Is Fundamentalism a Religious Movement or a Psychological Disorder?

[PruePhillip]

Is fundamentalism a religious movement or a psychological disorder?

Is post-modernism a disorder? Ever seen videos of American university students
screaming and seek "safe spaces" because they have been "confronted" by some
one who takes away their right of belief - these kids will be your news reporters,
politicians, business people, advertisers etc of tomorrow.

 

[crossfire]

Yeah, but this is a religion board. Okay, thanks.

LeVayan Satanists would taut "indulgence instead of abstenance" (id over superego) as their most fundamental belief, but their doctrine also stops short of causing harm to anyone or "being stupid," (disabling ego reality principle,) as stupidity is seen as a cardinal sin.
I don't know if there are other id/indulgence groups who don't have the safety net of not disabling the reality principle built into their doctrine or not. Perhaps some of the aghora/aghori.

 

[Revoltingest]

The reason I say that there is neither is that there is no dividing line between the two.

Sure there is....changes within one species vs changing from one species to another.

At no point can one say "this is macro and this is micro".

That's because it's a continuum between micro & macro.
The dividing line will be arbitrary & imprecise, as are many things,
eg, differentiating between one species & another in the course
of evolution.

Also @Hockeycowboy was wrong. Almost all creationists accept macro-evolution, if we go by the definition of the man that first defined the terms. In the debate they are all but worthless.

The concept is worthless to you, an evolutionist,
but not to anti-evolutionists.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is post-modernism a disorder? Ever seen videos of American university students
screaming and seek "safe spaces" because they have been "confronted" by some
one who takes away their right of belief - these kids will be your news reporters,
politicians, business people, advertisers etc of tomorrow.

It's certainly not healthy to avoid such conflicts and confrontations on such a basis. However, this has what to do with the OP, exactly?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Actually in this case it pretty much does. I have only seen a few dishonest, and one can tell that they are dishonest by the lies that they have to tell, scientists that do not accept evolution. The percentage is lower than the rate of the mentally ill of the population as a whole. And that makes this fact fit rather well in this thread.

What “lies”, do you think, are there that scientists “have” to tell?

 

[Sand Dancer]

LeVayan Satanists would taut "indulgence instead of abstenance" (id over superego) as their most fundamental belief, but their doctrine also stops short of causing harm to anyone or "being stupid," (disabling ego reality principle,) as stupidity is seen as a cardinal sin.
I don't know if there are other id/indulgence groups who don't have the safety net of not disabling the reality principle built into their doctrine or not. Perhaps some of the aghora/aghori.

I had forgotten about them. Yeah, pretty hedonistic.

 

[shmogie]

Is fundamentalism a religious movement or a psychological disorder?

The four most studied fundamentalisms by scientists and scholars are the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Hindu variations of the phenomenon. There is a wide range of informed opinion about fundamentalism, but most people find fundamentalism remarkably similar regardless of which religion it is associated with.

There is indeed some scientific support for the possibility fundamentalism is more of a psychological disorder than a religion or religious movement. For instance, see Chapters Three (page 75), Four (page 106), and related pages in Robert Altemeyer's introduction to authoritarianism, which can be found here (pdf).

As for myself, I believe calling fundamentalism a "religion" might be like calling Bipolar Mood Disorder a "philosophy". The evidence seems headed in that direction.

Your thoughts?*



*Please read Chapters Three and Four in Altemeyer before responding -- unless you are very familiar with the science on this subject.

EDIT: As I remarked to Dave in a post in this thread: It intrigues me that fundamentalism might be characterized as a religious movement piggybacking on a psychological disorder.

EDIT: To clarify, I am suggesting that -- at the very least -- fundamentalism is most likely significantly more strongly associated with dysfunctional thinking and/or moods than is, say, mainstream Catholicism, Reform Judaism, etc. Beyond that, I suspect fundamentalist ideologies tend to be especially attractive to people suffering from one or more mental illnesses and tend to be just as unattractive to relatively healthy people. In other words, I think it is likely more fundamentalists are mentally ill than members of similar groups, and likely that fundamentalism tends to attract mentally ill people and tends to repulse mentally healthy people.

EDIT: Try thinking of "mental illness" as "thoughts and moods that are conducive to, and/or symptomatic of, dysfunctional behavior."

What complete and total BS. Only ignorance and malice drives idiocy like this.

 

[Curious George]

What complete and total BS. Only ignorance and malice drives idiocy like this.

Try to actually put that argument together such that the conclusion "the only reason for questioning whether fundamentalism is a religious movement or a psychological disorder is malice and ignorance.

I am pretty sure that you will either have to take semantic liberties with the word ignorance or you will fail.

Myriad reasons exist for questioning whether fundamentalism is a psychological disorder or a religious movement. These certainly include plain old curiosity and concern for the well being of our communities and nations.

