Christian Protestant fundamentalism and modern Islamic fundamentalism closely coincided with movements in which purportedly divinely inspired writings which were previously interpreted predominantly by clergy with formal theological instructions who received doctrinal interpretive glosses together with their plain readings of these documents were superseded with direct, uninterpreted, gloss free readings of the same core texts (without supplemental works from “the tradition”) by rather ill educated laymen.

This upset the intellectual structures and concepts that kept troubling or problematic readings in check either by reinterpreting or de-emphasizing them.

I think the statement that “science did not truly exist” is the key here. Until the 19th century, scientific investigation (ie, evaluation and discovery of the natural order) was primarily a theological endeavor, a means to find out more about God. Newton was a prime example. Only after the Enlightenment did people even start to consider evaluating the natural world outside of a theological context. This was the beginning of what we would call “modern” science.

This separation occurred for a reason. As more information about the natural world became available, the data lead people away from the theological context.

The literalists that you refer to are the ones who still believe that science should not have been separated from theology. But the reason why “the battle between science and religion in this case is a clash of two moderns” is because science left religion.

To be a bit cynical and simple, the deal between the base and elites in the Democratic party is “We will support the social liberalism of the elites in return for their supporting policies that help the economic and material well-being of the less prosperous” (although this latter has frayed considerably since FDR and LBJ). The deal in the Republican party is “We will support policies that help the economic and material well-being of the most prosperous in return for their support of the social conservatism, esp. with regard to issues of sex and the role of women, and to a lesser extent, race.” With so much of the justification for the attitudes about sex and women based on a particular understanding of religion,[1] anything that calls into question 1 part of its received wisdom threatens the whole thing. So, to answer the question, it probably is much more difficult.

[1] Yes, there are doctrinal differences between (and among) Mormons, evangelicals and fundamentalists, that believers consider important, but to those on the outside, they seem to be about as important as the differences between various marxist-leninist sects. The world view is similar and distinct from those entirely on the outside.

It’s not a case in which their religious viewpoints need minor tweeking to correct the brand. The entire philosophy is based on superstitions like lowering tax rates ; to a magical rate close to zero, will release economic prosperity and freedom. Based on what?…..a Republican myth of Reaganomics.

The list goes on to include environmental destruction, never ending militarization, idolization of concentrated wealth, nascent racism and fear of the “others”….

some of the protestants during the reformation made a show expunging excessive hellenism from the religion, but they generally treated those who did go full-throated in this direction as heretics (e.g., deny the athanasian formula, etc.).

And Razib–wonderful essay! Thanks for writing it.

i think you confuse gas-baggery for substance. though i’ll be corrected if i find out that erickson has sympathies with theonomy.

This is a key bit of history that far too many people miss.

Indeed, one of the various projects of Medieval Scholastics, in trying to reconcile Christianity with the Aristotelian natural philosophy of their day was to attempt to square the creation account in the bible with the idea that the physical world had always existed in its current form. In the 13th century the bishop of Paris tried to tamp down the debate by condemning the idea that the physical universe had had no beginning as heretical, but that didn’t close things down and Thomas Aquinas, among others, was open to the idea that the physical universe has temporally without beginning though created by God in that God held it in existence through his creative will.

Obviously, there were plenty of medieval Christians who did take Genesis fairly literally, but it was by no means a universal view.

It seems like he spends most of the article elaborating on how Christians are literally at war with non-Christians, all non-Christians are going to burn in hell, all people who call themselves Christians but don’t literally believe that Jonah was swallowed by a fish and survived are not Christians(thus going to hell and the enemy in the war between heaven and hell) and also that Christians are morally obligated to use the political arena(as well as others) to fight their holy war.

I don’t see a lot of sane in Erick Erickson’s article. I don’t see him holding a viewpoint that leaves a lot of room for the plurality of viewpoints that serve as the foundation of US civics. I see a guy who is fully denying reality and wants the US to become a Christian theocracy.