What is the Root of the World's Fundamentalist Religions?

[Sunstone]

According to at least one scholar, there are fundamentalist strains within at least four of the world's major religions: Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. If so, this would suggest to me that fundamentalism has some sort of psychological basis. That is, a basis in something, such as human psychology, that transcends any particular religion. For if fundamentalism were wholly a product of religion, then we would not likely see it in more than one religion, and certainly not in dissimilar religions.

So what is the ultimate basis of fundamentalism?

I lean towards thinking of fundamentalism as based or rooted in two distinct personality types. First, the authoritarian leader personality type, and second the authoritarian follower personality type. In fact, there seems to be little about fundamentalism that ultimately cannot be in whole or part explained as a product of those two personality types. Especially if one recognizes that fundamentalist religions are more or less religions "as seen through the eyes of" those two types.

So, for instance, fundamentalist Christianity is Christianity "as seen through the eyes of" authoritarian personality types. Fundamentalist Judaism is Judaism "as seen through the eyes of" authoritarian personality types. And so on....

Last, fundamentalism not only transcends any particular religion, but it transcends religion all together. This is consistent with it being rooted in -- not any specific religiosity -- but a type of personality. So, for instance, both Nazism and Soviet Style Communism are essentially political systems built by authoritarians and, in effect, secular fundamentalisms.

But what do you think are the roots of fundamentalism? Why?

 

[Augustus]

But what do you think are the roots of fundamentalism? Why?

A mixture of personality and societal conditions, but not necessarily the same ones for all fundies.

Some people strive for certainty and a frame of reference in which everything makes sense and the solutions to life's problems are clear cut. Society's problems are caused by corrupt or evil individuals not following our true nature and if they could be brought into line then everything would be wonderful. People in general don't like uncertainty and disorder, and fundamentalism removes these.

It can also be an ego thing, a kind of religious snobbery. Anyone in society can look down on others for their lack of piety. As such it is a tool of empowerment in many places within marginalised communities affording the ability to look down on others who normally look down on you.

Societal conditions can make such views (religious and non-religious) more likely, as we see in many places today with fundamentalism, extremism, xenophobia, etc. on the rise in any places. Again liked to uncertainty loss of control, perceived political disenfranchisement, etc.

Probably many other reasons also I would imagine.

 

[DawudTalut]

...
So what is the ultimate basis of fundamentalism?......But what do you think are the roots of fundamentalism? Why?

=Unbalanced diet, lack of sports in early years
=Bad influence of friends and family
=Lack of certain vitamins
=Not understanding religion in contemporary world
=Not studying nature
=Only studying religious material; inability to understand the basic message of religion
=Rigid teachers who suppress even respectful questions
=Fundamentalism can be of full denial of religion too: It is due to not learning religion in early years along with worldly education; it cause dis-balance.
=Lack of general tolerance
=Getting everything by force attitude
=Vested-interest-support-getting religious schools
=Being toyed in the hands of various groups [politicians, arms dealers, mafias etc]

 

[wizanda]

But what do you think are the roots of fundamentalism? Why?

To begin with, we'd have to start with you seem to be defining extremism; not fundamentalism....As authoritarian leaders often lead to extremist views.

Think fundamentalism, might have something to do with the text stating you will be judged by if you're following the text, not the deity....

So Islam is terrible for worshiping the book, 'the book is perfect', 'the book is Allah's word'.... So people aren't interested in understanding what God wants them to do, they're bothered about following the book to the letter.

Judaism the same, where orthodox Rabbinic Judaism is determined to follow the Law precisely; so much so, they've created tons of additional literature, to explain the explanations.

Christianity trying to return to its Pharisaic Jewish roots, starts trying to comprehend the Tanakh, and believing that all words of the Bible are there to correct, and teach; thus they start over zealously dismantling the Bible, to follow the text to the letter.

After we get to understanding, how they've become brainwashed by their fundamentalist view point that the text has to be as they interpret it, else their whole world collapses; we can see why they become extremist to push their views on to everyone else, as they believe that they have the truth.

So the problem is that people are trying to establish the truth first, rather than 'In this world full of lies; it is far easier to establish the fallacy in a subject first, before trying to establish the truth, built upon lies.'

 

[Corthos]

From my personal experience, it seems that this "personality type" is something that can be cultivated over time. This was something that I felt at one time myself, as I was brought up in a fundamentalist/legalistic church; a few years away from it has helped to free my mind, and my spirit, however.

It's amazing how tiny one allows their world to get. No matter how amazing or complex a book is, it will always be limited when compared to the scope and grandeur that the world outside of it has to offer. This is especially true as our knowledge of this world grows exponentially.

