These people, some of them being scientists, will rabidly attack any alternative theory instead of scientifically considering alternatives.
*facepalm*
That's how science works. Everything is being attacked all the time so false theories can be discarded. To crib Tim Minchin, alternative theories that can't be validly attacked are called theories.
I don't know about you, but the scientists I know (myself included) don't call them theories. Wrong gets bandied about mostly (also psuedoscience, hat full of crazy, bollocks,asshattery, muthaf***in miracles etc
). To trot out the tired old statement, scientist
don't use the word theory
like laymen do (at least, not outside of casual conversation).
Now, yes science can be a bit cruel to new ideas. Look up the story of the guy that discovered
quasicrystals sometime; the guy was reduced to a near nervous breakdown. Aside from the obvious skepticism of outlandish claims by science in general, there are other reasons. There are people who have a lot invested in existing theories, and they don't like to see their theories fall by the wayside. More often, people don't want to lose the prestige of being associated with the field-leading theory; that, or simply because it can be frustating to have your life's work invalidated by some upstart.
What it isn't is a fiscal interest.
I'm currently a PhD student in a materials science degree. I earn less than my country's minimum wage; when I finish in 3 years, I'll be earning around $65-70k, AUSD. If I cared about money, I could have done a chem engineering degree and be on six figures easily by that time, or at $65k 6 months after my undergrad.
Now, as much as there is a stubborness in science (much as there is anywhere humans are involved), there is a saving grace; if your theory is correct, and testably so
it will succeed. Yes it may be a long and painful process, but if we can't disprove it, even the most reticent will be dragged kicking and screaming into the new view.
How can you be a fundy atheist? There no doctrines or dogma to vehemently cline to.
Believe me, there is dogma. There are people who believe the most popular theory with absolute faith, without considering whether there are holes in it, without considering the validity of other theories. These people, some of them being scientists, will rabidly attack any alternative theory instead of scientifically considering alternatives.
I can't believe you...
Atheism isn't a belief system. There is no dogma. And there are anti science atheists.
I don't think it's that they're fundamentalist atheists, it's that they're atheists who are also fundamentalistic about some particular theory or whatever.
Regarding "fundamentalist athiests", the label is a bit oxymoronic. Now, fanatical athiests, those exist; there are sadly athiests out there filled with missionary zeal, a complete lack of tact, and a rather abrasive nature.
Like Dawkins. I respect the guy; he's an amazing orator, is humourous, and can construct brilliantly logical arguments. However, he is a horrible spokesperson for athiesm (which he has basically become, courtesy of his well-written, accesible popular-science books, frequent TV appearances, and vocal campaigning). In any debate, it is VITAL to avoid outright hostility and abuse; all that it achieves is reinforcing the Us Vs Them mentality in the opposition. Just because we athiests cop a lot of shit from the uneducated, doesn't mean we should call them all morons.
It's a lesson a lot of brand-new freshly-aware athiests need to learn as well.
FAKEEDIT: Actually, now that I think about it... there are athiests who become so for the wrong reasons; I've met a few online who declared as athiest pretty well purely to screw with their conservative parents. Those people were, objectively, terrible athiests, and gave the rest of us a bad name. They couldn't construct a rational argument to save their life, and resorted to personal attacks more often as a result. That said, they're rare, and I'm still not sure if you can call them fundamentalist, or just a-holes...