What Causes People to be Fundamentalist?

[johnhanks]

Is being a "fundamentalist" a bad thing? I don't see it as such.

It becomes a 'bad thing' only when fundamentalists seek to impose restrictions arising from their beliefs on the way others live their lives.

 

[Willamena]

In any religion. What causes a person to take their religious book the most literally one can possibly take it? What causes a person to demean and rail people who aren't their religion? What makes people feel they should shove their beliefs on others? In other words- why do people become fundamentalist? Is it insecurity issues? I just don't know. Why would somebody want to take the extreme position?

In my opinion, these qualities do not characterize the fundamentlist; but that said, the answer is the truth. Knowing the truth causes these things --and if in reply you think "No! It's just a truth they think they know!" then you are sitting in their boat, right beside them. A boat you've made for them, and now for you.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I generally tend to have more respect for the fundamentalist than the moderate. The moderate believes their holy book to be true, yet picks and chooses bits they like, ignoring bits they don't and reading meaning into other parts until their purported meaning has little in common with the actual text it is drawn from. (or inserted into..)

At least the fundamentalist, believing his holy book to be true, has the intellectual honesty and internal fortitude to take the good with the bad.

 

[Jeremiah]

I generally tend to have more respect for the fundamentalist than the moderate. The moderate believes their holy book to be true, yet picks and chooses bits they like, ignoring bits they don't and reading meaning into other parts until their purported meaning has little in common with the actual text it is drawn from. (or inserted into..)

At least the fundamentalist, believing his holy book to be true, has the intellectual honesty and internal fortitude to take the good with the bad.

I myself am in favor of the individual who, using their brain, takes the good from a religious text but leaves the bad. Rather then a mindless zombie who just unquestionably takes the good and bad as one.

 

[Jeremiah]

In any religion. What causes a person to take their religious book the most literally one can possibly take it? What causes a person to demean and rail people who aren't their religion? What makes people feel they should shove their beliefs on others? In other words- why do people become fundamentalist? Is it insecurity issues? I just don't know. Why would somebody want to take the extreme position?

I believe it has been shown that education and worldliness is related to fundamentalism. The more educated and worldly the individual the less likely they are to be a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism probably, primarily, comes from a very controlled and shelter childhood.

 

[JMorris]

IMO the modern world does'nt match the world of a said religion so as a remedy they go back to the basics

if modern science largely disproves the claims of your religion, then create a society in which modern science dosent exist, or atleast isnt known.

 

[Sahar]

I generally tend to have more respect for the fundamentalist than the moderate. The moderate believes their holy book to be true, yet picks and chooses bits they like, ignoring bits they don't and reading meaning into other parts until their purported meaning has little in common with the actual text it is drawn from. (or inserted into..)

At least the fundamentalist, believing his holy book to be true, has the intellectual honesty and internal fortitude to take the good with the bad.

Well, I won't define the moderate as the one who picks and chooses. I don't see moderate as opposite to fundamentalist. If fundamentalist means accepting his holy book as the truth and sticking to its teachings equally without picking and choosing then all Muslims should be fundamentalists. "Fundamentalist" was coined in the context of a secular society that expect others to abandon their religion (Christianity to be more specific) in the public life and who adhere to his religion is labeled by this term as if it has a negative connotation or something. Now the term "fundamentalist" is generalized and as I said I have no problem with it. If taking religion seriously and believing it has a role in the public sphere of life as well as the private one, then I can't view this as a bad thing at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In any religion. What causes a person to take their religious book the most literally one can possibly take it? What causes a person to demean and rail people who aren't their religion? What makes people feel they should shove their beliefs on others? In other words- why do people become fundamentalist? Is it insecurity issues? I just don't know. Why would somebody want to take the extreme position?

The mindset that says "if religion is good, then more religion is better", maybe?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Fundamentalist" was coined in the context of a secular society that expect others to abandon their religion (Christianity to be more specific) in the public life and who adhere to his religion is labeled by this term as if it has a negative connotation or something. Now the term "fundamentalist" is generalized and as I said I have no problem with it.

FYI - for those that are interested, here's an article on the origins of the term "fundamentalist": Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The most common definition of "fundamentalist" is someone who adheres to a strict set of religious principles or rules. Whether this approach is good or bad depends entirely on whether the principles themselves are good or bad, and whether this means that a non-fundamentalist has "abandoned their religion" depends entirely on whether those principles agree with the basic tenets of the religion.

In some cases, I'd argue that a rigid approach to religious matters "abandons the religion" more than a flexible approach.

 

[England my lionheart]

if modern science largely disproves the claims of your religion, then create a society in which modern science dosent exist, or atleast isnt known.

