Quote of the day

The sudden assertion of human criteria within a dehumanising framework of political manipulation can be like a flash of lightning illuminating a dark landscape

Vaclav Havel

Syndicate content

Login

Login or Register to be identified in your comments

Everydaylifemodern

Email & RSS

Sign up to oD's editorial summaries email:



Follow oD on Twitter


Add oD to your Netvibes: Add to Netvibes

openDemocracy likes

Fundamentalism--and some distinctions


Posts: 243
Joined: 2004-08-22
A good article from the NYT of Jan 9, regarding the resurgence of religions world-wide but the decline of fundamentalisms, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/weekinreview/09good.html?oref=login "What does all this rising religiosity add up to? It is easy to assume that a more religious world means a more fractious world, where violent conflict is fueled by violent fundamentalist movements. But some religion experts say that while it is clear that religiosity is on the rise, it is not at all clear that fundamentalism is. Indeed, there may be a rising backlash against violent fundamentalism of any faith. The world's fastest growing religion is not any type of fundamentalism, but the Pentecostal wing of Christianity. While Christian fundamentalists are focused on doctrine and the inerrancy of Scripture, , what is most important for Pentecostals is what they call "spirit-filled" worship, including speaking in tongues and miracle healing. Brazil, where American missionaries planted Pentecostalism in the early 20th century, now has a congregation with its owns TV station, soccer team and political party. ... in the United States today, most of the Protestants who make up what some call the Christian right are not fundamentalists, who are more prone to create separatist enclaves, but evangelicals, who engage the culture and share their faith." Message was edited by: Hobbes


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Posts: 383
Joined: 2004-04-01
Re: Fundamentalism--and some distinctions
Hobbes, Ah, yes. Speaking in tongues and claims of miraculous healing. The world feels safer and less insane already… In the article, Thomas Farr is quoted as saying: “The American government is poorly prepared to make the necessary distinctions between what is merely religious fervour and what is potentially dangerous fundamentalism.” But it’s not at all clear to me how one can make soothing distinctions between “fundamentalists” who claim the inerrancy of scripture and create separate enclaves and "fervent" believers who revel in hysteria and actively “share their faith.” The profound irrationality and underlying absolutist psychology is much the same. I notice that the author, Laurie Goodstein, makes one less reassuring concession: “There is little doubt that one fundamentalism can feed another, spurring recruitment and escalating into a sort of religious arms race.” This is what appears to be happening in Britain, with each theological tribe feeling either persecuted or emboldened and demanding greater sanctions and exemptions than the next.



Posts: 299
Joined: 2004-08-17
Re: Fundamentalism--and some distinctions
"Ah, yes. Speaking in tongues and claims of miraculous healing. The world feels safer and less insane already..." I happen to follow (not witness) some miraculous events and I was in contact with people who witnessed those miracles. After a brief period of inspiration, they enter a very short time of doubt and rapidly went into denial; afterwards they conveniently forgot the whole subject. I am not quite sure where to place the insanity label here; in accepting that it was a miracle at all or in the behavior of people in relation to the miracle. I might suggest that the rising of religiosity (and fundamentalism, as a consequence) is related to the need of people to belong to groups and the lack of meaning provided by modern life. Certainly an irrational feeling…



Posts: 299
Joined: 2004-08-17
Re: Fundamentalism--and some distinctions
In my post about the answers provided by religions to modern day man I forgot to mention a very important detail. People do want what religion offers, but they are not ready to lose what modern society offers. In fact there is an "adaptation" of religious precepts to accommodate the realities of "secular capitalism", be that in a material way or even concerning values and ideas.



Posts: 243
Joined: 2004-08-22
Re: Fundamentalism--and some distinctions
"I have many times witnessed the refusal a priori of even considering the possibility of "impossible" (improbable) occurrences. This position is not very scientific, since you cannot claim to know everything possible and impossible in the physical world. The "correct" scientific posture would be to analyze the data without preconceptions." Eduardo-- David's namesake, the philosopher Hume (who wrote about miracles) would make the point that we can't be scientists (or skeptics) all day long, so we have to rely on habits. We don't have the time to test all our presuppositions, so we have to take a fair number of things on trust (an attitude distinguishable, but barely, from faith). Similarly, we can't check out all the reports of miracles, so most of us treat the reports with the same skepticism we treat other rumors and items in the news, duly allowing for credulity, hyperbole, mass delusion and other distorting effects. So while we might want to be "free from preconceptions" in theory, in practice it's not practical. As a German philosopher remarked recently, if the Second Coming were to occur tomorrow, it would be reported in the media, alongside sports scores and stock quotations, and would most likely be filed under "Celebrity News." Message was edited by: Hobbes



Posts: 299
Joined: 2004-08-17
Re: Fundamentalism--and some distinctions
Hobbes, You said, "[] we can't be scientists (or skeptics) all day long, so we have to rely on habits. We don't have the time to test all our presuppositions, so we have to take a fair number of things on trust (an attitude distinguishable, but barely, from faith). Similarly, we can't check out all the reports of miracles, so most of us treat the reports with the same skepticism we treat other rumors []" You are correct in your analysis of what happens in reality. Yet it is not the ideal attitude. Someone once used this example: If you are doing a complex puzzle that you do not even know the image, and you pick up pieces that might belong to the puzzle or not, what do you do? Normally (and that is what you said) you would make an assumption about if a piece belongs to the puzzle or not. You discard the ones you think are "wrong" and you force the "right" ones to connect to the others. Obviously you are never going to complete the puzzle this way. The ideal attitude would be not to discard any piece, and not to accept any other as being right and force them to a position. You simply lay the pieces in front of you until you have enough information to find out the true image and assemble the puzzle. Only then you will know the ones that don't belong there. Or as I said in another thread: is our brain so small that it cannot store several theories about a certain thing? Why do we have to accept or deny things? If you do not have the possibility of checking the information, why discard it by skepticism or accept it by trust? Either way you are prone to make mistakes.


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options