The use of the word fundamentalist to describe militant Muslims is a relic of pre-9/11 leftist thinking. The word was deliberately pushed in order to associate fundamentalist Christians with Muslims, especially radical Shi'ite Muslims.

Before the left's current infatuation with Islam, the only use they had for Muslims (besides greasing the treads of Soviet tanks in Afghanistan) was to compare them to the likes of Jerry Falwell. A comparison which they intended to be extremely insulting to Falwell. That goes to show you how the left really feels about religious tolerance, and how they really feel about Allah, too.

That being said, the Wahhabi (or Salafi) Muslims are pretty fundamental, since they believe in a "pure" Islam which is stripped of any kind of artistic or cultural ornamentation. And they are the driving force behind Al-Qaeda, besides being the state religion of Saudi Arabia (site of the future Republic of Arabia, God Willing).

Oh! Bernard Lewis' definition of fundamentalism is nearly as silly as Karen Armstrongs'! That is not what fundamentalism is. And how ridiculously ethno-centric to define fundamentalism in terms of an American movement.
Boyer's definition of fundamentalism, from Religion Explained:
"Fundamentalism is...an attempt to preserve a particular kind of hierarchy based on coalition."
It is about power, not religion.

jinnderella, is your post a joke? The common American understanding of Fundamentalism is exactly what Lewis described. He did not define it in terms of an "American movement". He gave the American definition of the expression. His statement strikes me as perfectly logical.

lindenen, not a joke-- I am giving the scientific definition of fundamentalism! How is an "American" definition derived from Christian Fundamentalism in any way appropriate to an analysis of Islam? Boyer's book gives examples from Islam and Hinduism and Bhuddism as well as ACF, for a much more relevent basis to work from.

jinderella, in my view characterization of schools of Christian, Islam, Hindu, or Buddhist beliefs as fundamentalist is an example of a kind of reification. It's making a thing out of something that ain't a thing.

And may I quibble a little with your response to lindenen? You didn't give the scientific definition of fundamentalism. You gave a definition of fundamentalism. And it doesn't appear to agree with Dominick Crossan's definition and he's one of the leading scholars of religious fundamentalism.

Now can you give me a description of Christian Fundamentalism (particularly in the U. S.) that's consistent Boyer's definition? I'm not sure how that definition corresponds to what I've seen around me.

Dave, OK, a definition. :P
But the correct one, IMHO, the one based on research in evolutionary pyscho-biology. :)
From Boyer, "A movement entirely focused on the return to the religious values promoted by the religious guild."
ACF does not, to my knowledge, legitimize violence in the service of religious restoration, as some other religions (ie, Islam) do. That is why Lewis' definition is not useful.
ACF does, however, attempt to preserve hierarchy by discouraging defection and enforcing belief systems, as in the insertion of "intelligent design concepts" into public school curricula.
BTW, Boyers work is corroborrated by Atran and Sprengler. I have not read Crossen. What are his creds?

Dave,
Is Crossan a biblical scholar and historian?
That would be why I have not read him.
You know I'm more into cultural anthropology and sociobiology. :)
But, I would like to know-- what is Crossan's definition of fundamentalism? Is it the same as Lewis' ?

Another problem with Lewis' definition is that it is wrong. I've met Muslims who would disagree with the literalism he states is axiomatic for Muslims. Are these then not "true Muslims," because they don't fit Lewis' definition (who is a "true adherent' of any ideology is a thorny problem in itself)? Or is it merely the fact that Lewis' definition is prone to the fallacy of underinclusiveness?

Yes, Gary, but what about what Lewis actually said ---"literal divine origin". Do all Muslims believe the Koran to be of divine origin? There was an article I read in The Atlantic awhile ago and it supported pretty much what Lewis said. I don't doubt that many Muslims have different interpretations of Islam.

And are the Muslims you know Americanized Muslims who may be the exception to the rule? And even if 25% of Muslims in the Middle East disagree with the literalism, I doubt any of them would be free to state so without being murdered. So they would just go along with the majority in order to not be the targets of violence.

jinderella: It is about power, not religion.

