Secrets of the Fundamentalists

Things I Discovered During My Decades in Fundamentalism and Beyond
by J. R. Lee



78. On Politics - 12 July 2026

I herein assert, that when it comes to what you believe as an individual human being, the reason you believe something is more important than that thing you believe.

Fundamentalism appeals to and nurtures those who are content to be low -information. "Salvation is as simple as A-B-C." "There's only one issue you need to consider when you vote." Etc.

But the world is more complicated than that.

As John Stuart Mill observed, if you really want to be informed you need to consider all sides and that from each side's besr representatives. You won't get it from any Fundamentalist and you won't get it from Social Media either--it's too cherry-picked and algorithmized and oftentimes corrupted.

I have no respect for anyone of whatever persuasion they are if they are not willing to do their homework and be open to the possibility that it could change their mind. On the other hand, do your homework and whatever you come up with, I'll at least give you a nod.

This year I decided to get more serious about my own news consumption. One periodical I've started reading is 'Foreign Affairs'. I like it because the essays therein "shall be competent and well-informed, representing honest opinions seriously held and convincingly expressed" while "tolerat[ing] wide differences of opinion" (https://www .foreignaffairs.com/about-foreign-affairs). Indeed in its consumption, I've found that I've had to adjust a view or two of my own one way or another--this stuff ain't simple.

Since I am mentioning the media, it'd be worth your time to take a look at the Media Bias Chart at https://adfontesmedia.com/ to see where various news sources fall on their 'News Value and Reliability' versus 'Bias' chart.

--fin


77. On AI - July 2026

I recently made a car trip out of state and elected to read Professor Melanie Mitchell's audiobook 'Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans' enroute. For me there weren't any great revelations as I am a technical person (Physics major and MA in Philosophy from Cleveland State University) keeping up to date on Artificial Intelligence (AI) currents and I found it reassuring that what she said did not catch me unaware in any significant way. For someone who would like an introduction to what AI is I think Mitchell's book is satisfactory. It's about 9 1/2 hours duration.

Setting aside Mitchell though I would like to share a few thoughts on AI.

1. Multiple Facebook users on my feed have stated having consulted AI. That's fine, but you should realize that there are multiple AI incarnations in the world. These can be distinguished in a number of different ways such as what is the code that is being run, but I think probably more significantly is how it was trained.

2. Much training data is entered by (surprise) humans. Yes, frail humans. And these humans have to be paid which can limit the amount of data used for training to budget constraints.

3. And training data can be culturally biased (selected) by who was funding the training, say America, France, or China. Or Free-thinkers, Authoritarians, or you get the idea.

4. Not all human knowledge is finding its way into AI, indeed I think most of the most valuable stuff isn't as it is copyright and otherwise restricted. On the other hand, if the AI is harvesting data from, say, Facebook, a lot of tripe would be finding its way into AI.

5. Of course, many versions of the Bible are freely available and can be used to train AI incarnations. Now imagine a church attendee getting home after service puzzled over what their preacher said and asking their AI what the Bible says about whatever it is. It's so easy and the AI could give you book, chapter, and verse. I think AI has the potential to reveal (hopefully!) that the Fundamentalist claim to be Bible-believing is exaggerated. This isn't because AI is a higher quality source of information than what has gone before (it isn't), but rather that it is so easy for the lazy to use.

--fin


76. On Israel - 1 July 2026

Over the past several months I've seen postings (and shares) from Facebook Friends manifesting strong feelings on Israel both for and against. I will not be joining the fray, but here I will be sharing a few observations on "Israel" that some may not be heedful of. Note, there's much more that can be said on this topic, but I am writing a Facebook post not a dissertation.

1. Whatever present-day Israel is, per Genesis the 'nation' of Israel consisted of twelve tribes descended from the 'man' Israel (formerly Jacob).

2. The twelve tribes eventually formed two kingdoms, ten tribes made up the Northern Kingdom, Israel; two tribes, the Southern Kingdom, Judah.

