9 ms·

Opposite of modern

118 points by tintinnabula 9y ago

verbify 9y ago
I have not read the book he read, but I did grow up in a similar environment (and lived in the same Meah Shaarim neighbourhood for a few years), I think part of the issue is semantics. He conflates modernity and progressiveness, while the book sees both progressives and reactionaries as modern. Hassidim are both modern and reactionary.
- Angostura 9y ago
  He argues that the book conflates 'modern' and 'contemporary'.
ciconia 9y ago
Thanks so much for putting this on here. I have read Auslander's "Foreskin's Lament" and could deeply identify with his critique and eventual rejection of so-called "modern Judaism" (indeed - an oxymoron). I come from a non-religious Jewish family, but I too was circumcised without being asked at 8 days old (which today makes me resent my parents), I too recited the Torah in a synagogue on my Bar-Mitsva, though I was not really forced to, it was just something everybody did. Today I live far away from this God-forsaken place called Israel with its ridiculous religious laws, its racism, its recursively fractured society (the more devout you are, the smaller your "community"), its cancerous infiltration of institutional religion into government, its sick obsession with death and martyrdom, its stupid veneration of men-with-yarmulkas, and its infantile particularism. Today I reject Judaism as an ethnic identity and as a philosophy. For me being Jewish is a biographical detail. It does not define me as a person, it is not who am. I enjoy Jewish humour as much as anyone and embrace my father's painful experiences during WWII, but it cannot mean that I'm better or more important than someone who's not a jew. I am grateful for having escaped this Jewish reality distortion field. I'm grateful for being able to live and raise my kids in an egalitarian society that transcends ethnic and or religious origins and instead embraces solidarity and rationality, indeed modernity. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité
- bpizzi 9y ago
  If infantile religious endoctrinement was avoided, then it would only take one generation for religions to disappear almost entirely.
  - badosu 9y ago
    Not so sure about it. Religions tell a compelling story for multiple other reasons. Maybe it could happen if some of these roles were expanded by the media as it seems to be an ongoing process, e.g. superheroes movies. I am not sure if that would be desirable though.
    - 1_player 9y ago
      I agree with GP, but it's a hard point to prove. I only have my (and my brothers) anecdotal experience: We weren't baptised, nobody ever pushed or even talked religion with us, we went to church with grandma a couple times a year, and lived in a regular Catholic country (Italy). I recall the first time I thought about God and afterlife and my spirituality I was around 14, old enough to entertain these kind of thoughts, and old enough not to care. God wasn't just a concept I felt I needed in my life. We're 3 brothers (and a sister), and only she wanted to be baptised when we was younger, around 8, because her grandmother (which wasn't MY grandmother) was somewhat religious, and often talked about it with her. Now she's 12, and she's not interested anymore, probably after the influence of the three older brothers who go through life without any consideration about spirituality. Again, this is just a N=4 experience, but living in Europe, where most modern families are not religious anymore, it's most apparent. Only one person in my 50 closest acquaintances believes in God, and goes to church. Yet everybody is baptised, all families have a crucifix in the house, and everybody goes through a couple months reading the Bible with their priest (catechism) when they're 10 or 11 years old. I doubt many of their sons and grandsons will find any interest in religion.
      - golemotron 9y ago
        There's an inverse correlation between social safety net and religiosity [1] [1] http://faculty.washington.edu/tgill/Gill%20Lundsgaarde%20Welfare%20Religion.pdf http://faculty.washington.edu/tgill/Gill%20Lundsgaarde%20Wel...
jwilk 9y ago
Archived copy that can be read without JS enabled: https://archive.is/1g9QG https://archive.is/1g9QG
erikb 9y ago
I like this discussion from a "modern" perspective. I think there are three not-modern things and in my opinion it's quite clear how to handle them. 1) There's the thing that survived modern trends and still exists. That is a useful thing, a kind of truth that has been found and embodied in this thing. People should learn about it, no matter if it's 10 months old or 1000 years. Language is such a thing, forks are such a thing, Vim is such a thing. If you don't use this thing you are bound to rediscover it under a different name. E.g. Unix attempted to be the platform neutral programming environment, then some people forgot about it. So they developed Java as platform independent programming environment. Now if you look at both, you find a lot of great things, but they are similar. And you also find that both have not fully succeeded in their goal of being platform independent. 