Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness

[Revoltingest]

Here's the list you provided:

• many regularly meet at their church or equivalent
• morality
• the supernatural
• purpose
• prohibitions, etc.

In Christianity alone there is not a whole lot of commonality in the above, outside perhaps the social aspects of gathering together. Excluding "the supernatural" for the moment, all of the above apply to things atheists share in common as well, as they are all social and cultural values which anyone, believer or non-believer participate in the culture at large. Atheism in the West, in all honesty, based upon the fact they are part of Western culture can really, actually be called "Christianity without God". Chew on that one awhile. I look forward seeing the flack from that one!

Though it's obvious that term will not be received well by most, it is a valid statement if you honestly think about it in the light that we all are part of the general Western ethos which has been informed through Christianity in the West. No one escapes it. Even atheists, in their rejection of God, still have the same basic moralities within the common ranges of conservative to liberal. They still see the world through the same sorts of general frameworks, not launching off into some truly foreign modes of thoughts such as you would find in cultures we did not grow up in, such as Eastern cultures. These are not merely ideas and beliefs, but entire ways of thinking themselves that mark cultures from one another. Therefore, Western atheists are in fact in general part of the Christian heritage of values and modes of thinking, irrespective of specific beliefs about gods and science and whatnot.


Anytime you have people who have relationships with one another, cultures and values become conferred upon those who are part of them. Don't believe for one second this has anything to do with beliefs in the supernatural. It has to do with being humans and social animals. Atheists are that just as much as Christians are. Group dynamics apply to them equally, and you'll see the same things going on, even it it is operating at different levels. It happens in children, it happens with adults, it happens with men, it happens with women, it happens with believers, it happens with atheists, and so on. No escaping it.


You are mistaking Christianity as being only about teachings of the Bible. It most certainly is a whole lot more than that, and in fact that's really incidental to what makes it what it is. What makes it what it is is people in relationships with one another, bringing their values to bear with others and co-creating the religion. The "Bible" then simply becomes reflective of their shared beliefs and values in how they apply their interpretations to it. The exact same thing happens with groups of atheists, and humanists, or Masons, or Lion's club, or Rotary clubs, and so forth.

You seem to assume Christian actually has God telling them what to do and they aren't part of creating what it is for themselves. It is nothing but what they create for themselves, and the exact same forces are going to be at work with atheists who have any sense of community with other atheists, be that in local gatherings, or here in the Virtual World. Forums are in fact places of social gathering and interactions and cultures. Atheists do have that. You are participating in it right here, right now. It's right in front of you, and all the forces are in play creating shared beliefs and values. There's no escape.

I'll be repeating myself in any response.
We've beaten this poor dead horse too much already.

 

[Windwalker]

I'll use a friend as an example.....
As a fundie, he believes that God created & guides life.
In things political, he believes there are no spontaneous or grass roots movements,
eg, Soviet agents here created the anti-war movement in the 1960s,
Our country's decline is engineered by Obama & his cohorts (who want to destroy the country).

And you do not consider this unhealthy dysfunctional thinking? You consider this normal and healthy for people? What if your child thought like this? Would consider it just a stage of development?

 

[Windwalker]

I'll be repeating myself in any response.
We've beaten this poor dead horse too much already.

Oh come on, you haven't addressed what I pointed out and why. I actually go into your points and show the flaws in them. What is the errors in what I just posted? You think you're not part of cultures? Explain.

 

[Revoltingest]

And you do not consider this unhealthy dysfunctional thinking? You consider this normal and healthy for people?

I don't call it healthy.
But neither is it mental illness.
It's a way of viewing reality, one which extends to some religious folk who aren't fundies.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh come on, you haven't addressed what I pointed out and why. I actually go into your points and show the flaws in them. What is the errors in what I just posted? You think you're not part of cultures? Explain.

Sometimes a line of discussion loses productivity.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't call it healthy.
But neither is it mental illness.
It's a way of viewing reality, one which extends to some religious folk who aren't fundies.

Now we're getting somewhere! If it's unhealthy, it's a dysfunction right? If it's a dysfunction it's an illness. If it's a dysfunction of metal thoughts that show a pattern, it's a pathological. Therefore, it is a type of mental illness.

Now, as far as you claiming "It's a way of viewing reality", so is schizophrenia. That's a way of viewing reality too. But it's dysfunctional, unhealthy, and considered to be a mental illness. What is being described is not just a matter of differing perceptions, the way you and I hold different points of view. These are invalid, dysfunctioning modes of thinking which are based in delusions. Paranoia is a mental disorder. It's not just another take on things using normal healthy mental processes.