It is too easy to write off differing opinions as ignorant or malicious. While sometimes those opinions are ignorant and malicious, one should at least give some consideration before concluding so.

I find the level of animosity this thread has brought from the rf crowd interesting and curious in itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What “lies”, do you think, are there that scientists “have” to tell?

The list is endless. It is hard to find a creation "scientist" that does not lie. These scientists can do real work in their own fields, but when the attack evolution they all seem to lie. For example a recent new member got fed up with the fact that he could not call a liar a liar. Here is a video where he teamed up with Bill Ludlow to go over how Dr. James Tour lied in his attempt to refute abiogenesis. Tour is a well respected synthetic organic chemist, yet he made errors in his refutation that an undergrad would not make. Tour knew better and yet he made these claims. Worse yet he attacked a fellow scientist. His lies were so bad that he actually apologized to Jack Szostak. Of course the extremely dishonest Discovery Institute still has the video that this was based upon up on its site.

Creationists that are not scientists have the excuse of plausible deniability. When they repeat lies they may not know that they are telling lies. With an education that excuse goes away.

 

[Dell]

Is fundamentalism a religious movement or a psychological disorder?

The four most studied fundamentalisms by scientists and scholars are the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Hindu variations of the phenomenon. There is a wide range of informed opinion about fundamentalism, but most people find fundamentalism remarkably similar regardless of which religion it is associated with.

There is indeed some scientific support for the possibility fundamentalism is more of a psychological disorder than a religion or religious movement. For instance, see Chapters Three (page 75), Four (page 106), and related pages in Robert Altemeyer's introduction to authoritarianism, which can be found here (pdf).

As for myself, I believe calling fundamentalism a "religion" might be like calling Bipolar Mood Disorder a "philosophy". The evidence seems headed in that direction.

Your thoughts?*



*Please read Chapters Three and Four in Altemeyer before responding -- unless you are very familiar with the science on this subject.

EDIT: As I remarked to Dave in a post in this thread: It intrigues me that fundamentalism might be characterized as a religious movement piggybacking on a psychological disorder.

EDIT: To clarify, I am suggesting that -- at the very least -- fundamentalism is most likely significantly more strongly associated with dysfunctional thinking and/or moods than is, say, mainstream Catholicism, Reform Judaism, etc. Beyond that, I suspect fundamentalist ideologies tend to be especially attractive to people suffering from one or more mental illnesses and tend to be just as unattractive to relatively healthy people. In other words, I think it is likely more fundamentalists are mentally ill than members of similar groups, and likely that fundamentalism tends to attract mentally ill people and tends to repulse mentally healthy people.

EDIT: Try thinking of "mental illness" as "thoughts and moods that are conducive to, and/or symptomatic of, dysfunctional behavior."

Fundamentalism is simply those who take the scriptures they believe as written.. or as well as can be interpreted. Honestly I perceive most fundamentalist living by the scriptures how it was meant to be followed and believed originally. If you think authors of the scriptures were writing with the idea that it to be changed by modern times is not realistic.

Modern religions today have its roots based upon bronze age thinking and philosophy. Slavery.. Martyrdom.. Blood sacrifice.. Priest.. Baptism.. Spirits good and evil.. repentance.. on and on...

I always wondered what the "look" of true Christian religion was considering the amount of changes it's gone through since Jesus and the Apostles. How much watered down it must be today than then...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What complete and total BS. Only ignorance and malice drives idiocy like this.

Or it could stem from the desire to prevent the abuses and ill-behaviors that come from such a thing. A rigid and strict adherence to dogma serves no one any good, and it's potentially very destructive in its wake.

 

[PruePhillip]

Or it could stem from the desire to prevent the abuses and ill-behaviors that come from such a thing. A rigid and strict adherence to dogma serves no one any good, and it's potentially very destructive in its wake.

Depends what the dogma is.
Some dogmas are good.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Some dogmas are good.

No dogma is good.

 

[PruePhillip]

No dogma is good.

That's what a lot of Postmodernists believe. That there is no actual truth and everything
is relative - and the foundations of Western civilization is built upon falsehood, racism,
oppressive power structures, sexism, colonialism etc..
But I hold to the DOGMA that there are absolute truths - these include the crucial importance
of free speech, the absolutes of scientific truths, the importance of inquiry and interrogation
of beliefs, the necessity of universal suffrage and private property and so on, so forth.
Oh... and the religious dogmas would include brotherhood, humility, grace, forgiveness etc..

 

[atanu]

Is fundamentalism a religious movement or a psychological disorder?

The four most studied fundamentalisms by scientists and scholars are the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Hindu variations of the phenomenon. There is a wide range of informed opinion about fundamentalism, but most people find fundamentalism remarkably similar regardless of which religion it is associated with.

