With Dwight on Definition of Fundies

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Fable and Allegory, 2) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Dwight on Definition of Fundies, 3) Dwight Longenecker Not Knowing What Computers Are, and Not Answering a Challenge On It, 4) With Dwight on Fundies, Again, 5) One item on Dwight, related to Teen Marriages, 6) Was Dwight Ever Outright Heretic? If So, it is Here I Blamed him, 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica (again) : Dwight Longenecker and Bildungsroman

I

What I commented on :

Standing on my Head : Is Religious Enquiry Reasonable?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/04/is-religious-enquiry-reasonable.html
and Is Religious Enquiry Rational? / Continue Reading
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/is-religious-enquiry-rational

Me to Dwight Longenecker

20/04/15 à 15h56

Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

[Quoting:] Very often along with a highly subjective and emotional form of religion, fundamentalists adopt an intentionally non-rational and anti-intellectual stance.

A religious faith that is rooted in subjective emotionalism combined with a no-compromise fundamentalism will remain shallow and untenable for the ordinary person who wants to think things through.

This is the religion which the typical contemporary atheist or agnostic rejects, and I reject it with them. They are right to reject it.

Both rationalists and fundamentalists therefore view religion and reason as incompatible. Etc. [Which is where I ended the quote.]

My excuses, but would you in that case classify Kent Hovind, the YEC team on CMI and a few more as "fundamentalists"?

They may have about as unreasonable an attitude on Church History as other Protestants, but they very clearly do not view reason as incompatible with faith in the domain (that would rather be the Non-Overlapping-Magisteria view proposed by a Liberal Jew of unhappy memory, Stephen J. Gould), they view, exactly like St Thomas Aquinas, Reason as subordinate to Faith. Since human reason is handled by fallible and fallen beings and Faith has some kind of reference which is above it: Bible-Tradition-Magisterium or "Paper Pope" as a Calvinist obligingly referred to his incomplete and partly mistranslated Bible as.

Is it honest of you to be perpetuating strawmen about Fundies?*

Hans Georg Lundahl

* or of us, the Catholic counterpart, Integrists, by implication, since we would usually be referrable to as "Catholic Fundies"?

II

Dwight Longencker to me

20/04/15 à 15h57

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Thanks for your email.
I guess it depends on your experience of fundamentalists.

I am writing from the American south.

Fr DL

III

Me to Dwight Longenecker

20/04/15 à 16h56

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

I guess you know Kent Hovind at least in the American South too.

Thanks for the response! And even more if you care to elaborate.

You know this blog where I like to put correspondence, just languishing for your response, meanwhile it has quite a little debate with mainly Sungenis and sometimes David Palm too.

Oh, wouldn't you call Sungenis a Fundie too? And his pal Rick DeLano is certainly calling his blog "Magisterial Fundies" ...

Would you consider ANY of these people as considering faith and reason incompatible?/HGL

[I just noted, the words were not “faith and reason” but “religion and reason”]

IV

Dwight Longenecker to me

20/04/15 à 17h24

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

I’m so ignorant!
I’m afraid I don’t know Hovind.

I am familiar with Sungenis, but don’t know DeLano.

Sorry!

Fr DL

[Was the irony lost on me, because I was tired this morning - see new date for next mail? - or was I rejecting it because I thought it heartless about a man who is in prison since ten years? I hope I wasn't taking it at face value! Even with too little caffeine inside, this morning!]

V

Me to Dwight Longenecker

21/04/15 à 09h02

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Ignorance is, at least up to Alzheimer, which I hope you have not, nor will have, a repairable state.

Rick DeLano is the guy who as filmmaker collaborated with Sungenis for The Principle and his blog is Magisterial Fundies.

We fell out over parallax measures applicable or not in Geocentrism and over angelic movers vs "naturalistic" causes (angels are as natural and as created and as secondary as we or as naturalistic causes, but they are NOT "naturalistic" in the sense of being included in causalities Naturalist Monists accept):

HGL's F.B. writings : New debate with Rick DeLano and Robert Sungenis, same blog : Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation + Small Universe (is "Parallax" Really Parallactic?)

More recently, he was included in a mail exchange where he endorsed the discretionist behaviour of Christopher Ferrara:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Christopher Ferrara Bumps In And I Get Angry

That would be Rick DeLano.