3. Circa 720 BCE (Wikipedia) per 2 Kings 17:6 the people of the Kingdom of Israel were removed by the Assyrians from the land of Israel. They never returned. They are gone. They are 'the lost ten tribes'.

4. 'Jew' is a term denoting a descendancy from the people of the Kingdom of Judah.

5. Jews are descendants of the man Israel but they do not make up the entirety of the Kingdom of Israel that existed up through the time of 2 Kings 17:6. Three differences between present-day Israel and the Kingdom of Israel:

6. The Jews of present-day Israel are descendants of the people of the Kingdom of Judah rather than the entire ancient kingdom.

7. Over 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabic (Wikipedia) and most are not converts to the Jewish religion.

8. Present-day Israel has a unitary parliamentary republican form of government (Wikipedia); it is not a kingdom. As such the government is elected by the people (not decreed from the Lord God) and not all its citizens will be in agreement with it.

You should note, that calling something something, does not make the former something into that latter something. Present-day Israel is not one and the same entity as the ancient kingdom of Israel.

(Note, it is not my purpose to persuade you to be of one mind or another on the Middle-East; rather my purpose is to persuade you to do your research and think critically about these matters, indeed all matters.)

--fin


75. Faith-beliefs as disclosures - 22 May 2026

As discussed previously the essential characteristic of faith-belief is the lack of evidence. Indeed, the only way that speaking of one's strong faith can make sense is that one knows that evidence is lacking but yet they believe whatever it is anyway. That being the case, that faith-belief cannot be demonstrated by evidence, what one has faith-belief in is disclosure to what that person wants to believe rather than what has evidence supporting it.

Given the preceding, what a person decides to believe from the Bible is what they want to believe and is an expression of who they are.

Now the Christian New Testament plainly has Jesus saying the following:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12 (KJV)

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31 (KJV)

It seems curious then that many Fundamentalists believe in condemning broad swaths of humanity on account of many things: nation, race, religion, politics, etc., and they will assert that these attitudes are based on the Bible.

If the foregoing passages of Jesus are to mean anything, one needs to put oneself into the shoes of the other (whoever that may be) and consider how they would like to be treated.

On the other hand, the Bible also has various narratives, such as the Israelite massacre of people Jericho (Joshua 6), which Fundamentalists view as a triumph. It seems the believer has a choice to channel the compassion of Jesus expressed above or the bloodlust in the Jericho narrative. In either case, as these are faith-beliefs they are disclosures of what the believer wants to believe.

--fin


74. "The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason." - 7 May 2026

The above referenced passage from Proverbs 26:16 from the KJV Bible is presenting a contrast between two subjects, "the sluggard" and "seven men that can render a reason." The sluggard is defined by the contrast to the seven men who can render a reason--the sluggard cannot (render a reason); the reason being, that he is a sluggard, that is, lazy--he has not done the thinking to arrive to that point. But, what he has, because he has not done the mental work, is an overarching opinion of his opinions--he is wiser in his own conceit. Some in some situations would call this faith.

The conceit is baked into Fundamentalism with notions like, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it", or revelation via the Holy Spirit, or all good godly men believe this way. Parrots.

The only way you can expect to be able to render a reason rather than parroting something someone told you is if you dig in and study for yourself and that includes, interestingly enough, exposing yourself to contrasting viewpoints. You've got to wonder about sincerity of anyone who tells you not to, but yet, that's what I've heard from Fundamentalists.

--fin


73. I'd rather be, and be treated like, a reasoning human than a dumb sheep. - 7 April 2026

Fundamentally, Fundamentalism is an anti-intellectual movement. The Fundamentals (what Protestant Christian Fundamentalist call their traditional Articles of Faith) do not rank anywhere near in importance to their opposition to individual (critical) thinking. By that I mean that a completely different set of Fundamentals could be substituted for the traditional set and they would still be Fundamentalists because of their expectation of slavish belief in whatever the Fundamentals are would remain unchanged. Thus conditioned it would be surprising if this conditioning did not spread throughout a Fundamentalist's mind to other areas.