There is indeed some scientific support for the possibility fundamentalism is more of a psychological disorder than a religion or religious movement. For instance, see Chapters Three (page 75), Four (page 106), and related pages in Robert Altemeyer's introduction to authoritarianism, which can be found here (pdf).

As for myself, I believe calling fundamentalism a "religion" might be like calling Bipolar Mood Disorder a "philosophy". The evidence seems headed in that direction.

Your thoughts?*

*Please read Chapters Three and Four in Altemeyer before responding -- unless you are very familiar with the science on this subject.

EDIT: As I remarked to Dave in a post in this thread: It intrigues me that fundamentalism might be characterized as a religious movement piggybacking on a psychological disorder.

EDIT: To clarify, I am suggesting that -- at the very least -- fundamentalism is most likely significantly more strongly associated with dysfunctional thinking and/or moods than is, say, mainstream Catholicism, Reform Judaism, etc. Beyond that, I suspect fundamentalist ideologies tend to be especially attractive to people suffering from one or more mental illnesses and tend to be just as unattractive to relatively healthy people. In other words, I think it is likely more fundamentalists are mentally ill than members of similar groups, and likely that fundamentalism tends to attract mentally ill people and tends to repulse mentally healthy people.

EDIT: Try thinking of "mental illness" as "thoughts and moods that are conducive to, and/or symptomatic of, dysfunctional behavior."

As I see it, fundamentalism closes the mind to other possibilities. Any fundamentalist view, religious or nay, are, IMO, a product of succumbing to the ego. A disorder? Depends on ones perspective, I suppose.

I rapidly scanned through chapter 3 of the cited paper. The paper is primarily about right wing authoritarians and their traits that lead to dysfunctional behaviour. While I agree with @SalixIncendium, in general, I also subscribe to the view that right wingers are more prone to dysfunctional behaviour. This is evident in India.

I think that the general correlation between religiosity and right wing world view is spurious. Right wing philosophy of exclusivism, seeing differences rather than unity, hatred of the other, self righteousness, and unquestioned allegiance to leader or to an 'ism' is not inherently supported by any religion. I think the emotional attachment to 'ism', elements of majoritarianism and inherent hatred of the other that exists in most people's minds are exploited by Authoritarian Right Wing Leaders. This, IMO, is very evident in India for the last 10 years.

Exploitation of emotional attachment to 'ism', majoritarianism, and hatred for the other are not taught in religions as such. Also, it is true that our ego attachment to 'ism' may go overboard and turn to fundamentalism if there are dysfunctional traits present. But this is true of any 'ism', as already pointed by @SalixIncendium, except I think, in case of self-righteousness. My view that the religious people are more self-righteous is born of my experience.

...

 

[JJ50]

I am of the opinion that people who seem to get off on the fantasy of others burning in hell if they don't convert to their version of religion, are in need of psychiatric attention.

 

[PruePhillip]

I am of the opinion that people who seem to get off on the fantasy of others burning in hell if they don't convert to their version of religion, are in need of psychiatric attention.

Yes, one has only to read the paper to see that as we enter a post-religious
world that people are becoming better behaved, and there is less and less
need for psychiatry.

 

[JJ50]

Yes, one has only to read the paper to see that as we enter a post-religious
world that people are becoming better behaved, and there is less and less
need for psychiatry.

I don't think religion necessarily causes psychiatric disorders, but people with mental health issues can be attracted to religion of the more extreme kind, imo

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't think religion necessarily causes psychiatric disorders, but people with mental health issues can be attracted to religion of the more extreme kind, imo

In the post-religous era now upon us we will see a greater breakdown
of family life. This in itself leads to greater mental breakdown. That's
why mental issues effect nearly twice as many Americans as they
do poor countries.
I put it to you that what you are seeing in campus life now is a form of
mental affliction. At times it seems as if the whole world is going mad.
In Australia some schools have remedial classes for primary school
boys to stop them sexually abusing girls.

 

[Audie]

Try to actually put that argument together such that the conclusion "the only reason for questioning whether fundamentalism is a religious movement or a psychological disorder is malice and ignorance.

I am pretty sure that you will either have to take semantic liberties with the word ignorance or you will fail.

Myriad reasons exist for questioning whether fundamentalism is a psychological disorder or a religious movement. These certainly include plain old curiosity and concern for the well being of our communities and nations.

It is too easy to write off differing opinions as ignorant or malicious. While sometimes those opinions are ignorant and malicious, one should at least give some consideration before concluding so.

I find the level of animosity this thread has brought from the rf crowd interesting and curious in itself.

The boys of 911 were fundies. So too are ones
who deny medical care to children in favour
of prayer.

The little old lady who attends churchachrist
is harmless.

Its a bit insulting to suggest anyone here is
not aware of such distinctions.