Now, Hovind ... he had a debate with Hugh Ross, on four videos, which I commented on, and now the videos are no longer available, here are the comment debates I had under these videos, alas not including Kent Hovind himself:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos

In same series of blogposts, there was also some other links to Hovind videos, let's see if they are still there:

same blog: ... on Age of Earth video's by Kent Hovind

Yup, video still up, an intro is given by Kent's son Eric:

Kent Hovind: The Age of The Earth
channel : JESUS IS THE ONLY WAYTO HEAVEN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JBNRCwdQwU

In this blog post: same blog again : ... on Chaplains vs Councellors and on Creation vs Evolution (feat. Kent Hovind)

... I include a few comments on this Hovind video, which I link to in it:

Kent Hovind: Dinosaurs and the Bible part 1
JESUS IS THE ONLY WAYTO HEAVEN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSDb7iBTg70

(attribution, you know, some say it's sadly lacking on the internet, but not on my blogs, it isn't)

He is of course a bit off when he's occasionally speaking of Church History instead of repeating Dom Augustin Calmet and added scientific knowledge in defence of historic sense of OT. Like here:

Oh, seems the video is gone again, but my comments remain:

same blog again : ... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject

But the exposé on Kent Hovind would be incomplete if it weren't for some comment on his being unjustly in prison:

Kent Hovind STILL In Prison - Son Speaks Out In Personal One-on-One with PPSIMMONS
channel : ppsimmons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GADfTc_j9Y

As I took up ppsimmons, seeing some other videos from him kind of partly makes your point, he is very emotional, but one can say he is so for a purpose, for rallying before the beheadings that might be coming on ... nevertheless, Kent Hovind is as much a Fundie as ppsimmons, and Kent Hovind does NOT fit your description.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VI

Dwight Longenecker to me

21/04/15 à 12h02

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Thank you for your email.
All of this is seems rather arcane to me, but more grace to you for engaging in such debates!

Fr DL

VII

Me to Dwight Longencker

21/04/15 à 12h20

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

If Fundie lore is arcane to you, why are you giving an evaluation, overall, of Fundies?

If you want to say they are very emotional in Liturgy, first of all, the Liturgic choices go, I think, across the board from Fundie to Liberal Theologian, and second, having an emotional liturgy (or what takes the place of liturgy) says nothing on presence or absence or even relative place of Reason in relation to Faith (or what passes as such).

The Apologetics given by Dale and Elaine Rhooton in Can We Know? have the same take on Resurrection as Lane Craig (David Lane Craig?) and nearly all of the book has followed me all of my life, except the part where YEC question is written off as a kind of red herring, as sth one need not at all believe the Bible said, and except the parts of unkillable Bible section claiming Catholic Church "tried to suppress the Bible".

But believing the false History, more of Foxe than of Magdeburg Centuries, means at least caring for history and for history as a kind of proof.

They may be attending or have been attending (I don't know if they are alive or dead) a very emotional liturgy, for all I know, but it does NOT show in their book.

So, if you admit the intellectual side of Fundies is arcane to you, why go out with such a brass bold statement about them, and involving it?

Hans Georg Lundahl

VIII

Dwight Longenecker to me

21/04/15 à 13h58

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Our definition of fundamentalist is different


Best wishes

Fr. Dwight Longenecker
[adress removed as per request]

IX

Me to Dwight Longenecker

21/04/15 à 14h23

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Your definition of Fundamentalism, if excluding Dale and Elaine Rhooton, if excluding Kent Hovind, if excluding Creation Ministries International, can hardly be objectively adequate.

Every concept or term has a definition describing its "intention" and also a thing called extension, namely what other terms, sometimes concrete individuals rather than concepts, it refers to.

An extension of Fundamentalism not including above is impossible, Kent Hovind is a good friend of Jack Chick - by the way, though I heartily dislike the Chick Tracts, I do not find your description of Fundamentalism fits them. About Catholicism, he is more like an envenomed and over bitter intellectual than like an emotionalist leaving reason to second place.

So, giving the word Fundamentalism the intention you give it is misinformation about these people.

In Moral theology it is "objectively calumny" - though I am of course not presuming to judge beforehand on your subjective guilt of it.

In fact, asceertaining that through your words was the reason why I sent you a main about it in the first place.

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, if you write a post of retraction, DO tell me, please!

X

Dwight Longenecker to me

21/04/15 à 14h52

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Thanks for taking time to write.


Have a great day,

With best wishes,
Fr DL

At this point

it becomes very clear he does not wish to be bothered about trifles like exact definitions of words bandied about about the people he takes a dislike to and so on, so I am not writing a reply.

Which does not stop me

from giving a link to you, readers:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Great Link : 6 Early Christian Controversies That Protestantism Can't Explain
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.fr/2015/04/great-link-6-early-christian.html