The question was posted by Mike D in reaction to my article “Atheist Fundamentalism Lives.” Mike writes:
“How can you be a fundamentalist about something that has no doctrines, creeds, or dogmas? That’d be like writing a dissertation about the richness of TV programming on the “off” setting.”
Mike goes on to state that atheists certainly can be fundamentalists about different things (secular humanism, perhaps) but not about atheism per se. Is that true?
Let’s start here: I accept the traditional definition of atheism as the belief that no God exists (or no gods exist). Thus, I’m not interested in those folks who call themselves atheist but only mean that they are merely “without belief in God.” My focus is on those for whom atheism entails at least one belief, the belief that God doesn’t exist or that no gods exist.
Can you be a fundamentalist with respect to that one belief? Well yes, you can.
But let’s back up by starting with a few words on the meaning of fundamentalism. This term was coined in the wake of the publication of The Fundamentals, a collection of twelve pamphlets commissioned by rich oilman Lyman Stewart a century ago as a way to galvanize conservative Christians in North America against the encroachment of liberal Christianity. Consequently, The Fundamentals aimed to provide a restatement of what the authors perceived to be Christian orthodoxy, a return to the central dogmas or fundamentals of Christian faith.
That might be the historic origins of fundamentalism as a concept, but of course concepts change over time and this one is no different. Today the term has been expanded to refer to various religious movements that seek to return a broader religious community to a perceived fidelity to particular beliefs and practices. Even more broadly, the term is defined as follows: “strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.” (dictionary.com)
In my own analysis, I understand fundamentalism to be embodied in two traits: (i) anti-intellectualism about particular fields of formal study and (ii) a sharp binary opposition between reason (those of the in-group) and irrationality (those of the out-group). Thus, I would identify an individual as fundamentalist if they appeal to (i) and (ii) as a means to defend and propagate their core beliefs.
From this it follows that any atheist who engages in (i) and (ii) as a means to defend and propagate the belief that God doesn’t exist (or that no gods exist) constitutes an atheist fundamentalist.
So do any atheists do that?
Let’s begin with anti-intellectualism. Atheist fundamentalists regularly reject specific fields in the humanities. The first target is the literary and historical study of the Bible. The assault on formal literary study of the texts is evident when atheists dismiss the Bible as a primitive collection of Near Eastern iron age fairy tales. The historical assault is evident when atheists cavalierly dismiss a broad consensus on an issue like the existence of Jesus by endorsing fringe mythicist theories. (This particular example is a close parallel with the Protestant fundamentalist’s rejection of a consensus in biology and earth science on the age of the earth in favor of their young earth scientists.)
A second target is theology as with Dawkins’ infamous response to critics that he was ignorant of theology by dismissing the entire discipline as equivalent to “fairyology”.
Finally, we get the attacks on philosophy as with the atheist who poses the incredulous refrain “What have we learned from philosophy?” Ironically, this question typically is motivated by a philosophy of philosophy, as in the naturalization of philosophy which was popularized by philosophers like W.V. Quine. If some question philosophy in principle, others target particular fields of philosophy. And that’s where we situate Loftus’ deluded attempt to rid the world of philosophy of religion, a project as absurd (if not as grand) as Ken Ham’s Kentucky ark.
What about the sharp binary opposition between the reasonable in-group and the unreasonable out-group? In religious fundamentalism the line is often drawn between those who have been illuminated by God’s Spirit (or some other supernatural agent of revelation) and those who remain in darkness. In atheist fundamentalism we find a very similar binary opposition although here the categories are tweaked to pit “reason” against “faith.” But it is fascinating to see how closely the binary opposition of atheist fundamentalists echo their religious counterparts, even down to the contrast between darkness and the unveiling of a new understanding of the world. Exhibit A in this regard is Loftus himself who, as I have noted, endorses a conversion to atheism which is as baldly conversionist as any revivalist preacher. See my discussion in “Why I Became an Atheist”: A Review (Part 1).”
So yes, even a minimal belief like “God doesn’t exist” or “no gods exist” can be held in a fundamentalist way insofar as it is defended and propagated through (i) anti-intellectualism and (ii) sharp binary oppositions. And thus an atheist can indeed be a fundamentalist qua atheism.
