Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness

[Revoltingest]

That's why you should watch the first video, at least.

No matter what any video might say, atheism gives us no prescriptions, values, prohibitions, orders, advice or promises.
It's simply the absence of gods.
If you see a fallacy, please explain.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yours is a long post, so I'll answer it in a series of edits.

Not everyone who goes to a fundamentalist church is truly a fundamentalist. Some are reasonable people, just taking what they are being told as true because they want to believe it.

"Fundamentalism" isn't defined by which church one attends, despite the likelihood of strong correlation there.
It's what the individual believes, per the definition I offered earlier.
Btw, not just fundamentalists take as true what they want to believe.
This is a trait applicable to other religious flavors, & even atheists.

Exactly, neither you nor I can say what exactly is going on inside another person. However, someone with experience and insight could recognize tell-tale signs in another, when even they themselves aren't self-aware of it. That's true too.

So why presume that every fundamentalist is mentally ill, when no expert has made such a diagnosis?

Who has done that or is suggesting that?

It appears that you & others have, relying solely upon the person being a fundamentalist,
rather than on conventional signs of mental illness..

Well, again to say for the umpteenth time, I've only ever said fundamentalism is a disease.

Consider how homosexuality was once generally considered a disease.
It caused woe for those who were treated as diseased.
With no demonstrable benefit to deeming fundamentalism a mental illness,
& with clear potential for harm (as with homosexuals) what good would this achieve.

Hmmmm......
Fundamentalists & homosexuals as kindred spirits in this fashion......I bet someone's going to be uncomfortable with it!

I am looking at it as a system.....

So am I.
I once designed control systems as an engineer.
As they say.....to a man with a hammer, all problems look like nails.

....hence the suffix "ism". People are not "isms". Isms are beliefs and ideologies. The system is what is sick and a pathology. Someone in it may only be "social drinker" to use the comparison. If saying fundamentalism is a pathology offends them, well that's like saying calling bigotry bad offends people so don't do that. I say it needs to be said. They should look at it and really examine it and make an informed decision. Saying it's "ok" is not helpful.

I'm well aware that "fundamentalism" is not a person.
A "fundamentalist" is a person.
To call people something which offends them can be justifiable.
But I've yet to see any benefit here.
By analogy (my turn), there's good reason we want to help overweight people become healthier,
but we don't help by classifying them as "mentally ill" or "diseased".

I have a problem with these definitions, as I pointed out before. If you want to actually know what something is in greater detail, you go to experts, specialists, not dictionaries.

You're using a definition of "fundamentalism" which isn't to be found in a dictionary?
If so, you ought to state this from the outset.
Certainly, there is more information about a subject than one will find for it's name in a dictionary.
But it's dysfunctional to say all the dictionaries are wrong, because you're using something arcane & at odds with them.

Here's the problem with the above. Yes, fundamentalism is "characterized" by literalism. But, not all literalists are fundamentalists! Literalism does not define fundamentalism. Rather literalism is characteristically part of the fundamentalist mind. It's also part of the mythic-literal mainstream traditionalist churches. But they are NOT fundamentalists. Pat Robertson and ilk is not at all the same as the believer of myths, taking Jesus walking on water as literally true while he goes to his mainstream Presbyterian church.

I don't see a distinction there, based upon commonly used definitions.

As far as strict adherence to basic ideas, well, I don't think that defines them either! Anyone following a particular lineage and is highly committed to that path, which many are, is not the same as a fundamentalist. Again fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon. It is specifically a response to modernity. It did not exist prior to the modern age! It was born in the 1900s American in direct response to neo-orthodoxies on the rise in the modern church as a reaction to it. It is by definition reactionary. Literal beliefs in myths, and strict adherence to beliefs and practices existed long before the modern age. Fundamentalism specifically is an "anti". It is anti-intellectual, anti-modernity.

The term is modern, but throughout history, I see fundamentalism (albeit not by that name) running rampant.

This definition you find at a dictionary is NOT authoritative on the subject.

Actually, it is authoritative on the definition.
But of course, it doesn't go into detail.
If in talking about details, you violate the definition, then you've a problem.

You have to go to the experts. Not dictionaries. People who write dictionaries are not experts on every area they put definitions to.

