next »

[husqvarna]

K16 is exactly right on the definition of fundamentalism.  We do, however, need to expand it because the word is simply used in a broader (and at the same time more restricted) sense today.

When the word "fundamentalist" is used today, it's usually used for types like Jerry Falwell (more the traditional use) as well as with groups that are called "Islamic fundamentalists" or "militant fundamentalists".  What was a very specific Christian movement has become a descriptor for wider religious groups.  In some ways the word has become as useless as "conservative" or "liberal", because it's all in the eyes of the beholder what that is, and it changes depending on who's in power and who doesn't like whom at the moment.  On these boards I've often referred to various atheists as "fundamentalists", because I think it's important- if we expand the meaning of the term- to realize that not just religious groups behave like "fundamentalists".

I think zharkov's definition is a good start for recognizing what fundamentalists are today, and it is also important to remember that K16's definition is, technically, the correct definition.  I would tend to take aspects of both in my definition of fundamentalism (contemporary, rather than the original)

- In agreement with K16, fundamentalisms usually hold to a number of "basics" of the faith... the pillars of Islam interpreted in a particular way are often tied to Islamic fundamentalists in the same way that the "fundamentals" were tied to the Princeton theologians in the early 20th century.  K16 is also right to mention that more than just what we think of as fundamentalists today would adhere to the original "fundamentals"... evangelicals would fit the description fine, as would many non-evangelicals, although because fundamentalism has developed into a particular type of group it's important to distinguish between them.

-fundamentalism also practices its faith in opposition to various modern liberal understandings of truth- this is similar to Zharkov's pitting of fundamentalism against science.  This is also why I would tie militant atheism to fundamentalism, because there is a lack of interaction between "science and faith" to put it crudely, but more specifically between various approaches to knowledge that have developed over time.  Indeed, to see either "faith" or "science" as some monolithic personified force that battles the other is itself rather fundamentalist in orientation.

I think this sticks well enough to the original sense of fundamentalist while allowing the definition to expand to wider religious circles.  Today you certainly see a political agenda attached to various fundamentalisms, though that was not so much the case in the early twentieth century.  It might also be worth noting that pre-conciliar Catholicism itself looked a lot like fundamentalism in its attack on "modernism", and may be a helpful comparison to the Protestant version.

I would recommend the book "Fundamentalism and American Culture" by George Marsden.  Although I haven't read the book, Marsden's name is a recommendation in itself.  I think it recently came out in a new addition, as well.  Martin Marty has also written a lot about fundamentalisms, but he will not be as personally familiar with the movements as Marsden.