The problem with fundamentalism (aside from the obvious)

It's been awhile nonexistent readership, huh?

It's been a busy time, what with the starting grad school and all that. The following is a post that I started writing up awhile ago, but never finished. Figured it was about time that I started doing something again.

Fundamentalism is rather silly, to be honest. To literally interpret something that is an amalgamation of sources that was applicable over two thousand years ago is, well, silly.

The problem that interpreting the Bible literally, as I'm sure many know, is that it was written in a different time and place than what most of us live in today. The snide remark is that Bible-based homeschooling gives a child the skill set necessary for first century Jerusalem, not our twenty-first century society.

It was written for a smaller world, also. When the first tales began to circulate, I'm quite sure that people were more isolated and didn't have a clear idea of how large the world really is. Let us use, for an example, a fertile river valley. The surrounding area is either not as useful, or filled with mountains, but you and your village have it pretty good.

To a group of people such as this, a story about a worldwide flood would encompass their known universe: the river valley. If the river valley floods heavily, it is possible everyone could die. "All the animals in the world" amounts to perhaps a few oxen, some dogs, birds, and whatever wild animals are in the area. It doesn't mean the entire globe was flooded, and that animals came from everywhere from the North Pole to Australia. One wise man who built a boat would live and be able to start anew.

The story of Noah suddenly makes a lot more sense.

The Bible makes sense when you look at it from these viewpoints. Not eating shellfish? Possibly a lifesaver in a pre-fridge era. Circumcision? Keeps the sand out. Lots of God-driven warfare? Well, we all need land! (Okay, maybe that last one stands the test of time unfortunately).

I've been an anthropology nut (and amateur anthropologist, that one class in high school notwithstanding) for just about my whole life. It's all rather common sense, when you look at it. If you put on your "Ancient Jewish Sheepherder" hat, the Bible is actually a pretty good tool.

But, it just doesn't stand up to modern life. There are so many things in our society that lack any sort of precedent in the Bible.

Abortion isn't in it. Period. Likely because it deals with a woman's issue, something women have been dealing with in their own communities since near the dawn of time. People have had access to ways to stop pregnancies or terminate them for quite awhile. In fact, I doubt that people during Biblical times had a real concrete concept on how pregnancies worked outside that they were a consequence of lots of sex. I'm sure there were even higher rates of miscarriage due to nutritional issues as well as environmental ones.

Of course, there is also nothing related to technology, to advanced governments, anything that we've intellectually gained since then, ideas that form the basis of our society. At least half of our daily lives likely have no clear outline in the Bible. To believe that nothing has changed in the way humans deal with one another, in how we form philosophical opinions, to believe that the older, more savage (especially the virgin-raping Old Testament) way of thinking is somehow better is laughable. It's purposely turning one's back on information.

Why hasn't God inspired someone else to write more ideas since the world has changed so? Are we supposed to believe that after years of heavy interaction with His people that He has just washed His hands and is just sitting back? Does He think the old way, where people tended to die younger, and the world seemed to have been a bit more brutal, was better? His true plan?

What kind of loving God wants to go back to a time where more people appear to have suffered needlessly?

Of course, many in this world still suffer, but those of us lucky enough to have picked our parents well enjoy a higher standard of living than our Biblical forebears. Is this something God dislikes? Is this omnipotent being stupid enough to think that the old Bible is good enough to guide us well in this day and age?

Or has He and said people have been ignored? To be truthful, I am just covering my bases here, I truly believe the Bible is yet another mythos created by men to serve their own needs within the community, to order it, and rightly so. Granted, the Bible as it stands is a translator's nightmare, with pieces randomly chosen, with texts being translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English to God Knows What, and with certain translators adding in their own psychological views. I have heard it argued that the line in one of Paul's epistles entreating women to be submissive bears stronger ideological similarities with Classical Greek thinking rather than the Hebraic, and the passage itself doesn't really seem to fit in with the surrounding ones. It seems to point towards a Greek translator taking liberties with the texts.

Who's to say the whole thing hasn't been tampered with?

I've heard the argument that I just haven't read the Bible, and that in an open-minded reading, I will suddenly convert and love it, and it will make perfect sense. But, to be honest, it doesn't work that way. I just have more questions, the most burning of which is why God stopped being so active in the lives of his believers. It's rather out of character.

One group of people who trot out the Biblical lifestyle are Quiverfullers, the most infamous of which are the Duggers of Arkansas. Quiverfullers point to a passage is Psalms (Psalms 127:3-5) that is apparently God telling them to never use any sort of family planning, which naturally often results in huge families.

There is a problem with this exact methodology, however. It's the same problem that keeps the Bible from having clear opinions on abortion and democracy.

The world has changed a lot in the past two thousand plus years. Larger families were aimed for because of higher rates of infant mortality, and the numbers were also likely mitigated further by longer breastfeeding. These days, born infants have a much higher chance of reaching adulthood, and mothers no longer breastfeed their babies for four or so years (except in certain areas of the world). There's no need to breed haphazardly to make sure at least a few of your children make it to adulthood.

Even beyond that, our societies have changed as well. If you are a group of nomadic herders, or even farmers, a larger family was a great resource as the children could help with all the work involved in these professions.

Now, with children being allowed more time to play, and with their only job is school and perhaps a few chores, it makes much more sense to have smaller families. It saves money, forms closer families, and from a cost-benefit perspective, likely works out the same as the "have a bunch and hope some live" model.

Also, how many Biblical heroes have a lot of children? John the Baptist was an only child. There's debate as to whether or not Jesus was an only child. Noah had three sons. These are not huge families. In reality, these extremely large families are only possible because of modern medicine. I cannot imagine the toll on these women's bodies.

I once heard an argument that creationists and fundamentalists that attack evolution, a cornerstone of biological science, should not use any of the benefits of said science, like modern medicine. I think it is rather hypocritical to use something you fight to stagnate and undermine (ID is against the very nature of science, which is to question and find out an answer. "God did it" is not a good enough answer for science), but I'm not going to wish a poorer quality of life upon another person just because of ideological differences.

Truly, if Quiverfullers didn't use doctors, I doubt their children would be so numerous. They're trying to use an old adaptive strategy (having lots of babies) in a world where said strategy is rather maladaptive.

I'm not going to touch resource management problems, as they are very complex (much more complex than I feel most people give them credit for), and I don't think my opinions are necessarily popular. But, even from a practical standpoint, children are expensive. They need clothes, food, and education. How many of these Quiverfull children are going to necessarily going to have the opportunity to go to college?

To be honest, the Duggars are very lucky. The Discovery Channel pretty much finished and furnished their new home, they likely get paid handsomely for their specials, and they are popular enough to have many people donating cash to them in the event of a true family emergency (baby #15 needing heart surgery or something). The Lord will provide, indeed.

Besides, my main complaint with people such as the Duggars is that it seems as though they are accumulating children as a status symbol, as a possession, more than children. See the seemingly endless TV specials, the J names set, the fact that mom likely just has a thing for babies, as she's mostly hands-off afterward, for evidence that this family, while I am sure it is loving, has its own problems. I can't imagine having a very close relationship with my children in such a family.

What kind of futures do these children have?

Is it going to be the same kind of future anyone who is maladaptive has?

Fundamentalism is, in actuality, a stagnant, maladaptive reading of Christianity. Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution, as they recognize that faith is more than what is literally on the page, and that to deny the science was just stupid (if only they'd let missionaries distribute condoms in Africa). The Bible is great as a starting point, but you need to be able to appreciate its poetry and metaphor for what it is: a book designed to give explanations of the world and meaning to the lives of premodern, barely educated shepherds.

And we're better than that now.