2) There are emotional attached things. They are objectively viewed not really valuable anymore, but people get sentimental about them. This is an individual experience and therefore must also be an individual decision to use or not use. E.g. old tv shows with mediocre ratings. You might like it or not like, but another person can feel different because they have/haven't seen it in their childhood. The correct approach is to let each do their own thing in this area. 3) There are old things that haven't survived the connection to modern things. Strict hierarchical organisations for instance. A more flexible, democratic organisation usually ends up beating a strict competitor. That's why we now have republics, federations etc instead of kingdoms. You should stay away from them and not support anybody who attempts that. People try to sell this as sentimental with words like "in the past everything was better". Screw it. We don't live in the past, we live now. And if it would really be that good this thing would still be there. Sadly we have a lot of discussions in society if obvious category 3 things might actually be category 1 for some abstract reasons. It's unnecessary to discuss. Communism is dead. Faschism is dead. Islamic Traditionalism is dead. Get off these horses. Instead we should discuss category 1 things that are interesting from a modern perspective. For instance in school we learn that slavery is dead, but if you learn and learn and learn about the global economy you find there is still an awful lot of slavery out there. Women get cought and sold, or forcefully married. Children are used for 16h/day jobs without any pay. Prostitution itself only has a very small minority of really free participants. How the fuck can something like slavery survive? What is actually good about it? This kind of thing would be an interesting discussion in my eyes, because there is some value there to be learned about our morals and reality. Talking about if dead horses are really dead is a waste of time tho.
cdoxsey 9y ago
Not going to defend Hasidism, but this article was pure contempt. As CS Lewis would call it, chronological snobbery: > Barfield never made me an Anthroposophist, but his counterattacks destroyed forever two elements in my own thought. In the first place he made short work of what I have called my “chronological snobbery,” the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also “a period,” and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them.
- lmm 9y ago
  Contempt is sometimes warranted. If the descriptions in the article are accurate (from the spitting to the running over with a car), contempt is absolutely the appropriate response and the kind of temporal relativism that denies that is wrong.
  - codingdave 9y ago
    It may be warranted, but it is not productive. If you really want change, you need to understand the reasons behind people's culture and actions, and have an open dialogue about those reasons.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Agreed. If we think conversation and reason do not solve problems, we have, to some degree given up on democracy based on universal suffrage. If we think we can't reason with people, we start thinking elections are illegitimate. After all, if people are that unreasonable and easily to manipulate, elections are only about who is lucky and has better psychological tricks on their side.
    - 9y ago
humanrebar 9y ago
> “An end to all apologetics!” cried the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and for once, I agree with him. There was no reason, in his opinion, to harmonize faith and science. On the contrary, I think we must rediscover the relationship between metaphysical philosophy and observation-based reasoning. For whatever reason the current culture pulls communities apart and forces hate and conflict where, in my opinion, fighting over the tension between "science" and "religion" is unneeded and unhealthy. The fact of the matter is that each religion is based on a certain set of metaphysical axioms. Scientific reasoning is based on a particular subset of those axioms. To hate, confuse, and fight over the implications of that is such a waste.
- andyjohnson0 9y ago
  > The fact of the matter is that each religion is based on a certain set of metaphysical axioms. Scientific reasoning is based on a particular subset of those axioms. I'm genuinely struggling with this. In what way are the axioms of science (by which I think you mean rationality) a subset of the axioms of (all?) religion?
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    "We can learn truths about the universe through observation of matter and reason." I'm sure some collaboration and editing are due on that particular phrasing, but that's the general premise behind science. And, perhaps with fringe exceptions, religious people are fine with that axiom. Exhibit A is all the religious scientists throughout history and up to right now.
    - igorkraw 9y ago
      Which directly contradicts some of the basic tenets of most religions which state that god is the sole source of truth and HE is unfathomable...