I really do feel as though it is a form of brain washing, IMO: whether it's self imposed, or imposed by others. It is also a very harmful thing to the spirit. =/

 

[FearGod]

According to at least one scholar, there are fundamentalist strains within at least four of the world's major religions: Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. If so, this would suggest to me that fundamentalism has some sort of psychological basis. That is, a basis in something, such as human psychology, that transcends any particular religion. For if fundamentalism were wholly a product of religion, then we would not likely see it in more than one religion, and certainly not in dissimilar religions.

So what is the ultimate basis of fundamentalism?

I lean towards thinking of fundamentalism as based or rooted in two distinct personality types. First, the authoritarian leader personality type, and second the authoritarian follower personality type. In fact, there seems to be little about fundamentalism that ultimately cannot be in whole or part explained as a product of those two personality types. Especially if one recognizes that fundamentalist religions are more or less religions "as seen through the eyes of" those two types.

So, for instance, fundamentalist Christianity is Christianity "as seen through the eyes of" authoritarian personality types. Fundamentalist Judaism is Judaism "as seen through the eyes of" authoritarian personality types. And so on....

Last, fundamentalism not only transcends any particular religion, but it transcends religion all together. This is consistent with it being rooted in -- not any specific religiosity -- but a type of personality. So, for instance, both Nazism and Soviet Style Communism are essentially political systems built by authoritarians and, in effect, secular fundamentalisms.

But what do you think are the roots of fundamentalism? Why?

I see it more to a political movements than a religious one, the origin of the word is fund + mental

 

[mindlight]

But what do you think are the roots of fundamentalism? Why?

As a Christian I hold to the fundamentals of my religion. In a morally relativistic age people reject the certainty with which I hold to my beliefs. I have no desire to lord it over others as my religion teaches me that authority also brings responsibility and I have responsibility enough thank you. So not sure I agree with your definition of fundamentalism. It seems to me that this theme is more to do with the rejection of a certain type of personality type and therefore has little to do with the truth or otherwise of their religions particular claims.

 

[wizanda]

the origin of the word is fund + mental

late Middle English: from French fondamental, or late Latin fundamentalis, from Latin fundamentum, from fundare ‘to found’.

 

[LuisDantas]

Fundamentalism is largely misguided longing for security.

In that sense it is much like nationalism, patriotism or war mobilization. It is a powerful yet inherently wrong desire to be a part of something greater than ourselves as a way of overcoming fears that one can't very well dispell in other ways.

Social and family pressure are a very big part of it. And it is not at all easy to be healed by reason, at least in the short term - yet that is indeed the way to deal with it. But it takes building a critical mass to ease the social pressure. Or else wait until the cicle of misery that fundamentalism demands fulfills itself until people have the pressure out of their systems and can listen some.

 

[FearGod]

View attachment 11950
late Middle English: from French fondamental, or late Latin fundamentalis, from Latin fundamentum, from fundare ‘to found’.

I think the origin word in french should be fond + mental, because the same word in Arabic have the same meaning
which is الاصولية, their minds are funded with specific information which made them as one group, it is the opposite
of "thinking out of the box"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Indoctrination and/or an inability to deal with ambiguity.

 

[LuisDantas]

May you elaborate?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

May you elaborate?

I suspect that the 'indoctrination' part is self evident.

As for being ambiguity-averse, I believe that some require the ease and security of a simplistic, decision-free belief systems where all of the answers are, either, in the book, or intentionally hidden.

 

[LuisDantas]

Indoctrination is a worthy subject for some reflection, IMO. I understand that it is just the way things are supposed to be for some people, and something to avoid if at all possible for many others.

 

[Jiddanand]

When there was nothing. The Creator was. Alone. Mystified. Then He started everything you see.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that this theme is more to do with the rejection of a certain type of personality type and therefore has little to do with the truth or otherwise of their religions particular claims.

A close reading of the OP might reveal that the thread is about the psychological roots of fudamentalism, and does not claim to be anything else.

 

[Jiddanand]

Truth is the base of all fundamental Religions.

 

[mindlight]

A close reading of the OP might reveal that the thread is about the psychological roots of fudamentalism, and does not claim to be anything else.

There are people who believe in lies stubbornly and there are people who believe in truth stubbornly. There is no one psychological profile that captures each one of these.

 

[LuisDantas]

Truth is the base of all fundamental Religions.

That may or may not be true, but it does not address the question of the opening post of this thread.

I'm not sure what you mean by fundamental religion, but it is more than likely not meant to be fundamentalist religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Truth is the base of all fundamental Religions.

If there is any truth here it's that "fundamental Religions" =/= "Fundamentalist Religions."