Is Fundamentalism A Throwback Mentality?

Great Debates
1

Is the fundamentalist approach to religion in general a throwback mentality?

To try and return to such a cut-in-stone mentality in this modern and changing world seems to be a desire to return to an age where such a simplistic view had some chance of prevailing. I do not see how this can represent anything less that a desire for de-evolution in view of how inapplicable so many of the tenets of fundamentalist religious doctrine are today. Regardless of whether we are discussing Islamic or Christian fundamentalism, I see the results as being the same. There is an element of repressive thought and dogmatic approach that prevents a rational incorporation of current world-view into such mindsets.

Is there any other way to regard this way of thinking other than a throwback mentality? So much of what I have seen harkens back to a nearly preconscious motif of rote memorization and blind allegiance without application of critical analysis. In fact, critical analysis seems to be proscribed rather vehemently by these doctrines. How can the practicioners of these credos possibly make believe that they are adopting a functional philosophy with which to deal with the modern world? I am frequently obliged to take pity on the children from such families as I see them being turned into both automatons and ripe fodder for victimizing in later life.

2

I think all strict interpretations of reality, from religious fundamentalism to hard-core materialism, seek to impose a pattern in an otherwise chaotic universe.

For myself I notice a distinct inability to “change with the times.” i don’t like popular music anymore like I did when I was between third and sevenh grade. I find international politics to be somewhat uninteresting. 64-bit video games didn’t impress me like the 8-bit ones did. I sometimes wish to return to a state where those things meant so much to me.

Yeah, I think most people long for a time when they had a grasp on the world and the desires they felt were dichotomous. Fundamentalists of any sort seem to want to return to that state of mind.

3

I think you’ve just answered your own question: they don’t. Refusing to deal with the modern world is the entire point – these people are in open revolt against mainstream culture and wish to differentiate themselves from it as far as possible. In fairness to them, if you do happen to believe that most of the world is evil, shutting it out isn’t an entirely irrational approach.

4

Short answer: YES.

It’s the theological equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, hiding under the covers, and going “Nyahh nyahh nyahh, I can’t hear you!” ad nauseum.

At least the Amish have the good sense not to harass other folks who disagree with them.

5

The general viewpoint is that fundamentalism is ridiculous behavior, but is it really?

I mean, if you were so certain that your religion was the one true way, the only path to enlightenment, in which all of humanity and the universe is nothing but a mere result of, wouldn’t you be a fundamentalist also?

I mean, if you truly think you have it all figured out, then fundamentalism is a natural course of action. Why waste your time with all these silly worldly material pursuits when you know the key to the universe?

It seems to me the prevaling attitude is, “It’s OK to be religious, just not too religious. Don’t overdo it”. But this is ridiculous. If you really think you know God, then there is no such thing as ‘overdoing it’. This is God we’re talking about here, people.

Hell, if I was presently with any clear evidence of God, I would be a fundamentalist in a heartbeat! But I don’t see that happening any time soon.

6

I think one can believe in a divine being without being a fundamentalist.

The problem with fundamentalism (at least as defined in the OP) is that it refuses to acknowledge that times and circumstances change – it wants to keep things the way they are/were, always and forever and always and forever. Unfortunately, the world isn’t in a stasis bubble; things will change, whether we’re talking the rise and fall of social-political groups or the next Ice Age. Any belief system which fails to acknowledge that things can and will change is dooming itself over the long term.

Evolution isn’t limited to biological critters, after all…

7

Bravo, rjung! You have identified a specific aspect that I find most self-defeating about fundamentalism. It is this “stasis” or intransigent “cut-in-stone” mindset that is most disturbing about fundamentalism.

Even in the best light, if fundamentalism is “the one true path”, then its dissemination should be a top priority. If spreading the “good word” cannot be done save in a hidebound and heavyhanded fashion, does this not foredoom the success and ultimate acceptability of such an enterprise?

I suppose I owe one degree of clarification to this argument. I cannot conceive of a malevolent God (or universe, for that matter). If the God that your “one true path” has led you to arrive at is so wonderful, is it not implicit that there should be a merciful and benign method utilized in bringing this to the attention of the great unwashed? Is it not incumbent upon those who have been “shown the light” to recruit through love and adoration as opposed to administering the sword of justice to whoever is in the dark?

I am unable to see the validity (not to mention logic) of a religion that dictates militant refutation and assault of contrary views. To engage in such a mode makes an attempt to give sway to a malevolent and hostile God, the idea of which is entirely against all life. As a sidebar to this concept, please refute the necessity of benevolence or successfully argue that a malevolent God could possibly give rise to and effectively husband life as we know it. I do not see how anything less than a loving God or benevolent universe can possibly be responsible for the creation of life and especially conscious life (as in humans).

8

Fundamentalist is just a self serving descriptive term for something else entirely. Authoritarianist is the real name for the thing you are seeking to name. Everyone who believes in their faith believes that their understanding of that faith is fundamental. No one worships according to a doctrine they themselves believe to be false.

The problem is that judgment is granted over the very heart and soul of the membership of a sect. God gets set aside, oh so reverently, of course. The authority figure is given the place of spiritual guide, leader, and judge. Usually the authority figure must have some real world justifier for his assumption of authority, or at least at first he must. Theological scholarship is a frequent justifier. This is true in Christian, and Islamic fundamentalism. The public confession of faith is that the Bible or Koran is the true authority. The reality is that a huge plurality of believers are not intellectually prepared for or capable of the pure scholarship needed to interpret the meaning of scripture, and its application to day to day living in the twenty-first century.

The pragmatic human reason for this is fear, and sloth. We are all lost in this world. Most of us find it daunting. Making decisions is hard work, and learning even harder. The glib and educated have great power. Often they use it for great good. But the lure of power is deadly, and in almost every case religious leaders fall prey to its poison. The opinion of the leader is perceived by the follower as the opinion of God. This is true even if the leader himself is honestly motivated to bring his flock to pious belief.

But these are the best of cases. Veniality, pride, greed, and lust are not less common among the scholarly. The ability to convince people of your opinions is not statistically associated with righteousness by any standard. When your authority is unchallenged, it will creep out into the world, and into the daily lives of all that follow. Your petty disagreements become identified as condemnations of sin. What you dislike is evil. God is your friend, and all who deny it are enemies of God.

And great leaders of faith die. The mass of followers, who may have been led by a true exemplar of human decency, are now trained to follow. They have ritual, and they have habit. Soon they have a new leader. That person is far more likely to rise to power by reason of political skill than true dedication to principles of faith, whatever the faith in question might be.

People who truly take responsibility for their beliefs, and actions before God, and live by faith are not afraid to stand before the world’s judgment. They do not seek the approval of followers, or even to be followed. If the Bible, or Koran is the word of God, then interpretation by a mere man is obviously not authoritative, however educated the man might be. That is fundamentalism. Fatwas, and Papal Bulls, televangelist press releases, conferences of bishops, elections of elders, pronouncements by mullahs, epigrams of gurus, are the opinions of men. Those who follow these leaders in faith are authoritarianists. There is no shortage of them, in any nation.

Tris

“Don’t follow leaders. Watch parking meters.” ~Bob Dylan~

9

Thank you for such a well thought out post, Trisk. I really appreciate the effort that you put into your writing. Unlike so many of the carping and drive-by posters here, you have done honor to this forum. Bravo!