You don't even know
what religious fundamentalism is.
Not exact matches
I refer to new ideas in physics, chemistry, physiology, philosophy, theology, all of which are pertinent to the
religious significance of Darwinism.3
What many seem not to understand is that the crux of the
religious issue is not between
fundamentalism — which I recall no one whose intelligence I greatly admire defending — and evolution, but between two kinds of theism and two kinds of evolutionism.
Throughout the eighteenth century in Europe, the decline of «
religious certitude» ¯
what is nowadays called evangelicalism or, less knowledgeably,
fundamentalism ¯ was widely taken for granted.
«Reassertion» is a decisive term here, for
fundamentalism seems to rise when the authoritative bearers of a
religious tradition are perceived as falling into intellectual drift — when those responsible for cultivating and propagating the vision do not, can not or will not defend the fundamentals that give the vision articulate form, or when they begin to advocate changing the definition of
what is fundamental.
The book is not specifically
religious, so I was a bit surprised to bump into
what I thought was a really interesting assessment of
religious fundamentalism on page 63, where Godin writes:
An example for comparison might be
what happened to the Ottoman empire which after embracing science and rising to world dominance slipped into a decline fueled by
religious fundamentalism where the ideas of popular
religious individuals reigned supreme over the importance of scientific fact.
I liked pot back then, was open to
religious fundamentalism, gained twenty pounds in four months because I was always ravenous, though I never knew for
what.
I may not like the
religious fundamentalism inherent in the niqab and the burqa but politically I'm reluctant to tell people
what to do and legally I can't see this law going anywhere.