Fundamentalism is generally thought of as a religious movement. For context, back in the day, when I first joined Fundamentalism decades ago, the primary emphasis was on getting converts. But folk like Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell were active and influencing Fundamentalists to become politically active and carry their slavish minds over to the political. Christian Nationalism is the spawn. (Do I really want to state this here?)

As I've said, the core problem with Fundamentalism is not what they believe, it is with the slavishness of their belief. It is with their slavish adherence to what their leaders declare as absolute truth/God's word (whatever) rather than thinking individually.

It seems that for many that all they need to get a unshakeable opinion on whatever the political issue amounts to 140 characters or less (or 25 words or less) from a respected leader. Really, it may be that such an opinion might be one that I would agree with, but the problem is that it wasn't one that one formed themself. Such leaders who expect you to follow slavishly are treating you like dumb sheep. I for one, consider myself a reasoning human, and to get my respect you have to respect me as one who can think for himself. When it comes to what I should do, tell me I should do my own thinking/research so I can make up my own mind, rather than that I should vote the way a leader tells me to.

=========================

The March 28th issue of The Economist included an article on "Maritime chokepoints". The motivation of the article was over the concern with the Strait of Hormuz vis-à-vis the current situation in Iran. The article included figures showing a map of "Global shipping chokepoints" and a graph of 'estimated average added travel distance if blocked' against 'share of global seaborne trade affected by value' (unfortunately I can't share screenshots of these due to copyright). This informative article brings home the fact that such situations are complex--that is, it is not one that 25 words (or 140 characters) or less would suffice, at least not if the source is treating you like a reasoning human being rather than a dumb sheep.

--fin


72. "Faith is the victory! O glorious victory, That overcomes the world." - 5 April 2026

This excerpt from the gospel tune, "Faith is the Victory" (John H. Yates, lyricist 1851) derived from 1 John 5:4-5 KJV lays out what the Fundamentalist feels are the battle lines (indeed the tune makes reference to "Christian Soldiers"). Let's unpack it.

As discussed in recent installments of Secrets of the Fundamentalists, faith beliefs are those beliefs that lack evidence. So, a plea for more faith, is actually a plea for more belief without evidence. Faith is not something you can amass, it is rather indicative of a deficit of evidence or willingness to believe without evidence. It means you have less of something you could amass, evidence. It is irrational to want to increase ones faith; rather one should want to increase knowledge and for that one needs to increase ones understanding of the world.

Evidence, as discussed previously, is of those things that can be sensed, observed, and measured. It should go without saying that such things are what make up the world. The aspiration then of a faith that overcomes the world is to disregard what can be sensed, observed, and measured and displace that with something that lacks evidence--the faith. I am not trying to be esoteric here. Yates et al of course want folk to believe as they believe; for them it doesn't go further than that. However, in consequence and pursuant to that, they don't want you to consider what you can sense, observe and measure in the world that could shake such belief. Don't think about it! Go blissfully along like a sheep.

The battle line is between belief without evidence and belief with evidence. It is between believing slavishly and thinking critically.

Why have Fundamentalists been so set on restricting access to various scholarly media? Who would you trust, those who would have it so, or those who encourage you to carry out your own research wherever it leads?

Suggested reading:

Browne and Keeley's 'Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking'

--fin


71. Non-evidentiary beliefs - 29 March 2026

Religion has no place in a Science classroom. I posted in 70 of SoF how Creationism has no place in a Science classroom. The gist is that as science is based on evidence, that is what can be sensed, observed, and measured, while the Fundamentalist notion of Creation doesn't belong as it can't be any of these. While in a sense the problem begins with Creationism--perhaps because that's as far as Fundamentalists get before being overwhelmed in their reading of the Old Testament--it doesn't end there. Religions are built on sets of beliefs (not just Creationism) which lack evidence. That's what makes them Religions. If these beliefs had evidence they'd be science, history, etc. rather than religion. It's the lack of evidence that makes the beliefs the components of religion.

