So I found this quote by Alvin Plantinga taken from his magnum opus “Warranted Christian Belief.” To give a little context to the quote, Plantinga had been talking about his Calvin/Aquinas model for the necessity of the “internal instigation of the Holy Spirit” due to the noetic effects of sins. For fundamentalists like Plantinga (and myself) it offers some humor and insight.
“But isn’t this just endorsing a wholly outmoded and discredited fundamentalism, that condition than which, according to many academics, none lesser can be conceived? I fully realize that the dreaded f-word will be trotted out to stigmatize any model of this kind. Before responding, however, we must first look into the use of this term ‘fundamentalist’. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like ’son of a bitch’, more exactly ’sonovabitch’, or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) ’sumbitch.’ When the term is used in this way, no definition, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you fell obligated first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of ‘fundamentalist’ (in this widely current use); it isn’t simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like ’stupid sumbitch’ (or maybe ‘fascist sumbitch’?) than ’sumbitch’ simpliciter. It isn’t exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase ‘considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.’ The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like ’stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine’” (Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 244-245).
6 Comments
Wow, I philosopher with a sense of humor….who would’ve thought such a thing exists!! lol.
I would actually argue, having a been a true fundamentalist myself, that neither you nor Plantiga are actual fundamentalists in the non-pejorative, completely historical sense of the word that arose in the 1920’s.
BUT, that in no way undoes the awesomeness of this quote. Thanks for sharing it.
Indeed, this is a great quote.
Like Tom said, "Fundamentalist" is a useful term to describe the strain of Christianity that developed (and those splintered many who followed) with that word as a self-identification. Similarly, "evangelical" carries much fo the same force and baggage. It is a very helpful word to understand many modern renditions of Christianity, yet also contains the same pejorative possibility.
As this quote eloquently states, the pejorative uses of these terms are incredibly problematic and ultimately not helpful in any way other than making one feel better about their chosen position.
Though, the same should be said about pejorative uses of the term "liberal" as well. Just food for thought.
I have Warranted Christian Belief sitting at my desk. It is actually being used as a base for my flat panel monitor.
When I ordered the book, I didn’t realize what I was getting myself into. The book is thick and the text small. What was I thinking…
Nonetheless, I shall conquer it! God willing.
Edgar.
“Warranted Christian Belief” is the third volume of his trilogy concerning Christian epistemology. The first two are “Warrant: the Current Debate” and “Warrant and Proper Function.” The first two were written for the public arena and the academic world. If you haven’t studied Kant, Gettier, Chisholm, and others, it would make the read almost impossible (which reminds me, I need to do a post on the Gettier Problem).
However, “Warranted Christian Belief” is written to academia and the Church as well. I have yet to read a lot it as well, but I hope to get a better foundation in epistemology in order to do this.
Travis, so you are saying I should start with “Warrant: the Current Debate” and “Warrant and Proper Function.” ?
Is there another one I should read first?
The reason I ordered Warranted Christian Belief was that I liked “God, Evill and Freedom”. I thought Warranted Christian Belief was going to be a skinny type of book…
Sanchez,
I am afraid that will you find “Warrant: the Current Debate” to be just as abtruse as WCB. The problem is that Plantinga writes in very technical language that is the norm in the realm of philosophy.
So what should you read first? That is hard to answer :). I study philosophy here at Mizzou and I am not sure if I am to the point of understanding all (if not most) of the jargon used in such books by Plantinga, Alston, Wolferstorff, etc. The best I can offer you is to brush up on current debates in epistemology. Read Gettier’s short essay on justified true belief (a google search should easily find it). Understand the debate between externalists/internalists and foundationalists/coherntists. Plantinga is writing as a way to see epistemology neither as a foundationalist nor a postmodern. (In fact, he is very critical of postmodernism).
But I am right there with you brother about trying to understand Plantinga!
Best,
TG