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        I dispute that the basic tenets of most religions include rejecting information about heritability gained from cultivating plants in a garden.
userbinator 9y ago
A bit of a clickbait title ("Opposite of modern" as of this post.) Was expecting something more computer-ish and related to Transport Layer Security. Then again, "A personal response to the history of Hasidism" (actual title) would not have received as much attention.
- jiojfekjl 9y ago
  I thought clickbait was "you'll never believe what happens next" and "one weird trick." A far cry from this submission.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Yeah, I thought the title was actually understated compared to the body of the article.
lordleft 9y ago
Modernity != progress. This is not to say that the Hasidic mode of life is right (or wrong), just that the term modern is being misunderstood here. When people use the word modern in a context like this, they usually mean to say that a movement could not have existed in a previous era in time, that it is as much an artifact of the 18th-21st centuries as the Enlightenment. I do think that arguing that Hasidic Judaism is modern and thus good is a dubious argument, I just think the author of this piece is conflating several terms.
zeveb 9y ago
> What happens, I wonder, if this boy discovers at the age of fifteen that the deepest love he feels is for another man? Or less dramatically, if he wants to eat a cheeseburger? I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that his father’s response will be anything but modern. I wonder very much how modern Shalom Auslander's response would be if his son at the age of fifteen decided to become a Hasid …
- verbify 9y ago
  Shalom Auslander wouldn't disown his son. He wouldn't refuse to go to his wedding (unlike children of Hassidim who marry people who aren't Jewish). There's a world of difference between what he would do and what Hassidim do to their children when they become irreligious. You also need to take into consideration that Auslander had a very negative upbringing as a Hassid, and therefore his supposed lack of tolerance could be put down to PTSD - Hassidim don't have the same excuse.
aomurphy 9y ago
I don't quite agree with the author about modernity. I argue that the modern Ultra-Orthodox are modern, specifically in the way they justify their beliefs. Most of what I'm going to say is just a summary of this lovely paper by Haym Soloveitchik then at Yeshiva University: https://www.lookstein.org/professional-dev/rupture-reconstruction-transformation-contemporary-orthodoxy/ https://www.lookstein.org/professional-dev/rupture-reconstru... The basic point is that modernity has destroyed tradition as a justification for a way of life. Look, before people were often happy to say "We do this because our ancestors did it." and that alone was enough. And when the sacred texts was a little off with tradition, people were happy to try and make sure that they could be read to agree with tradition. But now, you have to try and fall back and argue from higher authority. In the end this often looks the same, but it lends much greater power to those who interpret sacred texts, and pushes people to more and more extreme interpretations. There's a book I just read, Heirs to Forgotten Kingdoms by Gerard Russell. It's a travelogue though the Middle East meeting the small religious movements that survived Christianity and Islam over the last ~2000 years: Mandaeans, Yezidis, Coptic Christians, Samaritans, and the Kalasha. The Kalasha are a tiny group of pagans who live on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and one of the interesting things that comes up when Russell visits them is that they don't really have explanations for a lot of their rituals. They do things because their parents did them, and so on. and it's troublesome because when faced with Islam, or outsiders, it's hard for them to justify what they're doing, there's no intellectual basis. And I think that, on a much smaller scale (Judaism has had a more formal intellectual basis for a long long time) is what modernity, chiefly through literacy and improved communication, brings. I also think that blanket rejection of groups like the Ultra-Orthodox or fundamentalist Christians as "dated" or just wrong isn't very helpful, certainly they're not going away any time soon.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Modernity as indicating a sense of progress, as opposed to simply distinguishing "now" from "then", is itself ... modern. Roughly 1897. https://www.etymonline.com/word/modern https://www.etymonline.com/word/modern There's also the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, in Christian faith, dating to the 1920s & 1930s, largely a response to WWI and what was seen as dislocations imposed by the rapid advance of modernity (in the ... modern sense) as technology and industry developed especially ~1860 - 1920. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93Modernist_Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93Moderni...

