote is not very popular within religious and political fundamentalist circles.

In truth (and most people DO realize this, on some level), the act of discrediting or scoffing at an idea prior to performing meaningful, objective research about that idea is truly ignorant. The refusal to honestly consider such ideas will certainly prevent growth, learning, acknowledging truth, and achieving enlightenment for as long as the mind remains closed.

With enough repetition, closed-minded attitudes result in lifelong ignorance of reality. It’s sad, but very true – and alarmingly common in the United States (and elsewhere).

You might say an absolutely closed mind isn’t empty. It’s full of inalterable stuff. I’d argue that a closed mind isn’t really a mind any more than a computer is a mind. It’s a machine, a set of predetermined habits playing out. Minds by definition change. Some people think minds are like elaborate computers, but I’m from a school of thought that says that minds are more like computer programmers. Their openness enables them to evolve new computer-program-like habits. So a closed mind isn’t really a mind. (Source: Psychology Today)

The very same ignorance and fear of looking deeply into reality happens to be the perfect prescription for fundamentalism of all kinds: not just a wide range of religious fundamentalism, but also political fundamentalism, a.k.a. partisanship. Alarmingly common, indeed.

The refusal to closely examine a particular idea in an intellectually honest and forthright manner is almost always based on faulty preconceived notions learned from biased, bigoted, or prejudicial – and quite often, fundamentalist and/or partisan – influences.

Ultimately, all closed-mindedness is rooted in fear — along with most other emotions and habits typically considered to be negative. (The fact that fear itself rests just beneath virtually all negativity is a primary spiritual teaching that managed to elude this writer until his 30s.)

I can hear some readers grumbling… perhaps making faulty assumptions about this post! (Most assumptions are faulty, which is exactly why not making assumptions is a basic spiritual practice taught by the fantastic spiritual teacher Miguel Ruiz.)

It would be wildly inaccurate to conclude that this writer, or the Search for Truth blog in general, is "against" religion and "for" die-hard skepticism. In truth, a militant atheist might be just as closed-minded as a "hard right" religious fundamentalist – and sometimes more so, perhaps.

However, we do strongly encourage everyone to drop all types of fundamentalism, and in its place, abide by the basic spiritual principles that are universal in nature, the spiritual principles taught throughout history by a wide range of spiritual teachers.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. (Source: Dale Carnegie)

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. (Source: Proverbs 18:13)

Close-minded vs. closed-minded
This is off-topic, but it came up during my research on the subject of closed-mindedness. A mind can be open; a mind can be closed. It sounds silly and improper to describe a mind as being close; therefore, I suggest the term close-minded be altogether dropped in favor of the more accurate, more grammatically correct (IMHO) closed-minded.

Notes

[1] Although Herbert Spencer was given credit for this quote in The Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous, William Paley – a British Christian apologist – is thought to have stated it around 1794.

[2] Inerrancy is the condition of being inerrant, or completely devoid of errors. Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is perfect and free of discrepancies and errors of any type. People who hold this belief – and many still do – are called inerrantists, or Biblical inerrantists. (Whether the Bible is errant or inerrant is a hotly debated subject; however, when examined objectively, it’s really not so difficult to determine the truth about it.)

Resources: Closed-mindedness

Removed content
I, along with other reasonable skeptics, Buddhists, Taoists, etc.

A person who has decided the answer to a question before the question is asked has a miniscule chance of being correct.

Let them believe as they wish; it’s their right. But why force the entire country to adopt fideism?

A brief summary of my spiritual quest

Posted on by
6

sunsetBackground of this post:
These words were taken from a 2011 email to the director of Lipscomb University‘s relatively progressive Center for Spiritual Renewal, with whom I had recently reconnected at a Lindsley Avenue Church of Christ speaking engagement in March 2011. For some reason, I decided to give the director a brief account of why I am no longer a member of a conservative Protestant Christian congregation. C.M. never did receive my email due to a technical issue, and I did not resend it. More recently, C.M. returned to Lindsley Avenue Church (March 2012); I was in attendance as a guest of Steve Garrett, the minister — so C.M. and I talked again, this time setting a firm time and date for an April 2012 appointment!