I'm totally at a loss to see how Boyer's definition of fundamentalism fits either American fundamentalists, or "pure" Muslims like the Wahhabi. But I would agree that it's not just about religion.

The main impulse behind "fundamentalism" in general is to focus on essential core beliefs, and strip away everything else that is seen to obscure or contradict these core beliefs. There have been "fundamentalist" movements in science, literature, philosophy and art as well as religion.

What is wrong is the negative baggage that is attached to the word "fundamentalism": i.e., that all fundamentalism is the same thing, and all fundamentalism is inherently bad.

"Possibly, the monopoly of violence held by Americans and Israelis is the only thing keeping Muslims from initiating their own self-induced genocide."

I suggest we take a long coffee break.

lindenen,

"...literal divine origin..." is so ambiguous as to be meaningless. I assume Lewis' poor phrasing referred to "literalism" as in the following: "Everything in the Bible came from the mind of God, describes accurately real events, etc."

Nope; two of them are Swiss, and one is Chinese. Islam is not remotely as monolithic as Lewis' erroneously portrays it as.

And even if 25% of Muslims in the Middle East disagree with the literalism, I doubt any of them would be free to state so without being murdered.

Its not my impression of say the UAE that they would be murdered. In other words, it depends on where they live. I am not discounting that there are quite a number of anti-modern folks who are adherents of Islam, and that many of these are prone to violence. I am discounting Lewis' underinclusive definition and his underlying implication of social rigidities.

Anyway, again,

Glen Wishard,

A far better term is "reactionary." Reactionaries come in all flavors; religious, secular, nationalist, etc. An apt comparison are folks in the Balkans who pine for a return for the glory days of ethnic group "X"; compare the reactionary principles of individuals like Princip with that of Osama bin Laden in other words.

lindenen -

I'd also like to take strong issue with the idea that religious fundamentalism is the same thing as literalism (I also think that Lewis' definition is wrong).

Most American Protestant fundamentalists are literalists. But many Evangelical churches are also literalist, but not fundamentalist.

The goal of fundamentalism is to restore some sort of original doctrine, which the fundamentalist believes have been buried by non-essential beliefs or practices. In Christianity, the source of this original doctrine is almost always found in the Bible, so Christian fundamentalists tend to be literalists.

Muslim Shi'ite and Sunni "fundamentalists", though, are not just Muslims who take the Koran literally. There is a wider source of inspiration there - various hadiths, duelling prophets, and probably various national and tribal traditions.

Aha. Here we see a key flaw in Lewis' thinking. Are there no important distinctions between the four schools of mainstream Sunni Islam? Between Wahhabiyya and Ismailism? Because if there aren't any important differences, what's all this sectarian violence about? What's all this takfiri business about? I don't really care about whether there is such a thing as Islamic "fundamentalism," but I do think it matters that there are groups of Muslims who think the rest of them are apostates worthy of death, and there are other groups who, er, disagree.

Glenn Wishard,
this:"A movement entirely focused on the return to the religious values promoted by the religious guild." plus this--
"Fundamentalism is...an attempt to preserve a particular kind of hierarchy based on coalition."
Some examples--
Both ACF and Islam punish defection, to varying degrees.
Both ACF and Islam enforce belief systems, I gave the "intelligent design" example for ACF above.
In Islam, the 'religious guild' of the Wahhabists promotes the teachings of Ibn Wahhab, not neccessarily the Qu'ran. ACF's guild promotes the teachings of Jesus, right?
But ACF does not endorse violence as a means of promotion.
Fundamentalism can be applied to many disciplines. I think the Democratic party has been hijacked by hard-line fundamentalists, promoting their particular ideology.
And yes, fundamentalism has negative connotations-- can you give me an example of benevolent fundamentalism? :)

If you want an example of Muslim "fundamentalist" thinking, look at Saudi "reconstruction aid" in Bosnia and Kosovo.