Adherents of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) generally believe that the Lord God has Revealed various things through his word. Recognize that Revelation (such revelation) is revelation because there is no supporting evidence.

Fundamentalists take revelation all too seriously. At the get go it should be realized that most of what they take as revelations are no more than interpretations of cherry-picked texts. I will assert here, that an honest objective student of the Bible will come away feeling that not much of what they had been told was revealed is.

In my own studies reading what apologists, theologians and defenders of the faith have written I haven't found any who didn't approach their work without apparent bias and prejudice. If you want to approach understanding the Bible, you can certainly consult them, but see the Bible for yourself.

But back to the matter at hand. Today we have a significant portion of the population who have come to believe that the non-evidentiary beliefs of Religion are on the same level as evidentiary beliefs and they are oblivious to the irrationality of doing so. It seems too, that some non-believers are just becoming aware that what they had left behind in Sunday School others have taken with themselves into adulthood and into the halls of power.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to put non-evidentiary belief on the same level as evidentiary belief. Such parity undermines objectivity and human reason and leads to arbitrary rule of what feels right (what they say God says) to those in power.

Suggested reading:

Browne and Keeley's 'Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking'

--fin


70. Creation 'Science' - 26 March 2026

The Fundamentalist Doctrine of a Six Day Creation (hereafter referred as 'Creationism' or 'Creation' in this posting) has no place in a Science classroom.

Fundamentally (no pun intended), the reason is that science is an evidentiary pursuit, whereas Creationism is felt by Fundamentalists to be a matter of Revelation, that is, the Lord God revealed it in the Bible, specifically, in the book of Genesis.

Evidence, that is that which can be sensed, observed, and measured is the basis of science. Whatever the Fundamentalist imagines Creation to be, or to have been, it cannot be sensed, observed, or measured--as such, consideration of it does not belong in a Science classroom.

Of course, despite Fundamentalists' notions that Creation Science is science, their pursuit rather attempts discrediting Darwin's Theories of Evolution and saying, ergo, 'Creation and the Bible still stand.'

Fundamentalists have been conditioned/programmed/brainwashed to believe (that is belief without evidence), 1. that the Bible teaches a Six Day Creation, and, 2. that disbelief in this doctrine puts one in jeopardy of Hell. To the first I ask whether a self-respecting Lord God would be more concerned with how he did it (six days, spontaneous creation, etc.) or that he be recognized as over all. To the second I say this is a factor in the minds of Fundamentalists because they don't take the Bible as they individually scrutinize it, but rather they take representations of it from their hierarchy.

I don't regard the Bible as a book to be feared, on the other hand, gathering folk together under the aegis of Fundamentalist shepherds is a prescription to imprint them with Fundamentalist dogmas masquerading as Bible doctrine. Don't catch (like a virus) someone else's beliefs, think for yourself.

Reading list:

On Evolution: Ernst Mayr's 'What Evolution Is'

On Critical Thinking: Browne and Keeley's 'Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking'

On the Bible: the Bible

--fin


69. The Hard Sell.

So you are in a showroom and the salesperson tells you that you've got to get whatever it is they are trying to sell you (car, refrigerator, etc.) NOW because it is once in a lifetime opportunity.

Why do they do this?

Well one thing is certain, they don't want you to leave and do the research necessary to make an informed decision.

It's the same way with Fundamentalism when they say in the moment:

--"Do you know if you'd die today that you'd go to heaven?"

--"If you want to know you'd see your loved ones again, you need to get saved now!"

Really? What kind of god would want you to make an uninformed decision as to what you're going to commit to for eternity?

Don't succumb to the hard sell. Whatever it is, do your research. With the Internet, it's never been easier to find leads to, or actual sources of scholarly, objective, and competing materials. This is a start to thinking critically.

--fin