But the authors of dictionaries are the experts on how words are used in the language.
If you're using an arcane definition which is different, why not just come out & say that it means such & such (as you use it)?
Were I to use an engineering term such as, "pressure", it would not mean the same thing to a non-technical type.
Knowing this, I'd initially state that it's force divided by area.

Do you know how dictionaries are compiled?

Yes, I do.
Objection to dictionary definitions comes up so often here that I looked into it.
Do you know?

Experts in religion. Those who have a breadth and depth and range of knowledge in these areas are. There's more I can add to this but I'll save it to later.

I know an expert in religion.
He likes to re-define words too.
In a religious context, he tells me I believe in God.
Because money is a god.
Therefore I'm religious as he is.
So much for experts.
Some of them need to read dictionaries, & learn about context if they want to be pedantic about word meaning.

Again, literalism does not define fundamentalism. Not all literalists are fundamentalists.

I don't see you making a case for this.

That's like saying every 5 year old who takes everything as literal true, not understanding "as if" statements, not understand metaphors is a fundamentalist. If literalism defines fundamentalism then every concrete operational stage child is one. That simply isn't true.

I don't see this analogy as cromulent.

 

[Agondonter]

Or maybe not. LOL!

 

[Windwalker]

I wonder if it's like the chicken & egg scenario, ie, which came first?
Does fundamentalist religious belief lead to mental illness in some?
Or does a person who is mentally ill have this condition result in or be exacerbated by fundamentalist beliefs?
Could it be either one at times?

Again, good questions! I like these. A little background here that informs the thoughts I have on all this. I spent about a decade as a moderator on a site for ex-fundamentalists, hearing the countless 'testimonies', the anguish, confusion, and anger of many who broke loose. I also was part of a local group for the support of ex-fundamentalists who met regularly for Sunday coffee (instead of the church thing). The group has been going strong for years with sometimes up to 30 people, old and new faces each meeting. The stories repeat the same stories and patterns, again, and again, and again. In all I've been dealing with this area and those in it for around the last 15 years. In no small way does my personal experience inform my point of view on this topic, and why calling it a mental illness that one can suffer makes sense to me.

Which came first? You have different scenarios. Some are born into it. They are programmed from birth. The founding member of that group I mentioned locally was born and raised as part of the "Quiverfull" movement. Do a quick read on them when you're ready to have some shudders. In this case, the egg came before the chicken. Others, who are actually mentally ill to begin with will gravitate to these fundamentalist groups because it sounds just like them in their particular madness. It fits them and reinforces their broken minds. That is a case of the chicken before the egg. The disease of the fundamentalist group reinforces them in their sickness. There are those who are sincerely looking for answers or direction that are attracted to them, find themselves in them, become messed up by them, and then leave (my story). There are those who find their way into it, then succumb to the madness of them and become them, seeing others as the devil, hating and calling it love, etc. But in those cases I think they already had some issues, and instead of the group helping them, it made them worse. There are of course other types as the list could go on, but you should get this point.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, good questions! I like these. A little background here that informs the thoughts I have on all this. I spent about a decade as a moderator on a site for ex-fundamentalists, hearing the countless 'testimonies', the anguish, confusion, and anger of many who broke loose. I also was part of a local group for the support of ex-fundamentalists who met regularly for Sunday coffee (instead of the church thing). The group has been going strong for years with sometimes up to 30 people, old and new faces each meeting. The stories repeat the same stories and patterns, again, and again, and again. In all I've been dealing with this area and those in it for around the last 15 years. In no small way does my personal experience inform my point of view on this topic, and why calling it a mental illness that one can suffer makes sense to me.

This illuminates your position.
But you were dealing with a subset of fundamentalists, ie, the ones who left because it didn't suit them.
My experience is different, approaching it from the mental health professional side of things.
(An overly chatty landlord can learn a lot about the various fields from both shrinks & clients. They don't call them "patients".)
And the many fundies I know are of the general population variety.
(Again an overly chatty landlord who talks politics & religion with many tenants can learn much.)