At the hands of Saudi Wahhabists, historic mosques were defaced, gutted, and redone with drywall and whitewash. Calligraphy, iconography, and ornate tile work were destroyed, because they were considered idolatrous. Even graveyards were desecrated, because monuments to dead infidels are likewise idols.

So the Saudis wiped out centuries of Islamic art and architecture that had survived Nazism, Communism, and the rampaging Serbs.

jinnderella: "... can you give me an example of benevolent fundamentalism?"

You bet: The Amish. They build great barns.

Some people would quarrel with the Amish being called fundamentalists. They were not properly part of the fundamentalist movement, but they are quintessential fundamentalists.

Protestant fundamentalism beats most strongly in small, mostly autonomous congregations. They tend to be poor, rural, and short on power (there are exceptions). If they object to "defectors", there is little they can do about it.

Besides, if clannishness and the desire to punish defectors and apostates is inherently "fundamentalist", then Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians are all fire-breathing fundamentalists.

It might help if we could see the article as a whole, but that's only possible for Atlantic subscribers. Are there any subscribers in our readership who could paint a more complete picture of what Bernard Lewis said here? I suspect it would help the discussion a lot.

Glen Wishard, That is a good example! :-)
But Joe's right, maybe we just don't really get what Lewis is trying to say, and we're taking him out of context.
Lewis makes the point that it is 'absurd' to refer to fundamentalists in Islam-- If that is true than his flawed definition is the cause of it-- Islam does have fundamentalists, IMHO, and they are very different than how Lewis defines them.

jinnderella, here are Dominic Crossan's academic and professional credentials. I'll see if I can dredge up some salient quotes on fundamentalism.

He's an acquaintance (a friend of a friend). I've had dinner with him once or twice, conversed, gone to lectures. Interesting guy.

Umm, back on topic to Cicero's point, Islam has obliterated many sects since its origins, including my favorites, the Falasef and the Mutazili (both truly 'moderate'). Since muslims are not supposed to kill other muslims (that is in the Qu'ran), the sectarian violence Cicero describes may be part of the natural process of evolution. Unfortunately, evolution of religion tends to favor the fundamentalists. They are more serious.

jinnderella:

Lewis makes the point that it is 'absurd' to refer to fundamentalists in Islam-- If that is true than his flawed definition is the cause of it-- Islam does have fundamentalists, IMHO, and they are very different than how Lewis defines them.

Yes, exactly, but I wouldn't single out Lewis for blame. The problem is the way that the term "fundamentalist" has been used as a mindless political pejorative, and the way it has been used to lump apples and oranges together.

Echoing many of Ludemann's themes were John Dominic Crossan, a former Catholic priest in the Servite Order and professor emeritus at DePaul University in Chicago. He likened believing the Gospels literally to accepting the ancient Greek fables of Aesop as literal history. Crossan, who is the former co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, demanded that Christians "stop pouring fantasy back into the first century that wasn't there at the beginning." The Gospel stories of Jesus' deity and miracles are "powerful metaphorical stories" that were not read literally until the Enlightenment of four centuries ago, Crossan claimed.

Crossan likened the conservative Christianity of the Southern Baptist Convention to Walt Disney Incorporated, both of which are engaged in a "worldwide missionary expansion of illusional entertainment. Both are at least in large doses equally if differently dangerous." Although Crossan singled out Southern Baptists, he actually rejects all forms of orthodox Christianity.

"With the Southern Baptist Convention it is sometimes difficult to tell religion from Prozac, Christianity from chloroform and baptism from lobotomy," Crossan opined, drawing hoots of laughter from the Jesus Seminar. "I hope Walt Disney and the Southern Baptist Convention will be able to amalgamate freely and evenly, not in a hostile takeover or a frenzied buy-out, but equal partners. Baptist-Disney Entertainments."

Crossan condemned "spiritual xenophobia" that insists that "my God is better than your gods." Converting pagans to the Christian God was a "question of violence," Crossan warned. But converting them to "justice," was a laudable goal, he claimed.