As far as other religious folks who aren't fundies who have conspiracy theory paranoia delusions, that doesn't invalidate that fundamentalism is a disorder. Fundamentalism is a bucket term for all types of mental disorders, include paranoid delusions. Hense why people with disorders like this are attracted to fundamentalist groups!

Think of it in terms of something like Borderline Personality Disorder. BPD is a bucket term that covers many sub-disorders. Within BPD you may find Obsessive Compulsive Disorders, Narcissistic Personality Disorders, and a list of other disorders. People with this are borderline psychotic, but still in general "functional". But it is still a mental illness. Being functional does not mean you are not mentally ill. Additionally, not everyone diagnosed with BPD exhibits all them, but it becomes a way to understand and approach the general disorder and all the things that may, or may not be part of it. I see Fundamentalism the same way, like BPD. Call it Fundamentalist Personality Disorder, of FPD. It's a bucket disorder for all sorts of sub-disorders. There clearly is a dysfunction, and you yourself admit it when you say it's not healthy. It's not, I agree. A pattern of unhealthy thoughts and behaviors is a disorder, or an illness.

 

[Windwalker]

Sometimes a line of discussion loses productivity.

I don't think you have engaged in that line of discussion. It was new this morning and hadn't been looked at previously.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think you have engaged in that line of discussion. I just pointed it out anew this morning.

See what I mean now?
We've little common ground.

 

[Windwalker]

See what I mean now?

It was new thoughts that had not been looked at previously. You just are sweeping it aside without looking at it, not tackling the thoughts. If you wish to ignore it, then at least address the point you acknowledge your friends' thoughts are unhealthy when I just spoke about BPD as a comparison. See post 226

 

[Shad]

Interesting. You're saying atheism uses metaphysics to dismiss metaphysics.

No. By rejecting, and/or lacking of belief in a god or gods* the associated metaphysical models which include God are also dismissed. Now some atheists may use a multiverse model or metaphysical naturalism as a supportive argument but atheism does not require either, or whatever supportive idea used that I have not covered which is applicable. Keep in mind atheism is old thus not necessarily grounded in modern ideas. Metaphysics is also a old concept thus does not rely on modern models. Modern models are derived from mathematical models while older models are based on philosophy and/or religion.


*Trying to avoid a conflict over what atheism means so I included a broad definition I believe is suitable to make my point*

 

[atanu]

Because in mythological thinking there is the opposing force of evil. Everything is seen in terms of good and evil, God and Satan. Conspiracies are the mythological version of evil, unseen forces outside our control choosing our fates for us for our destruction, rather than for our good, like God would do.

..... Yet another symptom of the fundamentalist disease.

I'll use a friend as an example.....
As a fundie, he believes that God created & guides life.
In things political, he believes there are no spontaneous or grass roots movements,
eg, Soviet agents here created the anti-war movement in the 1960s,
Our country's decline is engineered by Obama & his cohorts (who want to destroy the country).

While I see things like anti-war movements as emergent properties of stochastic processes,
he sees that everything happens for a singular reason, ie, by design & plan carried out.

Oh, & if you wonder how the Soviets became the way they were.....

Again, I do not understand how one who truly holds that God created and guides life can yet believe and torment self of notions of conspiracies etc.

In my opinion, this has to do with unripe understanding. Muslims are asked to surrender. But do they? It is same in every religion. This is like continuing movement of a potter's wheel after removal of potter's hand. Despite religious teaching, ego continues with its "I" and "They" play.

But this is why I do not like the idea of legalising treatment of so called fundamentalists, at least until rigorous objective parameters are not in place. Actually, who is not a fundamentalist? We all have some qualification.

And what is medical treatment for ignorance?

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, I do not understand how one who truly holds that God created and guides life can yet believe and torment self of notions of conspiracies etc.

In my opinion, this has to do with unripe understanding. Muslims are asked to surrender. But do they? It is same in every religion. This is like continuing movement of a potter's wheel after removal of potter's hand. Despite religious teaching, ego continues with its "I" and "They" play.

But this is why I do not like the idea of legalising treatment of so called fundamentalists, at least until rigorous objective parameters are not in place. Actually, who is not a fundamentalist? We all have some qualification.

I've never had a religious view of things.
So theirs is quite foreign to me....belief in things unverifiable....belief in often contradictory things....hard to imagine.
But many seem to function as well as I do, so I don't judge too harshly.