And go back to the basics of whatever religion it is,the bare boned no frills like in Saudi Arabia where they've managed to turn the clock back 1400 years by my estimation

 

[JMorris]

And go back to the basics of whatever religion it is,the bare boned no frills like in Saudi Arabia where they've managed to turn the clock back 1400 years by my estimation

well, they still get to use computers, airplanes, & other 21st century tech. because.........? seems rather hypocritical to me

 

[England my lionheart]

well, they still get to use computers, airplanes, & other 21st century tech. because.........? seems rather hypocritical to me

I agree it is,i try and think of an excuse for it but cannot think of one,that goes for all religions that believe that their said religion is a cure all for everyone

 

[Father Heathen]

In any religion. What causes a person to take their religious book the most literally one can possibly take it? What causes a person to demean and rail people who aren't their religion? What makes people feel they should shove their beliefs on others? In other words- why do people become fundamentalist? Is it insecurity issues? I just don't know. Why would somebody want to take the extreme position?

Strict indoctrination starting at early childhood that conditioned rigid and unquestioning adherence into them, coupled with being completely isolated from outside influences. Also, peoples idea of "God" tends to be a projection of their own emotions and egos.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

If the common belief is true then what could possibly be wrong with taking it to the extreme? If it's true that God exists and he created the universe what harm could there be in teaching it in science class along side evolution or in place of evolution as the fundamentalist suggests? Believers believe God created the universe and then label those that act on that belief as fundamentalist extremists. Go figure. At least the fundamentalist is true to his beliefs. The believer waffles by saying they believe God created the universe but that it shouldn't be taught in place of evolution. What's going on in the mind of the believer?

I am still baffled at this. I started to make a new thread about it, but then realized it still belonged here. lol.

Basically what some of you are saying is:

X,Y,Z (religion) contains extremes and doctrine outside of social norms which would violate the social contract.

Moderates pick and choose to eliminate the extremes to make it more socially acceptable.

Fundamentalists wholly accept and follow all of their subscribed religion, both the good and the bad.

Therefore, fundamentalism has more... um, fortitude? versus moderates... less hypocrisy? More strength of character?

I am actually trying to make sure I understand this argument here.

If the way I understand it is true. I still can't fly with it. I personally see vital value in the evolution of ideas, the betterment of ideas, and the remanefestation of everything. Stagnation is not progress.

The moment one says that they have a perfect something, a whole truth, or the best there is, they have sealed their fate. They have killed their ability to create more, to become more, and to be anything more. This universe and our existence is too vast and complex for there not be more.

 

[dogsgod]

The belief in an invisible God that created the universe is as extreme as it gets.

 

[ericoh2]

If the common belief is true then what could possibly be wrong with taking it to the extreme? If it's true that God exists and he created the universe what harm could there be in teaching it in science class along side evolution or in place of evolution as the fundamentalist suggests? Believers believe God created the universe and then label those that act on that belief as fundamentalist extremists. Go figure. At least the fundamentalist is true to his beliefs. The believer waffles by saying they believe God created the universe but that it shouldn't be taught in place of evolution. What's going on in the mind of the believer?

I think the problem in fundamentalism lies in forgetting that their religion is simply a belief and treat it as though it is a known fact. Maybe moderates are less fundamental because deep down there is still an element of doubt/skepticism. Not to mention the various ways that scripture is interpreted by other religions. The fundamentalist approach doesn't seem to take any of this into consideration, at least not very seriously.

 

[Apollonius]

I think the problem in fundamentalism lies in forgetting that their religion is simply a belief and treat it as though it is a known fact.

Belief should be held as if a fact, .. after all, this is what the term 'faith' implies.

 

[ericoh2]

Belief should be held as if a fact, .. after all, this is what the term 'faith' implies.

I guess that depends on what faith means to you. I tend to separate the words faith and belief for communication purposes. Belief being acceptance of something that you've been taught without knowing its truthfulness and faith being a trust and acceptance in life as a whole. In my view of faith, there is no dogma that must be believed but is rather an approach to how someone lives his/her life. But I guess it really depends on how someone personally defines these words in this case.

 

[Apollonius]

I guess that depends on what faith means to you. I tend to separate the words faith and belief for communication purposes. Belief being acceptance of something that you've been taught without knowing its truthfulness and faith being a trust and acceptance in life as a whole. In my view of faith, there is no dogma that must be believed but is rather an approach to how someone lives his/her life. But I guess it really depends on how someone personally defines these words in this case.

I'm rather fond of what a certain Hindu taught regarding belief, that such merely serves as a guide by which to discover the truth. Of course, once truth is discovered belief is no longer necessary.

 

[AxisMundi]

I generally tend to have more respect for the fundamentalist than the moderate. The moderate believes their holy book to be true, yet picks and chooses bits they like, ignoring bits they don't and reading meaning into other parts until their purported meaning has little in common with the actual text it is drawn from. (or inserted into..)

At least the fundamentalist, believing his holy book to be true, has the intellectual honesty and internal fortitude to take the good with the bad.

Um, I wouldn't exactly call ignoring simple science and plain logic to support one's fundamentalist biblical view to be "intellectual honesty".