Glen Wishard: Well you might not single him out for blame, but Lewis is making me generally cross lately. Do you realize, Spengler, Pipes, Spencer, Lewis, Bat Ye'or and others are all projecting the continent of eurabia scenario without a scrap of population genetics data (or even demographic data) behind their analyses? Fundamentalism is the same thing-- if you are going to talk about it, at least learn the definition!

Dave, Based on your quotes, I think Crossan is a very original thinker. I would much like to see his definition. :)

Dave Schuler:

Converting pagans to the Christian God was a "question of violence," Crossan warned. But converting them to "justice," was a laudable goal, he claimed.

Like the pop-pagans that he echoes here, Crossan seems to assume that all pagans were placid nature-worshipping folk, until the mean
Christians (or Muslims, as the case may be) came along and busted all their fertility jujus.

By far the most significant pagans of the early Christian period in Europe were the Vikings, who were raiding as far south as Africa and pillaging everything in their path. In this most significant theater of warfare between Christian and pagan, the pagans were overwhelmingly the aggressors.

Converting the Vikings to Christianity was not an entirely violent affair, but overall seems like a legitimate act of self-defense and "regional security".

In (sort of) defense of Bernard Lewis. It is certainly possible to disagree with Bernard Lewis, but this tendency to treat him as some sort of racist moron is one of the goofiest ideas to infect American intellectual debate in recent years. As best as I can tell, it its has origin in the same place as most of the other goofy ideas, with Edward Said. Whatever, Lewis has spent his life in, largely sympathetic, study of Islam and the history of the Islamic Ummah.

Now as to Lewis's "literal divine origin" of the Koran and the claim that this is a fundamental point of Islam. This is clearly a relatively straightforward reference to the doctrine of the eternity of the Koran. But, then Lewis is simply correct. No established school of Islamic jurisprudence or theology denies it. Various Sufi sects are regularly accused of denying, but always have (as best I can tell) at least formally defended it. This has not generally been viewed as incompatible with the allegorical or symbolic interpretation of the Koran although the reach of such interpretations since the triumph of the Mutazillites has generally been less than that in either Christianity or Judaism (See the opening chapters of Maimonides' Guide). But, it does require that one treat the text itself as divine.

Now, whatever the precise theological distinctions between fundamentalists and evangelicals in American theology (and this whole area is a conceptual and terminological mess), fundamentalism, in popular understanding, means something very close to this idea and distinct from either mainline Protestant or Roman Catholic understanding of scriptures. Consider Roman Catholicism, which I know best. Standard modern R.C. rules for interpreting scripture begin from the understanding that God inpires authors with certain prophetic or religious ideas, but the text itself is the product of the human authors attempt to put those divine ideas into words.

Now the Christian fundamentalist attitude towards scriptures does not actually seem have all that much in common with the Islamic doctrine of the eternity of the Koran. However, it simply doesn't seem fair to lose track of Lewis's point that the standard American Christian distinction between literalists (of a whole bunch of different stripes) and inspirationalists (of a whole bunch of different stripes), simply has no parallel in mainstream Islamic thought.

Whatever the theological cracks are that divide Moslems from each other, they are not the same theological cracks and traps that divide Christians. Lewis may very well be wrong about the complexities of sectarian Christianity, but I think he's right about Islam. As he usually is, if you go to the original sources.

Jim

going from the sublime of religious theorising to the ridiculous of linguistic trive, I belive you will find that the phrase is :"

The Hatfields and the Coys"

no back to our regularly scheduled program...

Into this fray I will add this:

'Fundamentalist Christians', such as they are, by and large do not have basic contradictions with the tenets of our constitution, and the secular order. Separation of church and state, if even a trifling pledge by radicalized Christians, holds a good amount of solid ground.

Secularsim is a vexation for most Muslims, I think. Their religion denies Christ's admonition against tax evaders: "Pay unto that which is Caesar's; and unto that which is God's." This utterance of the secular split between God's kingdom and Earthly regimes has no place in the Koran.

