Challenging fundamentalism

Zandrav Ibistenn · Post by **Zandrav Ibistenn** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 13:52

"Truth is no match for convictions" as they say.

It seems that those people who adopt a fundamentalist view of the world, render themselves impregnable to reason.
Not only is this unfortunate, it is also potentially dangerous.

The fundamentalist approach creates several problems:
a) It inhibits learning, preventing/limiting adaptation to new circumstances (e.g. ancient religious dogma conflicting with modernist cultural trends).
b) It breeds intolerance. - If you're absolutely convinced you're correct about something, then there can be no question that people who disagree with you, regardless of their arguments, are wrong. And the jump from "wrong because of disagreement" to "bad because of inherent evil" is dangerously short. Fundamentalists isolate themselves in closed communities, while hate against the rest of society slowly builds up...
c) It's the enemy of truth and the doom of progress. If you have your answers, then there's no reason to ask any questions. Believe it or not - some people, in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, still believes the world to be less than 10.000 years old!
d) Fundamentalism is a lasting disorder. Once it has come into your head, it's very unlikely to depart again.

But is there any way to pierce their shield of unreason?
If not, then the only solution is prevention. But how to prevent it?

Another thing puzzles me: Why do some people become fundamentalists, while others don't?

mistergreen77 · Post by **mistergreen77** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:08

I have often thought about this myself. You are right about the problems it creates - although d) is not so much a problem but a feature. I think I prefer the term fanaticism - but that is not the question.

I offer this quote:

"One shows all these fanatics a little geometry, and they learn it easily enough; but strange to relate, their minds are not straightened for that; they perceive the truths of geometry; but they do not learn to weigh probabilities; they have got into a habit; they will reason crookedly all their lives, and I am sorry for them. " - Voltaire

Zandrav Ibistenn · Post by **Zandrav Ibistenn** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 0:57

Ah yes, fanaticism is a much better word.

Fanaticism takes the shape of an obsession that confiscate most of the fanatics' time and energy. Obsession need not always be a negative thing: It could be a passionate hobby, a workoholic politician, a manic scientist or a business man always on the move. What makes the obsession of the fanatics different is the uncomprehending disregard of the impact on other people the consequences of their actions have.
I consider the phenomenon "stalking" to a form of fanaticism. The stalker will relentlessly follow a celebrity and intrude on his/her personal life, unable to take no for an answer, nor to fully appreciate the psychological ramifications that may have on the celebrity's psyche.
The fanatic is blind to the other party's perspective.

They are not insane in a clinical sense (as having a warped perception of the world), but yet they exhibit a most abnormal behavior likely to cause trouble.

What causes people to succumb to fanaticism? I think it's a sort of reaction-formation against a society that has rejected them in some way, or in which they feel unable to fit. As social outcasts they tend to group together, sharing their disdain for the rest of society and forming a clique where their bigotry reinforce a oppositional relationship with the outside world.

mistergreen77 · Post by **mistergreen77** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 15:09

Very plausible theory. Perhaps it is the foundation of the overall complex. Similar to your theory of religion as a disease passed from parents to children, children who are infected with it bring upon themselves the rejection by society that triggers the reaction-formation. What do you think?

Zandrav Ibistenn · Post by **Zandrav Ibistenn** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 17:52

Yes, and therefore the way to combat fanaticism is active efforts to resocialize people back into the society from which they feel expelled. However, this would at best only prevent people from becomming fanatics (or criminals for that matter). It wouldn't be easy either, because disillusioned new potential fanatics, who could be "saved", would be in contact with asocial fanatics seeking to recruit them. Split between society from which the potential fanatic already feel rejected and the invitation from an actual fanatic, the choice would most frequently fall on the latter I'm afraid.

mistergreen77 wrote:Similar to your theory of religion as a disease passed from parents to children

Give credit to Richard Dawkins. It's from an essay ("Viruses of the Mind") in his book "A Devil's Chaplain".

mistergreen77 · Post by **mistergreen77** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 16:50

Hmmm...I think I agree - because I can see no way of stopping parents from passing down the beliefs and superstitions that trigger the reaction-formation.

Incidentally, it appears the most vulnerable time for otherwise rational people to become fanatical is their youth. In my teens I belonged to a fundamentalist religion and this definitely seemed to be the case. Study of conversion statistics amongst various religions would probably show that most conversions happen in teens or twenties. If I am not mistaken, I wonder why this is so?

Zandrav Ibistenn · Post by **Zandrav Ibistenn** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 21:14

mistergreen77 wrote:Incidentally, it appears the most vulnerable time for otherwise rational people to become fanatical is their youth. In my teens I belonged to a fundamentalist religion and this definitely seemed to be the case. Study of conversion statistics amongst various religions would probably show that most conversions happen in teens or twenties. If I am not mistaken, I wonder why this is so?

Adolescence is a time of searching for identity; a need to find a place in society where you wish to belong and people you wish to be with.
This is a common theme in many psychological theories and in people's own experiences.
E.g. psychologist Erik Erikson elaborates in his psychosocial egotheory one of the main objectives in adolescence and describes it as identity vs. role-confusion.

Apparently, it's more important to simply belong to a group, no matter how extreme, than (for a lack of a better expression) to be out of touch with life.

mistergreen77 · Post by **mistergreen77** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 15:42

Another formula for this argument: The emotional needs of adolescents may completely unbalance their spiritual/intellectual needs. In extreme cases even their physical needs may be subordinated to their overpowering need for belonging.

Zandrav Ibistenn · Post by **Zandrav Ibistenn** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:09

I wonder how fanaticism evolved. Since it is as not infrequent observation today it must have been a good survival strategy. I find that it tends to respond violently against opposition and thus provide a clear sense of direction. But it also has a profound effect upon the psychology of a group (and this is the most interesting aspect), because the way that the group adapts to the rising fanaticism is so ufortunate - namely by keeping a low profile and not directly opposing the fanatical menace to avoid attracting its violent attention. This approach will accept tyranny, because as long as the chance of falling victim to an oppressive dominance is perceived to be low, then it is a sensible strategy to be a coward.