And what is medical treatment for ignorance?

Learning?

 

[Agondonter]

No. By rejecting, and/or lacking of belief in a god or gods* the associated metaphysical models which include God are also dismissed.

Yes, and squires a metaphysics of its own in the process, which you just unwittingly acknowledged.

 

[Shad]

Yes, and squires a metaphysics of its own in the process, which you just unwittingly acknowledged.

Wrong as atheism does not automatically follow another model such as metaphysical naturalism, it just eliminates those associated with god(s). "No-God" itself is not a metaphysical model.

 

[Windwalker]

"No-God" itself is not a metaphysical model.

Yes it is. I says that ultimate reality is non-theistic.

 

[Windwalker]

Again, I do not understand how one who truly holds that God created and guides life can yet believe and torment self of notions of conspiracies etc.

In my opinion, this has to do with unripe understanding.

I would agree. What you call "unripe" to me I understand as an earlier stage of development. In developmental studies it has been shown the stages that all people pass through as they mature. When it comes to the line of development for faith, one of those earlier stages is the Mythic-Literal stage. Here's a brief description of those at this stage of development, or "ripeness" as you would term it:

Fowler's Stage 2 is called the Mythic, Literal Stage. Here the child (or adult person stuck in this phase) is likely to start sorting out the real from the make-believe. Story becomes the major way of giving unity and value to experience, but the symbols in those stories are seen as one-dimensional and literal. Moreover, beliefs, moral rules and attitudes are also held literally. Thus, God is an anthropomorphic being in the sky; heaven and hell are viewed as actual places.

The person in the second of James Fowler's Stages is also more able to take the perspective of another person but his view of reciprocity is also rather literal. "If I follow the rules, God will give me a good life." "If I pray, God will grant my wish."

A person may begin to grow out of this phase when he encounters conflicts and contradictions in the stories he is interpreting literally and begins to reflect on the real meanings.
​

For you personally I would highly recommend reading the rest of the stages described in this link. I think you will see those at a later stage who can do what you describe, but those here are yet "unripe". For myself looking at those descriptions where I fit in, I am solidly at stage 5 and a fledgling stage 6. I haven't quite gotten willing to risk my own safety (metaphorically speaking), truly putting myself out there. Yet, I feel that is in fact beginning now.

By the way, I think it's important to note in the above stages in that link, that one does not skip stages. You have to grow through them and this is what they generally look like. The stages that follow are built upon the lessons learned at the earlier stages, and so to "skip" to the end cannot happen. You will not have the tools necessary to integrate the lessons of later stages if you don't master the earlier tools as they are brought with you.

But what I am saying here about the Mythic-Literal stage is different from what we call fundamentalism. These in the list are normal and healthy stages of development. But as in any developmental model which looks at actual data and maps out these stages, if people "skip", like I said, what can happen is a failure to integrate the current level they are attempting to master. This is true in all lines of development, social, emotional, psychological, spiritual, etc. You have to master the current stage to move to the next to master that stage. What happens if you fail to integrate a stage as you are trying to move to the next is you may begin to develop pathologies associated with that stage; regressive behaviors, addictions, allergies, and so forth.

Here is why I say fundamentalism is not a stage of growth but a pathology. It is those trying to fit into a world of higher development while addicted to, fixated on an earlier stage of development. An otherwise healthy stage of development becomes cancerous, pathological, distorted, and otherwise unhealthy. It will in fact harm growth, not allowing it to move to the next stage by failing to allow integration of the current stage! I realize this is "heady", but as I said calling fundamentalism a disease is not just some pejorative, even if unkind people abuse it that way. It is based on observation of development and associated pathologies. It is not a healthy stage, but a pathology of a current stage. It does not allow the person to grow to the next stage keeping them stuck in fixations and regressions. It's not simply being immature. It's much different than that.

So to recap, "unripe" views, as you call them, are just normal early developmental stages. Fundamentalism on the other hand is not a "stage" of development, but a pathology of a current one preventing the person from healthy integration which allows them to grow to the next. In this sense, it is cancerous. I hope you took the time to seriously read through all that and attempt to understand what all this is based upon. It's not just a pejorative term and fears that people will abuse to it attack others are no reason to not recognize this. People will always abuse legitimate mental health terms in attacking others, calling them names with them. But that's just their own immaturity. The world shouldn't be designed around trolls so they don't act like idiots.