Muslims practice secular lifestyles at the peril of their faith, deep down. Much needs to be worked out in the Muslim soul with respect to integrating modernity and a life devoted to God. Except there's all these bloody nukes, television cameras and clever devices lying around to confuse the issue.

Jim,
I don't think Lewis is a racist. I think he is 'fluffy', that is, he doesn't back his assertions with science. :)
"Fundamentalist," says Lewis, "is an American expression"-- why use that at all? He himself says it doesn't work for Islam. There are good, rigorous, definitions of fundamentalism, backed with research into cultural anthropology that are appropriate, that do model islamic fundamentalism.

I read the Atlantic article and snipped a few quotes from it at the time it was available. Sorry I didn't snip the whole thing.

I have found some additional portions of the article that I kept as text.

- - -

ISLAM'S INTERPRETER

Bernard Lewis talks about his seventy years spent studying the Middle East—and his thoughts on the region's future

[SNIP]

> In a 1957 lecture about tensions in the Middle East you said that
> Westernization, in spite of its benefits, was the chief cause "of the
> political and social formlessness, instability and irresponsibility that
> bedevils public life of the Middle East." I wonder, as you were writing nearly
> a half century ago, which particular aspects of Westernization you were
> referring to?

First of all, let me say what I mean by Westernization. This process was not mainly imposed by Western imperial rulers, who tend to be very cautious and conservative, tampering as little as possible with the existing institutions. It was done by reformers in the independent Middle Eastern countries. Enthusiastic reformers who recognized the success and power of the Western world and wanted to get the same for their own people—a very natural and very laudable ambition. But often with the very best of intentions, they achieved appalling results.

What I had in mind in particular was two things, both tending in the same direction. In the old order, the traditional Islamic Middle Eastern society was certainly authoritarian, but it was not despotic or dictatorial. It was a limited autocracy in which the power of the ruler, the Sultan or the Shah or the Pasha, whoever he might be, was limited both in theory and in practice. It was limited in theory by the Holy Law—the Divine Law to which the ruler was subject no less than the meanest of his slaves. It was also limited in practice by the existence of strong entrenched interests in society. You had the merchants of the bazaar, powerful guilds. You had the country gentry. You have the bureaucratic establishment, the military establishment, and the religious establishment. Each of these groups produced their own leaders—leaders who were not appointed by the State, who were not paid by the State, and who were not answerable to the State. These, therefore, formed a very important constraint on the autocracy of government.

Then came the process of modernization or Westernization, which for practical purposes are the same thing. It enormously increased the power of the central government by placing at its disposal the whole modern apparatus of surveillance and control: first the telegraph, later the telephone; the possibility of moving troops quickly, first by train then by truck or by plane. So the central government was able to assert itself and enforce its will even in remote provinces in a way that was inconceivable in earlier times. The effect of this was to weaken or even eliminate those intermediate powers that limited the autocracy of government.

When people look at the kind of regime that was operated by Saddam Hussein and say, "Well, that's how they are, that's their way of doing things," it is simply not true. I mean, that kind of dictatorship has no roots in either the Arab or the Islamic past. It, unfortunately, is the consequence of Westernization or modernization in the Middle East.

[SNIP]

> What basis exists in that region for a civil society organized on secular
> principles? What kinds of institutions exist apart from Islam?

The word secular is a Western term. It has only recently been imported into the Middle East. The idea of Church and State as two distinct institutions which can be either joined or separated is a Western and more specifically a Christian idea. In the past, if you talked to Muslims about separation of Church and State the usual answer you'd get was, "Oh, this is a Christian remedy for a Christian disease"—and therefore of no relevance to them. Now I think that they are beginning to realize that perhaps they have contracted the Christian disease and that it might be a good idea to try the Christian remedy.

> What is the Christian disease?

The mixing of Church and State. That is, when the Church uses the State to enforce its doctrine, and the State interferes in the affairs of the Church. This is what brought on the great wars of religion in Europe. The idea of separation of Church and State was intended to protect both: to protect religion from State interference and to protect the State from religious interference.

