Reddit reviews Fundamentalism and American Culture (New Edition)

Conservative usually just refers to holding traditional views on a topic. I could have conservative views on changing rules in major league baseball, for example, and argue against the designated hitter rule or inter-league play since that is not the way the game was played originally.

Fundementalism originally defined itself as traditional theological views in contrast to the rise of modernism in mainline denominations in the early 20th century. Modernism denied inerrancy of scripture, miracles, the virgin birth, literal six-day creation, etc., conservative Christians published a series of booklets called The Fundementals defending traditional Christian doctrine against modernism.

By mid-century, fundementalism was increasingly associated with hyper conservative views and conservative politics (KJV only for example, or joining the John Birch Society, protesting integration, etc.) Many conservative Christians began using the designation "evangelical" for those who held to traditional doctrines like miracles and inerrancy, but were not necessarily right-wing radicals.

I highly recommend two books by George Marsden on Fundementalism and Evangelicalism: Fundamentalism and American Culture and Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism.

The designation "evangelical" has slipped in the last few election cycles, now it is used in the media for hyper-conservatives who have confused support for right-wing politics and gun laws with evangelical theology.

The Evangelical theological Society, for example, has two points on their doctrinal statement, the Triune God and Inerrancy. The society defined inerrancy in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and there are a wide range of theological views in the ETS, and papers offered at the national ETS meetings are generally non-political. There are a few (southern baptists) who might be conservative politically, but there is nothing in the ETS requiring a conservative political view, and there is a great deal of angst over the current use of the word evangelical and the use of the word by the president as he tries to portray himself as a Christian.

One example: Within the ETS, there is a wide range of opinion on creation, from Young Earth to theistic evolution. All those views are acceptable since they all agree "God created the Universe" even if they disagree on the mechanics of that creation since the mechanics are not clear in Scripture. On the other hand, there would not be a range of opinion on the Virgin Birth or Jesus doing Miracles, since these things are stated in Scripture.

Great questions. I don't think there's an easy or foolproof answer to them.

>should lay people who have zero expertise in a field trust such general academic consensuses as being broadly correct?

Broadly correct? I would think that's a solid way to look at things. I'm in agreement with you.

>Are there good reasons for non-experts to be skeptical about the scientific consensus on vaccines, climate change or evolution?

"Good" reasons? Eh........I'll give a few scattered thoughts here:

• Some people are just going to be contrarians. I don't have any sources to link at the moment, but I think we've all encountered this at some point.
  
• Other people, often those who feel they have been marginalized by society (ex. white people who watched their friends go to college but couldn't go themselves—I'm referring to my own mother in this case), have a deep longing for "secret knowledge" and the sense of power it brings. Michael Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy gives one of the breakdowns of this phenomenon while Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American History (1966) shows that none of this is new. For people who usually possess traits we associate with intelligence (they are intensely curious and often willing to reading extensively) but who feel like they have been unfairly excluded from the centers of intellectual life, the idea that that everyone but them has it wrong is a bit intoxicating. Especially when a small groups of other marginalized people begin listening to them. I am not justifying this phenomenon—it probably shares some of the same social DNA as the incel movement—but I am trying to humanize it.
  
• In addition to these two groups (contrarians and the intellectually marginalized), we might also add those people who have been turned off by the fervency and (please, don't throw anything at me) fundamentalist fanaticism of some popular science devotees. While 99% of modern people simply go about their days with a fairly healthy view of science and knowledge, we are all aware of the loud fringe who wants to paint anyone who disagrees with them as a "science denier" and launch social media crusades against them. Again, I'm trying to use a scalpel here and not a broad brush—it's the militant defenders of Scientism who have (like their religious counterparts) managed to turn some people off.
  
• Then there are what I like to "gut thinkers." These often genuinely good and kind-hearted people often make decisions (like whether to vaccinated their kids or not) based on emotion rather than strict reason. For them, there is nothing in the world more important than their child and the idea of their child being harmed by something they chose to do terrifies them. While they might not ever realize it, they operate in a similar fashion to those people in the "Trolley Problem" who refuse to pull the lever and save some lives because then someone would be dying as a direct result of their action. These people often hear conflicting stories (vaccines are safe vs vaccines cause illnesses) and it troubles their gut to the point where, rather than sitting down to rationalize a solution, they avoid the issue or default to whatever option requires the least amount of direct action.
  
• Lastly we might add those people who would otherwise accept scientific findings but who have one or two core beliefs or predispositions that can complicate things. For example, while we commonly label American fundamentalists as "anti-science," anyone working in that field knows from the work of the eminent George Marsden that they are rather ardently pro-Baconian science—meaning that they absolutely love empirical, directly observable science based on inductive reasoning. What they reject is deductive science and its long-range projections both forwards and backwards in time. I can say from experience that understanding this and acknowledging it in discussions with these people does wonders for the conversation and really disarms a lot of suspicion.
  
• I don't know that there is a perfect solution here, but one possible approach would be to start affirming "folk culture" within modern society. I'm literally just tossing this one out here and I expected it to be a bit controversial, but maybe it will stimulate some discussion. In essence, we (as modern, scientific Westerners) usually don't find it problematic to acknowledge, accommodate, and affirm indigenous forms of knowledge. In fact, we often condemn those who try to "Westernize" others for being colonial or destroying culture. For those who belong to tribes or ethnic enclaves, practicing non-scientific forms of knowledge is seen as a good thing by most of the intellectual elites in the West. But for those born into Western society, there is little socially-acceptable opportunity to seek out and develop alternative forms of knowledge. Perhaps creating a safe social arena for such a "folk culture" to re-emerge could give these above groups a healthy and socially legitimate avenue for exploring and fulfilling some of their deep unmet needs without the subversiveness that presently undermines a lot of the good work that science is doing.

>If the bible is errant, the whole thing falls apart; not just bits and pieces. It's like the entire concept of Christianity: there is no in-between, you're either saved or you aren't.

Not necessarily. Numerous biblical scholars accept the errancy of the biblical texts but remain Christian, consider Marcus Borg, NT Wright, John Dominic Crossan, among many others.

Their practice of Christianity may be unfamiliar or they may not retain all the doctrines you think essential but there are ways to hold a realistic, historically-informed perspective on the Bible while considering yourself a Christian.

Recall that the earliest Christians would not have even had the New Testament (since it hadn't been written), much less regular access to the Hebrew Scriptures. When Paul's letters first went out to church, they probably weren't consider inerrant or infallible scripture (modern concepts which emerged in response to the perceived threats of modernism, Darwinism, and higher-criticism of the Bible).

I'd recommend the following:

• Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart Ehrman
  
  
• Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary by Marcus Borg
  
  
• How to Read the Bible: History, Prophecy, Literature--Why Modern Readers Need to Know the Difference and What It Means for Faith Today by Steven L McKenzie
  
  If you're interested in how concepts such as inerrancy and infallibility became codified, check out:
  
  
• Fundamentalism and American Culture by George Marsden
  
  
• The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930 by Ernest Sandeen