118 points by tintinnabula 9y ago

I have not read the book he read, but I did grow up in a similar environment (and lived in the same Meah Shaarim neighbourhood for a few years), I think part of the issue is semantics. He conflates modernity and progressiveness, while the book sees both progressives and reactionaries as modern. Hassidim are both modern and reactionary.

Angostura 9y ago
He argues that the book conflates 'modern' and 'contemporary'.

ciconia 9y ago

Thanks so much for putting this on here. I have read Auslander's "Foreskin's Lament" and could deeply identify with his critique and eventual rejection of so-called "modern Judaism" (indeed - an oxymoron). I come from a non-religious Jewish family, but I too was circumcised without being asked at 8 days old (which today makes me resent my parents), I too recited the Torah in a synagogue on my Bar-Mitsva, though I was not really forced to, it was just something everybody did. Today I live far away from this God-forsaken place called Israel with its ridiculous religious laws, its racism, its recursively fractured society (the more devout you are, the smaller your "community"), its cancerous infiltration of institutional religion into government, its sick obsession with death and martyrdom, its stupid veneration of men-with-yarmulkas, and its infantile particularism. Today I reject Judaism as an ethnic identity and as a philosophy. For me being Jewish is a biographical detail. It does not define me as a person, it is not who am. I enjoy Jewish humour as much as anyone and embrace my father's painful experiences during WWII, but it cannot mean that I'm better or more important than someone who's not a jew. I am grateful for having escaped this Jewish reality distortion field. I'm grateful for being able to live and raise my kids in an egalitarian society that transcends ethnic and or religious origins and instead embraces solidarity and rationality, indeed modernity. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité

bpizzi 9y ago
If infantile religious endoctrinement was avoided, then it would only take one generation for religions to disappear almost entirely.
- badosu 9y ago
  Not so sure about it. Religions tell a compelling story for multiple other reasons. Maybe it could happen if some of these roles were expanded by the media as it seems to be an ongoing process, e.g. superheroes movies. I am not sure if that would be desirable though.
  - 1_player 9y ago
    I agree with GP, but it's a hard point to prove. I only have my (and my brothers) anecdotal experience: We weren't baptised, nobody ever pushed or even talked religion with us, we went to church with grandma a couple times a year, and lived in a regular Catholic country (Italy). I recall the first time I thought about God and afterlife and my spirituality I was around 14, old enough to entertain these kind of thoughts, and old enough not to care. God wasn't just a concept I felt I needed in my life. We're 3 brothers (and a sister), and only she wanted to be baptised when we was younger, around 8, because her grandmother (which wasn't MY grandmother) was somewhat religious, and often talked about it with her. Now she's 12, and she's not interested anymore, probably after the influence of the three older brothers who go through life without any consideration about spirituality. Again, this is just a N=4 experience, but living in Europe, where most modern families are not religious anymore, it's most apparent. Only one person in my 50 closest acquaintances believes in God, and goes to church. Yet everybody is baptised, all families have a crucifix in the house, and everybody goes through a couple months reading the Bible with their priest (catechism) when they're 10 or 11 years old. I doubt many of their sons and grandsons will find any interest in religion.
    - golemotron 9y ago
      There's an inverse correlation between social safety net and religiosity [1] [1] http://faculty.washington.edu/tgill/Gill%20Lundsgaarde%20Welfare%20Religion.pdf http://faculty.washington.edu/tgill/Gill%20Lundsgaarde%20Wel...