Which came first? You have different scenarios. Some are born into it. They are programmed from birth. The founding member of that group I mentioned locally was born and raised as part of the "Quiverfull" movement. Do a quick read on them when you're ready to have some shudders. In this case, the egg came before the chicken. Others, who are actually mentally ill to begin with will gravitate to these fundamentalist groups because it sounds just like them in their particular madness. It fits them and reinforces their broken minds. That is a case of the chicken before the egg. The disease of the fundamentalist group reinforces them in their sickness. There are those who are sincerely looking for answers or direction that are attracted to them, find themselves in them, become messed up by them, and then leave (my story). There are those who find their way into it, then succumb to the madness of them and become them, seeing others as the devil, hating and calling it love, etc. But in those cases I think they already had some issues, and instead of the group helping them, it made them worse. There are of course other types as the list could go on, but you should get this point.

I also observe that some people are suited for fundamentalism.
They tend to.....
- Believe in central control causing things to happen.
So they're big on not just a creating & intervening god, but also prone to conspiracy theories.
- Want to believe that there is inerrant defined good & evil. No moral relativism for them, no sir!
- They want answers to questions. An unanswered question is simply unacceptable!
- They're big on trusting feelings, & not terribly analytical. I suspect that aspies are less likely to be fundies.

Now, before my fundie friends think that I'm setting things up to be better than they are, fear not!
I have my own set of flaws.....short on empathy, socially awkward, nerdy, etc.

 

[Windwalker]

You're using a definition of "fundamentalism" which isn't to be found in a dictionary?
If so, you ought to state this from the outset.

I did pages and pages ago. I think you ignored what I said.

And.... you are wrong. From the Oxford English Dictionary, exactly what I just posted to what you are responding to, and what I've said half a dozen times or more already in this thread. Quote:

Modern Christian fundamentalism arose from American millenarian sects of the 19th century and has become associated with reaction against social and political liberalism, and with the rejection of the theory of evolution. Islamic fundamentalism appeared in the 18th and 19th centuries as a reaction to the disintegration of Islamic political and economic power, asserting that Islam is central to both state and society and advocating strict adherence to the Koran (Qur’an) and to Islamic law (sharia).
​

But again, dictionaries are not experts, nor are they even encyclopedias. Just a quick Wiki search will provide what I see as in fact an accurate definition of what fundamentalism is. And no, I did not write the article, even though it says exactly what I've been saying.

Fundamentalism usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[1] However, fundamentalism has come to apply to a tendency among certain groups—mainly, though not exclusively, in religion—that is characterized by a markedly strict literalism as applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions,[2][3][4][5] leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group is often the result of this tendency.​

It's all that other stuff that really sets fundamentalists apart from those who are simply literalists. I'm curious, did you read what I wrote about the difference between traditionalism and fundamentalism? This is key to understanding why it's not simply literalist thinking. You should go read it in case you just skimmed past it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I did pages and pages ago. I think you ignored what I said.

Do you think it possible I missed or forgot it?
(There's a lot of stuff to read here, & I've been landscaping all day. RF is for bacon breaks.)

And.... you are wrong.

Instead of pronouncing me "wrong" (for using a major dictionary), you should instead note that there is more than one definition, including the source I cited.
You're using a different one, & this context doesn't clearly require a particular one.

From the Oxford English Dictionary, exactly what I just posted to what you are responding to, and what I've said half a dozen times or more already in this thread. Quote:

Modern Christian fundamentalism arose from American millenarian sects of the 19th century and has become associated with reaction against social and political liberalism, and with the rejection of the theory of evolution. Islamic fundamentalism appeared in the 18th and 19th centuries as a reaction to the disintegration of Islamic political and economic power, asserting that Islam is central to both state and society and advocating strict adherence to the Koran (Qur’an) and to Islamic law (sharia).
​

But again, dictionaries are not experts, nor are they even encyclopedias. Just a quick Wiki search will provide what I see as in fact an accurate definition of what fundamentalism is. And no, I did not write the article, even though it says exactly what I've been saying.

Fundamentalism usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[1] However, fundamentalism has come to apply to a tendency among certain groups—mainly, though not exclusively, in religion—that is characterized by a markedly strict literalism as applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions,[2][3][4][5] leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group is often the result of this tendency.​

It's all that other stuff that really sets fundamentalists apart from those who are simply literalists. I'm curious, did you read what I wrote about the difference between traditionalism and fundamentalism? This is key to understanding why it's not simply literalist thinking. You should go read it in case you just skimmed past it.