> So the old perception was that Islam was immune to that problem because Church
> and State, so to speak, are organically combined?

Exactly. That's no longer true. For example, what they have now in Iran, for the first time, is a theocracy—a country which is actually run by the professional men of religion. This is totally unknown in the Islamic past. They now have the functional equivalent of a Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops, and above all, an inquisition that punishes heretics. One hopes that they may in due course have a reformation.

jinnderella,

OK, now I think I'm starting to see. You and Lewis are simply talking past each other here. He's not a cultural anthropologist or a sociologist, and he's not here engaging with this phenomenon as a cultural artifact or a social movement. I certainly don't, and I doubt that Lewis would, necessarily deny that fundamentalism as a term of art in cultural anthropology might provide a useful frame for understanding these phenomena. Since I don't have enough cultural anthropology background to judge for myself, I'll take your word for that.

However, those rigorous definitions are simply not what most people hear when they hear "fundamentalism." Whatever the rigorous meaning of "fundamentalism" as a term of art for anthropology or Christian theology, it has also entered the popular lexicon. Within that common meaning it's primary use is to mark a distinction within Christianity largely but not exclusively determined by an attitude toward scriptural interpretation.

Now Lewis is engaging at this popular level (the quotation is from The Atlantic afterall) and he's engaging with this Islamic phenomenon as an intellectual and theological system. Here I still think his basic point stands. When we call it "Islamic fundamentalism," we associate it with what most people think of as fundamentalism. This leads us to expect the fault lines between "Islamic fundamentalists" and the rest of Islam follow the same basic pattern as those between Christian fundamentalists and the rest of Christianity. But, they don't; the fundamental disagreement is not about the nature of the core text as it tends to be in Christianity. If we attempt to engage Islam on that assumption, the doctrine of the eternity of the Koran simply leads us down a rabbit hole. And, as I recall, Lewis does go on to explain in more detail exactly what he's trying to get at with his denial that fundamentalism forms a useful category for understanding the intellectual content of this movement. If he doesn't do it in The Atlantic article ( I haven't read it in a long time) he certainly does do so elsewhere.

Maybe an example from closer to home will be useful. In attempting to describe the divisions within the Catholic Church in America, there is a tendency to describe the groups in terms derived from classifications of various non-Catholic Christian sects in America, i.e. "conservative" and "liberal." It may very well be that the people who make up the "conservative" and "liberal" wings of the R.C. tend to be sociologically or anthropologically like their non-Catholic counter-parts. And, that is a useful bit of data in understanding those movements. However, the issues that divide them into those groupings have little or nothing in common with the issues that divide various other sects within Christianity. Because of this the attempt to shoehorn the Catholic movements into the Protestant mold leads to mischaracterization of the internal issues that divide the Church; sometimes in ways so absurd that they become hilarious.

All Lewis is doing here, I believe, is reminding us that attempting to understand the intellectual/theological content of Islamic movements by importing what really is a foreign concept can have the same effect.

Maybe, there is also a more abstract issue at work here. Lewis is being "fuzzy" here because he's doing "fuzzy," or "soft" here. In addition, he's doing soft-popular, not soft-careful. He's operating in the inherently soft area of concepts and history, not in the hard area of data and models and doing it in popular magazine where he strips away most of the qualifications that would appear in careful scholarly work. I think that there is a place for all four kinds of work in understanding pretty much any human phenomena: soft-careful, soft-popular, hard-careful and hard-popular. We need popular work because only popular work really has a shot at effecting the broader public debate, but good popular work is always parasitic in good careful work. And, we need both hard and soft work because they always describe different aspects of the phenomenon in question. At the same time, all four kinds of work need to be held to their own standards not those of one of the others. That being said, I would be very interested in a popular treatment of Islamic fundatmentalism from the perspective of the kind of models based on cultural anthropology you mention. I haven't yet run across one.