jwilk 9y ago

Archived copy that can be read without JS enabled: https://archive.is/1g9QG https://archive.is/1g9QG

erikb 9y ago

I like this discussion from a "modern" perspective. I think there are three not-modern things and in my opinion it's quite clear how to handle them. 1) There's the thing that survived modern trends and still exists. That is a useful thing, a kind of truth that has been found and embodied in this thing. People should learn about it, no matter if it's 10 months old or 1000 years. Language is such a thing, forks are such a thing, Vim is such a thing. If you don't use this thing you are bound to rediscover it under a different name. E.g. Unix attempted to be the platform neutral programming environment, then some people forgot about it. So they developed Java as platform independent programming environment. Now if you look at both, you find a lot of great things, but they are similar. And you also find that both have not fully succeeded in their goal of being platform independent. 2) There are emotional attached things. They are objectively viewed not really valuable anymore, but people get sentimental about them. This is an individual experience and therefore must also be an individual decision to use or not use. E.g. old tv shows with mediocre ratings. You might like it or not like, but another person can feel different because they have/haven't seen it in their childhood. The correct approach is to let each do their own thing in this area. 3) There are old things that haven't survived the connection to modern things. Strict hierarchical organisations for instance. A more flexible, democratic organisation usually ends up beating a strict competitor. That's why we now have republics, federations etc instead of kingdoms. You should stay away from them and not support anybody who attempts that. People try to sell this as sentimental with words like "in the past everything was better". Screw it. We don't live in the past, we live now. And if it would really be that good this thing would still be there. Sadly we have a lot of discussions in society if obvious category 3 things might actually be category 1 for some abstract reasons. It's unnecessary to discuss. Communism is dead. Faschism is dead. Islamic Traditionalism is dead. Get off these horses. Instead we should discuss category 1 things that are interesting from a modern perspective. For instance in school we learn that slavery is dead, but if you learn and learn and learn about the global economy you find there is still an awful lot of slavery out there. Women get cought and sold, or forcefully married. Children are used for 16h/day jobs without any pay. Prostitution itself only has a very small minority of really free participants. How the fuck can something like slavery survive? What is actually good about it? This kind of thing would be an interesting discussion in my eyes, because there is some value there to be learned about our morals and reality. Talking about if dead horses are really dead is a waste of time tho.

cdoxsey 9y ago

Not going to defend Hasidism, but this article was pure contempt. As CS Lewis would call it, chronological snobbery: > Barfield never made me an Anthroposophist, but his counterattacks destroyed forever two elements in my own thought. In the first place he made short work of what I have called my “chronological snobbery,” the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also “a period,” and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them.

lmm 9y ago
Contempt is sometimes warranted. If the descriptions in the article are accurate (from the spitting to the running over with a car), contempt is absolutely the appropriate response and the kind of temporal relativism that denies that is wrong.
- codingdave 9y ago
  It may be warranted, but it is not productive. If you really want change, you need to understand the reasons behind people's culture and actions, and have an open dialogue about those reasons.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Agreed. If we think conversation and reason do not solve problems, we have, to some degree given up on democracy based on universal suffrage. If we think we can't reason with people, we start thinking elections are illegitimate. After all, if people are that unreasonable and easily to manipulate, elections are only about who is lucky and has better psychological tricks on their side.
  - 9y ago

humanrebar 9y ago

> “An end to all apologetics!” cried the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and for once, I agree with him. There was no reason, in his opinion, to harmonize faith and science. On the contrary, I think we must rediscover the relationship between metaphysical philosophy and observation-based reasoning. For whatever reason the current culture pulls communities apart and forces hate and conflict where, in my opinion, fighting over the tension between "science" and "religion" is unneeded and unhealthy. The fact of the matter is that each religion is based on a certain set of metaphysical axioms. Scientific reasoning is based on a particular subset of those axioms. To hate, confuse, and fight over the implications of that is such a waste.

andyjohnson0 9y ago
> The fact of the matter is that each religion is based on a certain set of metaphysical axioms. Scientific reasoning is based on a particular subset of those axioms. I'm genuinely struggling with this. In what way are the axioms of science (by which I think you mean rationality) a subset of the axioms of (all?) religion?
- humanrebar 9y ago
  "We can learn truths about the universe through observation of matter and reason." I'm sure some collaboration and editing are due on that particular phrasing, but that's the general premise behind science. And, perhaps with fringe exceptions, religious people are fine with that axiom. Exhibit A is all the religious scientists throughout history and up to right now.
  - igorkraw 9y ago
    Which directly contradicts some of the basic tenets of most religions which state that god is the sole source of truth and HE is unfathomable...
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      I dispute that the basic tenets of most religions include rejecting information about heritability gained from cultivating plants in a garden.