 

[Windwalker]

I want to circle back to some other thoughts I'm having about what I just posted this morning in post #236. In explaining that fundamentalism is not a stage of development, but a pathology of a current stage of development (which I fully believe), I think what we see in current American flavored fundamentalism in religion is probably a pathology that developed between stages 1 and 2. A failure to integrate the lessons of an earlier stage creates a pathology at the next higher stage of development. In regression therapy you have to go back and address those things from the earlier stage in order to be able to bring them forward into an healthy integration at the next stage, the current stage. Something broke in development, and created a pathology at the next stage of growth.

If you look at the description of Fowler's stages for stage 1, the Intuitive-Projective stage, it explains:

James Fowler's stages start with what he calls a "pre-stage" that refers to infancy, called Undifferentiated Faith. Here the infant, (none of whom were interviewed!) develops basic trust and mutuality (or lack thereof) with the ones providing care. The quality of interactions in this phase underlie all future faith development for the individual.

When thought and language begin to open the child up to the use of symbols in speech and ritual play, the child moves on to Stage 1: Intuitive-Projective Faith which is typical of children ages 2 through 7. Here the child is egocentric. In this stage, the child's imagination is formed.

But in this stage, reality is not well-differentiated from fantasy. For this reason, adults preaching about the negative aspects of religion - the devil and the evils of sin - can cause great harm to a child of this age, leading him toward a very rigid, brittle and authoritarian personality as an adult. When a child attains the capacity for concrete operational thinking, he can begin to move toward the second of James Fowler's Stages.
​

What I see is probably the things that should have be integrated in this stage failed to integrate, and as they moved, or were pulled forward by culture and society into the mythic-literal stage, pathologies began to be formed around a number of these earlier features of this stage. Instead of maturing into being able to begin to take the perspective of another, they are stuck in narcissistic senses of self. Imagination became stunted, they are stuck in fantasy, magical imaginations and superstitions, applied to the mythic deity they adopted at the mythic-stage. So what you see in fundamentalism is fixations, addictions with magical thought while in the context of a mythic stage. In other words, it's not true, normal, healthy Mythic-Literal thinking, but a pathology within that stage.

I suspect that what happens is that as the child is forming these things, something goes wrong through whatever cause, an overbearing parent, a stolen childhood, etc, and as they are supposed to be going through the next stage of development learning its important lessons, they are stuck, held back by the previous stage failing to be properly brought forward and integrated into the next. As a result they are unable to bring forward what should have been learned and integrated earlier into to the next stage, or the next beyond that, and beyond that.

"Fundamentalism" I see as a bucket-term for these various pathologies that manifest associated with this failure to integrate. A failure to integrate things in development and developing associated pathologies from them can happen at each and any stage of development. It's not just the early stages. However, I tend to think what we recognize as "fundamentalism" and it's common attendant pathologies is really more about the stage 3 area of faith. But I suspect looking at other lines of development it fits in as well at the earlier stages of those, particularly having to do with the ability to take the perspective of the other, such as Piaget's lines of cognitive development.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to get feedback from those who take the time and effort to follow what I've typed out here. It's certainly nothing which can be just glanced at and dismissed without some degree of serious thought. I think I'm on track here, but would appreciate some thoughtful perspectives to this by someone.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I want to circle back to some other thoughts I'm having about what I just posted this morning in post #236. In explaining that fundamentalism is not a stage of development, but a pathology of a current stage of development (which I fully believe), I think what we see in current American flavored fundamentalism in religion is probably a pathology that developed between stages 1 and 2. A failure to integrate the lessons of an earlier stage creates a pathology at the next higher stage of development. In regression therapy you have to go back and address those things from the earlier stage in order to be able to bring them forward into an healthy integration at the next stage, the current stage. Something broke in development, and created a pathology at the next stage of growth.

If you look at the description of Fowler's stages for stage 1, the Intuitive-Projective stage, it explains:

James Fowler's stages start with what he calls a "pre-stage" that refers to infancy, called Undifferentiated Faith. Here the infant, (none of whom were interviewed!) develops basic trust and mutuality (or lack thereof) with the ones providing care. The quality of interactions in this phase underlie all future faith development for the individual.

When thought and language begin to open the child up to the use of symbols in speech and ritual play, the child moves on to Stage 1: Intuitive-Projective Faith which is typical of children ages 2 through 7. Here the child is egocentric. In this stage, the child's imagination is formed.