Art, sketches
The sketches on this page are drawings or caricatures of Bible teachers at then-David Lipscomb University in the early 1980s. I hope Lipscomb readers will enjoy these, and good luck in guessing their identities…

Taking a risk: Being more open about locally controversial beliefs

Critically — personally, at least — this is the first time these "highly controversial" subjects will be discussed in detail by this writer with a prominent Nashville conservative (fundamentalist) Christian. Why have I decided to become so open about this, even to the point of risking total rejection and reprimand from someone who knows my folks? It is also very important to note that I have kept my opinions — including these writings — largely hidden from most conservative Christians — including my family, close friends of the family, Lipscomb University officials, church members, and so on.

Such secrecy about one’s religious beliefs will surely sound silly, or even ludicrous, to some readers; however, let me assure you that religious beliefs are no small thing within the local circles of Lipscomb University and community Churches of Christ. When one raised as I was, in a family of relative prominence, leaving the church is considered to be a scandal in some eyes!

It might have been much more serious, had I been vocal about my evolving religious and spiritual beliefs while my father still served as an elder in a large local Church of Christ. Technically speaking — and depending upon the degree of literal Bible interpretation by the other elders, deacons, and even the members of that particular church congregation — having an "unbelieving" son would have required his resignation from the eldership… no trivial matter.

So I kept quiet about my "different" beliefs for a decade and a half. Only recently — the last couple of years or so — have I begun to publish articles about religion and spirituality. Even then, as you may have noticed, the name of the author is Samana. (Samana is not my name!)

sketch by Stephen Frasier: Tom Holland, Bible teacher at David Lipscomb University and preacher Nashville, TN in the 1980sI have spent much of my life carefully studying religion and spirituality, their contrasts, how religion and spirituality relate to science, history, philosophy, and numerous other subjects, etc. In a sense, the seriousness and depth of my ongoing spiritual quest (largely held close to the vest) and the related experiences have been a roller-coaster ride!

To me, nothing is more important in life than the quest for spiritual truth and development; interestingly, this opinion has been one of few to successfully carry over from my early, frequent exposure to Nashville-style religious fundamentalism!

As a tween or early teen, I sensed — on a deep, personal level — that there was something missing from the legalistic, fundamentalist worldview to which everyone in my ken seemed to subscribe. I seemed to be more curious than the average young parishioner. While others seemed content to accept all the religious teachings and dogma at face value while refraining from asking the notoriously “difficult” questions that plague religion (evolution, origin and nature of evil, et al), I was not prepared to blindly follow them. I had an earnest, unrelenting desire to conduct independent, relatively objective research in order to confirm the teachings of the church, and in the process, hopefully reassure myself that what we were being taught at school and church was congruent with reality and truth.

sketch by Stephen Frasier - Bible teacher at David Lipscomb University in Nashville, TN in the 1980sI began to think then as I have come to believe now: that, although spiritual matters are certainly beyond reason and intellect, they ought not conflict with reason and intellect. In other words, I do not subscribe to fideism on any level: the belief that truth-telling tools such as logic, reason, science, philosophy, and intellect are actually enemies of religious faith! (For inerrantists who take the Bible 100% literally, there are numerous passages in the Bible that confirm, encourage, and support the employment of human reason in the process of discerning one’s religious beliefs.)

I was quite rebellious in my early college years; I believe I was the only student in my Christian Evidences class [1] to argue for the “other side.” I think I still received a B- in the class, in which we used Sproul’s Reason to Believe as the primary text. For a short time around age 18, I suppose I was leaning toward atheism. Fortunately, that did not last very long.

sketch by Stephen Frasier - Bible teacher at David Lipscomb University in Nashville, TNAround the year 2000, I decided it was time to get very serious concerning my beliefs; I decided to devote my full time and attention to the study and research of religion and spirituality, and how they relate to truth, reality, science, history, etc. I spent months doing little apart from contemplating and examining the errancy/ inerrancy debate, the "special creation" vs. macro-evolution debate, intelligent design I.D.), comparative religion, the differences and similarities between Eastern and Western religious views and philosophies, Christian mysticism, New Thought, the perennial philosophy, and much more.