userbinator 9y ago

A bit of a clickbait title ("Opposite of modern" as of this post.) Was expecting something more computer-ish and related to Transport Layer Security. Then again, "A personal response to the history of Hasidism" (actual title) would not have received as much attention.

jiojfekjl 9y ago
I thought clickbait was "you'll never believe what happens next" and "one weird trick." A far cry from this submission.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Yeah, I thought the title was actually understated compared to the body of the article.

lordleft 9y ago

Modernity != progress. This is not to say that the Hasidic mode of life is right (or wrong), just that the term modern is being misunderstood here. When people use the word modern in a context like this, they usually mean to say that a movement could not have existed in a previous era in time, that it is as much an artifact of the 18th-21st centuries as the Enlightenment. I do think that arguing that Hasidic Judaism is modern and thus good is a dubious argument, I just think the author of this piece is conflating several terms.

zeveb 9y ago

> What happens, I wonder, if this boy discovers at the age of fifteen that the deepest love he feels is for another man? Or less dramatically, if he wants to eat a cheeseburger? I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that his father’s response will be anything but modern. I wonder very much how modern Shalom Auslander's response would be if his son at the age of fifteen decided to become a Hasid …

verbify 9y ago
Shalom Auslander wouldn't disown his son. He wouldn't refuse to go to his wedding (unlike children of Hassidim who marry people who aren't Jewish). There's a world of difference between what he would do and what Hassidim do to their children when they become irreligious. You also need to take into consideration that Auslander had a very negative upbringing as a Hassid, and therefore his supposed lack of tolerance could be put down to PTSD - Hassidim don't have the same excuse.

aomurphy 9y ago

I don't quite agree with the author about modernity. I argue that the modern Ultra-Orthodox are modern, specifically in the way they justify their beliefs. Most of what I'm going to say is just a summary of this lovely paper by Haym Soloveitchik then at Yeshiva University: https://www.lookstein.org/professional-dev/rupture-reconstruction-transformation-contemporary-orthodoxy/ https://www.lookstein.org/professional-dev/rupture-reconstru... The basic point is that modernity has destroyed tradition as a justification for a way of life. Look, before people were often happy to say "We do this because our ancestors did it." and that alone was enough. And when the sacred texts was a little off with tradition, people were happy to try and make sure that they could be read to agree with tradition. But now, you have to try and fall back and argue from higher authority. In the end this often looks the same, but it lends much greater power to those who interpret sacred texts, and pushes people to more and more extreme interpretations. There's a book I just read, Heirs to Forgotten Kingdoms by Gerard Russell. It's a travelogue though the Middle East meeting the small religious movements that survived Christianity and Islam over the last ~2000 years: Mandaeans, Yezidis, Coptic Christians, Samaritans, and the Kalasha. The Kalasha are a tiny group of pagans who live on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and one of the interesting things that comes up when Russell visits them is that they don't really have explanations for a lot of their rituals. They do things because their parents did them, and so on. and it's troublesome because when faced with Islam, or outsiders, it's hard for them to justify what they're doing, there's no intellectual basis. And I think that, on a much smaller scale (Judaism has had a more formal intellectual basis for a long long time) is what modernity, chiefly through literacy and improved communication, brings. I also think that blanket rejection of groups like the Ultra-Orthodox or fundamentalist Christians as "dated" or just wrong isn't very helpful, certainly they're not going away any time soon.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Modernity as indicating a sense of progress, as opposed to simply distinguishing "now" from "then", is itself ... modern. Roughly 1897. https://www.etymonline.com/word/modern https://www.etymonline.com/word/modern There's also the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, in Christian faith, dating to the 1920s & 1930s, largely a response to WWI and what was seen as dislocations imposed by the rapid advance of modernity (in the ... modern sense) as technology and industry developed especially ~1860 - 1920. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93Modernist_Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93Moderni...