Jim, Good points, and mebbe I should write your treatment. :)
But, a big problem with soft/fluffy/popular is that it can be completely wrong-- For example, the projected Muslim take-over of Europe. Lewis is respected as a writer, and everyone just seems to accept this.
And you see it everywhere. Like I said, recent articles by Spengeler, Pipes, Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer, etc. I am not sure that he isn't right, but I have seen non-supportive data that deserves consideration. The birthrate statistics don't actually support his projection, yet that is all anyone cites.
The thing is, data is mostly neutral. If you put a soft/fluffy treatment on it, it can mean anything.

Jinnderella,

And interpretation of hard data can never be wrong? While I wouldn't go as far as Neitzsche in claiming "There are no facts, only interpretations," I would say facts are meaningless outside of interpretations of them (I'm not being postmodern here; interpretations can be valid or invalid). It seems to me there's a difference between science and "scientism." Science is a method for developing information about the physical world (not in my opinion the only world, though your sociobiological perspective seems to reduce everything to material causes). "Scientism" is an ideology that maintains that only the scientific method produces true knowledge and that all realms of human endeavor are explicable by the scientific method. I don't buy (or even rent) either of those propositions. The fact that "soft" data can be misinterpreted, even that it can be more easily misinterpreted than "hard" data, does not render it valueless.

Fred, I said data is neutral, not hard or soft.
And, "I do belive in ghosts, I do believe in ghosts"! You should read my Ghost Theory post at Gene Expression. :)

I said this at Belmont Club, and I'll say it again here. Unless you have a rigorous experimental design (and who does for this stuff?) any data set you collect can interpreted in various ways. I just don't think ignoring data all together is valid. I think Lewis has studied Islam and has valid opinions. But couldn't his analysis be improved with data from cultural anthropology?

Jinnderella,

I stand corrected on your characterization of data as neutral, but I'm not sure it changes my basic point. I actually don't believe in ghosts, but I'd love to read your ghost theory :)

Jinnderella,

After further reflection on your ghost jab, I went back and reread my post. Given how it's worded, I can certainly see how you might have interpreted it as a claim for some sort of paranormal X-Files bullshit (don't get me wrong; I'm a big X-Files fan). If that's what you thought, then I don't blame you for making fun of me. I would have too. However, as TS Eliot said, "That is not what I meant. That is not what I meant at all." What I was trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to say is simply that there is an emotional and spiritual dimension certainly to human existence and perhaps to existence per se that scientism at best ignores and at worst attempts (unsuccessfully, even in some instances ridiculously) to reduce to material cause and effect. Many of your posts seem to me to engage in that error.

Fred, I didn't mean to jab!
And, well, I do believe in science. :)
But I also believe in ghosts!
"There are more things under heaven and earth,
than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio"
Ghost Theory
koa's comment at the end sums it up best! :)

Jinnderella,

Hmm. Interesting. I may have got you all wrong. I'd like to know what you think about this (I hope I don't get bumped for irrelevance here): One could argue that in winter, the fish survive because the pond doesn't freeze all the way down. One could equally argue that the pond doesn't freeze all the way down so that the fish can survive. Science can establish the truth of the first proposition. The second may or may not be true. But in either case, science has absolutely nothing to say about its truth or falsity. It is, ultimately, a matter of faith. From your evolutionary perspective, we love our children so that the species can survive. Is it not equally arguable, though not scientifically, that love of children is necessary for species survival so that we will love our children? In other words, I don't agree with Dawkins that evolutionary theory compels belief in a world without design. From the post to which you linked, I wonder if you agree with me on that.

jinnderella -

Okay, you're so smart:

What is the evolutionary advantage in believing that you can escape an explosion by running really fast and jumping out of a window before the flames reach you?

I've seen this in so many movies lately that it must be some kind of selected behavior, or preprogrammed belief or something ...

Fred, I believe what koa said-- we don't know everything yet. :)

Glen Wishard. I am not so smart.
But running from large fires (think forest fires) is instinctive behavior, and would overrride jumping-out-of window-behavior, which came later.