Over the years, I practiced and/or adopted belief systems including fundamentalist Christianity (as I was raised to believe at David Lipscomb first grade through college and at Brentwood Hills Church of Christ), "true" or "Jeffersonian" Christianity, Deism, agnosticism, secular humanism, atheism, pantheism/ panentheism, Buddhism, and Taoism.

sketch by Stephen Frasier - Roland Pack, Bible teacher at David Lipscomb University in Nashville, TN in the 1980sI wish everyone could (or would) take the time to conduct an objective, big-picture study of these matters; I would not trade that experience for anything in life!

These evolving views and beliefs have had several side effects: some positive, some negative. Relatively speaking, my widely varying experiences seemed to bring about a great deal of perspective, appreciation, freedom, compassion, perhaps even a mild enlightenment. On the negative side, I suffered socially from my beliefs since almost everyone in my life up to that point was from the Nashville world of Christian fundamentalism. I became more distant from my immediate family, though this was probably more of my own doing than anyone else’s.

sketch by Stephen Frasier - Bible teacher at David Lipscomb University in Nashville, TNI gained a tremendous respect for those spiritual giants of all paths who encourage interfaith dialogue, tolerance, acceptance, universal spiritual principles, and syncretism: People like HHDL (His Holiness the Dalai Lama), Thomas Merton [2], Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Thich Nhat Hanh, and so many others. My heart clearly and firmly led me in the direction of openness, oneness, and spiritual unity – and away from closed-mindedness, fideism, legalism, and fundamentalism.

For many years now I’ve been writing about these experiences: the related study, research, and practice; religion and spirituality, etc. However, given my conservative heritage and environment, I’ve kept most of my writings and beliefs to myself — sharing them only with close friends and a few others. Perhaps to those who do not know me, one of the only outward signs of my faith has been the drastic reduction in my church attendance! The casual observer might posit that I either do not care about religion and spirituality, or have turned against it. Thankfully, neither could be further from the truth!

I am no longer content or satisfied to keep these things to myself; I am no longer willing to remain silent on such important matters — especially with the push of the Hard Right into modern national politics and the associated threats to pluralism, separation of church and state, the twisting of what great rational thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson really thought about religious fundamentalism, etc. (I’ll end my political references here; these potentially touchy subjects are covered in separate posts on the Search for Truth blog, as well.)

Therefore, it is with tremendous relief and some excitement that I have finally begun to publish a few articles, essays, and posts on these subjects on this Search for Truth blog and elsewhere. Goals include encouraging critical thought and deep contemplation re: spirituality and religion, spiritual unity and oneness, emphasis of unity over division, acceptance over judgment, truth over tradition, and so on. [ Mission, goals of Search for Truth, About Search for Truth... ]

Resources

Notes

[1] Christian Evidences course: A study of the evidences which support the Christian religion, dealing with such matters as the existence of God, the origin of the universe, the inspiration of the Scriptures, and the divinity of Christ.

[2] Even some of the most positively influential Christians of modern times cannot avoid being publicly condemned by radical, far-right religious fundamentalists. Apostasy Alert and its berating of Thomas Merton is a great example of religion gone haywire.

  • Biblical errancy vs. inerrancy debate
  • Special creation vs. macroevolution debate
  • comparative religion
  • Eastern and Western religious views and philosophies
  • Christian mysticism
  • Basic universal spiritual principles
  • Syncretism, New Thought, perennial philosophy
  • Aldous Huxley, Wayne Dyer, Eckhart Tolle, Neale Donald Walsch, etc.

Removed content
(I realize I must trim back the level of detail – otherwise, this email will take up too much of your time! As a writer, I tend to be verbose…)