In the Green Party of Germany, debate raged between two political/ideological factions: the "fundis" (fundamentalists) and the "realos" (self-styled "realists," meaning moderates).

"Fundi" environmentalism? We're more accustomed to "fundamentalists" Christianity, whereby some Protestants claim that they return fully to the Bible (yet without bothering to obey the dietary laws of the Old Testament).

Another example: denouncing censorship, British feminist Elizabeth Wilson criticizes "feminist fundamentalism" as a faith that offers certainty"--in contrast with liberation, which means "change and uncertainty."

Similarly, I think a person could be a "fundi-atheist." When I apply the "fundamentalist" label to an infidel, I refer more to attitude than doctrine; to the manner of holding and presenting an idea, rather than the content of the idea. When a good idea is held too rigidly, it suffers. Dogmatic agnosticism would harm itself. A "Church of Atheism" would be a philosophical oxymoron (however useful for tax exemption).

A related example: Evolution is the most fruitful idea in modern biology: far more so than Darwin could have foreseen As an intellectual tool, it can be used to explore cultures (as in the evolution of languages): perhaps even economics (going beyond the Spencer-Kropotkin debates: see Michael Rothchild, Bionomics.)

Contrarily, if we stubbornly and loyally defend all of Darwin's early views, including gradualism, we can fail to gain from post-Darwinian evolution of his evolutionary theory. Nobody should "believe in" evolution, as a Baptist "believes in" Yahweh: nor treat science as a religion offering answers. Such belief, self-blinding, debases creative and liberating ideas. (Sure, the scientific method can be part of one’s spiritual path, as a way of providing thought: generating new questions and hypotheses. So long as one can resist our all-too human temptation--("Mommy! Save me from the infinite uncaring unknown!")--to reify and deify.)

Like science, skepticism shouldn't be an end in itself, but rather a means: an intellectual tool., like Occam's razor. If I already have a pat answer for every question I meet, then I should look for tougher questions (and/or study my own thought habits). Atheists (and Unitarians) need a set of established answers (a creed) like Jews need a messiah: namely, like a fish needs a bicycle.

When an atheist, or an evolutionist, debates with a fundi-Christian, the "good guy" may be forced to adopt superficial tricks and clever rhetorical ploys, like those used by a tournament debater or a courtroom lawyer, just to win the game. Such tools are swords of war, not keys to truth. In struggle, one may be forced to imitate the tactics of one's enemy, and come thereby to resemble what one despises. An anarchist army (as in the Ukraine and Spain) may need to operate like a statist army, temporarily. That's paradoxical life (and if you need pure consistency, stick to fantasy)--but let's make sure our temporary aberrations don't become habitual.

After the debate ends, the atheist or evolutionist warrior must let go of advocacy, of militance, of "ism." Breathe easily, meditate, relax, and allow return to really FREE thinking, which wriggles away from any ideology, all Engraved Truth. As Chinese Taoists warned us long ago, "if a way can be put into words, then it isn't "The Way."

Almost all of us, Pope and dissident alike, have been raised in cultures whose default mode is Follow Authority. If I want to change this, I must first beware (be aware) of the censors, the dogmatists, the true-believers, who live within my own mind. An atheist dogmatist is no more enlightened than a Catholic dogmatist--only more self-defeating.

Ross Mullin has been a social and political activist since the 60's.

This article is reprinted with permission from Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No 1, 1994