The definition you use is another which I find acceptable because it comports with the one I use.
But it does not make your case that fundamentalism is a mental illness.

 

[Agondonter]

Windwalker, your description of fundamentalism is applicable to both religious and atheistic fundamentalism.

 

[Windwalker]

Windwalker, your description of fundamentalism is applicable to both religious and atheistic fundamentalism.

Yes, it certainly can and does to some. In this sense of fundamentalism I like what Wiki says, which would in this also include atheists:

Fundamentalism usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[1] However, fundamentalism has come to apply to a tendency among certain groups—mainly, though not exclusively, in religion—that is characterized by a markedly strict literalismas applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions,[2][3][4][5] leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group is often the result of this tendency.
​

All the earmarks of religious fundamentalism can be seen in some atheists too. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism. It doesn't matter what the objects of belief are in.

 

[Agondonter]

Which is exactly why I said treating religious fundamentalism as a mental illness is a two-edged sword and posted the videos.

 

[Windwalker]

Which is exactly why I said treating religious fundamentalism as a mental illness is a two-edged sword and posted the videos.

I don't see it as a sword, but a path to raising awareness of it in all it's forms. People mistake it for just religious beliefs.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, it certainly can and does to some. In this sense of fundamentalism I like what Wiki says, which would in this also include atheists:

Fundamentalism usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[1] However, fundamentalism has come to apply to a tendency among certain groups—mainly, though not exclusively, in religion—that is characterized by a markedly strict literalismas applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions,[2][3][4][5] leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group is often the result of this tendency.
​

All the earmarks of religious fundamentalism can be seen in some atheists too. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism. It doesn't matter what the objects of belief are in.

Perhaps predictably, I'd question this, whilst admitting my own bias.
What are the set of irreducible beliefs, or literalism to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies that atheism can possibly have?

Please note, it is ENTIRELY possible for atheists to be fundamentalists. But they are building on an atheistic foundation, and their fundamentalism requires more than mere atheism to hang on.

 

[Agondonter]

Like a need for certainty?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Like a need for certainty?

Sorry mate, not sure if that's in relation to my post or not.
I wouldn't see most atheists as 'certain' in the way you probably mean. I see more 'certainty' amongst theists.
Speaking for other people is a no-no, but I'm sure @Revoltingest would be of the same mind, in terms of not being 'certain' there is no God. We're just stating we see no reason to think there IS a God.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness

Would this be a good thing, a bad thing, or a mixed bag? Why?

It could be a good thing as long as they include political fundamentalists--good luck defining criminal aspects of either one..

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It could be a good thing as long as they include political fundamentalists--good luck defining criminal aspects of either one..

I have to admit this was one of the reasons I put it down as a bad thing.
Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, be it religious or political, and the idea that the thought police should prevent this rather than the voters and constitution strikes me as scary and open to abuse.

 

[Agondonter]

Sorry mate, not sure if that's in relation to my post or not.
I wouldn't see most atheists as 'certain' in the way you probably mean. I see more 'certainty' amongst theists.
Speaking for other people is a no-no, but I'm sure @Revoltingest would be of the same mind, in terms of not being 'certain' there is no God. We're just stating we see no reason to think there IS a God.

That's because you have a mental illness like 'anosognosia' -- lack of insight.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I have to admit this was one of the reasons I put it down as a bad thing.
Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, be it religious or political, and the idea that the thought police should prevent this rather than the voters and constitution strikes me as scary and open to abuse.

Yes, and actually, it isn't that hard to define what political or religious acts would be universally wrong. But there would always be those who will object because it limits their ability to employ evil.

 

[Agondonter]

That's because you have a mental illness like 'anosognosia' -- lack of insight.

My point is, YOU may see no reason to think there is a God, but it's a vacuous statement. Many atheists in this forum vehemently deny that disbelief entails belief of any kind, but unless they have the mind of a rock, that simply isn't true. They are "fundamentalists." "We see no reason to think there IS a God" is a statement of belief that carries with it as much potential for fundamentalism as as anything religious.

 

[atanu]

What witch hunting? Explain this specifically to me.

Please do not take it personally. Your perspective is compassion but it does not work that way with every one. I think all mystics of east and west will be declared as mentally ill. Whereas these mystics simply have a wider view of nature of existence.