But in this stage, reality is not well-differentiated from fantasy. For this reason, adults preaching about the negative aspects of religion - the devil and the evils of sin - can cause great harm to a child of this age, leading him toward a very rigid, brittle and authoritarian personality as an adult. When a child attains the capacity for concrete operational thinking, he can begin to move toward the second of James Fowler's Stages.
​

What I see is probably the things that should have be integrated in this stage failed to integrate, and as they moved, or were pulled forward by culture and society into the mythic-literal stage, pathologies began to be formed around a number of these earlier features of this stage. Instead of maturing into being able to begin to take the perspective of another, they are stuck in narcissistic senses of self. Imagination became stunted, they are stuck in fantasy, magical imaginations and superstitions, applied to the mythic deity they adopted at the mythic-stage. So what you see in fundamentalism is fixations, addictions with magical thought while in the context of a mythic stage. In other words, it's not true, normal, healthy Mythic-Literal thinking, but a pathology within that stage.

I suspect that what happens is that as the child is forming these things, something goes wrong through whatever cause, an overbearing parent, a stolen childhood, etc, and as they are supposed to be going through the next stage of development learning its important lessons, they are stuck, held back by the previous stage failing to be properly brought forward and integrated into the next. As a result they are unable to bring forward what should have been learned and integrated earlier into to the next stage, or the next beyond that, and beyond that.

"Fundamentalism" I see as a bucket-term for these various pathologies that manifest associated with this failure to integrate. A failure to integrate things in development and developing associated pathologies from them can happen at each and any stage of development. It's not just the early stages. However, I tend to think what we recognize as "fundamentalism" and it's common attendant pathologies is really more about the stage 3 area of faith. But I suspect looking at other lines of development it fits in as well at the earlier stages of those, particularly having to do with the ability to take the perspective of the other, such as Piaget's lines of cognitive development.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to get feedback from those who take the time and effort to follow what I've typed out here. It's certainly nothing which can be just glanced at and dismissed without some degree of serious thought. I think I'm on track here, but would appreciate some thoughtful perspectives to this by someone.

I have been following your various posts, and I think these are very interesting ideas and I can see where you are coming from. However, I am pretty fundamentalist in my approach to religion and life - going by some of the things you have said characterise fundamentalist patterns of thought in earlier posts (I am very literalist in my understandings of Who God is, the reality of the Devil, the battle between good and evil being waged over my and all our souls, dark forces out to get me, desire to return to a previous ideal from which just about everybody else has strayed, strong sense of the importance of maintaining in-group and out-group distinctions and purity) - yet I do not see my fundamentalism as a disease, as something which interferes with my ability to live my life and interact with others. Moreover, I see my fundamentalism as a higher stage of spiritual development, not a lower stage.

 

[Windwalker]

I have been following your various posts, and I think these are very interesting ideas and I can see where you are coming from.

I have noticed. Thank you for the likes.

However, I am pretty fundamentalist in my approach to religion and life - going by some of the things you have said characterise fundamentalist patterns of thought in earlier posts (I am very literalist in my understandings of Who God is, the reality of the Devil, the battle between good and evil being waged over my and all our souls, dark forces out to get me, desire to return to a previous ideal from which just about everybody else has strayed, strong sense of the importance of maintaining in-group and out-group distinctions and purity) - yet I do not see my fundamentalism as a disease

Very simple answer to you my friend. I don't see what you are describing as being a fundamentalist. It's what I was saying in my last two posts. What you are describing is simply a particular stage of faith, as I pointed to in the link I provided. This is not abnormal, not an aberration, not a fixation, etc. Being "literal" is not what makes someone a fundamentalist. Being in a battle being good and evil is not what defines fundamentalism. These are characteristic of Fowler's Mythic-Literal stage, covering stage 2 and 3, the traditionalist stage. I go into some detail of how actual fundamentalism is a failure to integrate things from the previous stage. I can't repeat all that again, so you may want to look again and how I distinguish the two from each other and why I do.

Moreover, I see my fundamentalism as a higher stage of spiritual development, not a lower stage.

Again, I don't think you probably actually are, since for one thing you've been liking my posts. That's gotta say something right there! One thing to bear in mind, there's always a higher stage. It's not a matter of thinking someone is "better" than another. It's all necessary and good. Life alone is reason to humble each and everyone of us. None are better than another in being themselves. Truth.

 

[Shad]

Yes it is. I says that ultimate reality is non-theistic.

No you are describing what it isn't as if this was a description of what it actually is. This makes it part of a category not a model itself.