I have noted before that one of the things that the fundamentalist mindset does well is identify the logical trajectory of an idea fifteen minutes after it is first stated. In contrast to this, there is a sophisticated and nuanced academic mindset that likes to fiddle, discuss, analyze, count, and try on different readings of, whatever idea it is in the discussion. The weakness of this latter approach is that the discussion gets frequently wrapped up in everything except what the actual point of the discussion is. It is like a guy who is very concerned to count the reading lights above every seat on the airliner, but who doesn’t know where the plane is going.
The fundamentalist is a “get-to-the-bottom-line” kind of guy. He knows where the plane is going, and he knows that right away. His mistake is that of thinking that wherever the plane is going must be the place where the plane is already. He thinks that everyone in the world sees the implications of an idea just as quickly as he does, and that if they embrace an idea that naturally leads to x, then they must be self-consciously embracing x right now. If they deny this, then it just goes to show their mendacity in addition to their heresy. But there are many Christians who are better Christians than they are logicians. And, sad to say, and more germaine to the point I am making now, the church also contains a number of logicians who are better logicians than they are Christians.
Throw into the mix the additional variables of dumb fundamentalism and dumb nuance and you have yourself a real interesting situation. The former gets the trajectory all wrong, and insists that the plane to Geneva is actually going to Rome. The flight attendants are lying to him. The latter would rather hold a seminar on the seat cushions than sit on them. Sitting on them would involve the fundament, which is too close for comfort. It would also involve stowing his luggage in the overhead bins, which strikes him as pretty simplistic.