As I stated in The Rise of fundamentalism I, fundamentalism concerns not only interpretation of texts, but also the nature of beliefs. The claim is that fundamentalism as it is popularly defined, is reactionary by nature.  Fundamentalist beliefs are reactionary because as we learn more and more about the world around us through science, psychology and philosophy, the fundamentalist is forced to either change with the new understanding, or hold fast against change altogether.  Because of this, fundamentalism as a form of belief is a reaction to either one’s own beliefs, the beliefs others, or both.  As a fundamentalist, one’s own belief becomes antiquated and the fundamentalist is forced to call forth tradition or blind faith to justify his beliefs.  If the fundamentalist chooses to hold fast, and others allow their beliefs to evolve or disappear altogether, the belief splits and factions are created. Typically, the result of one or both of these consequences is that fundamentalists are forced to react to their own doubt, the doubt of others, or both.  All religious beliefs, liberal or not, are fundamental by nature.

As new interpretations of religious beliefs evolve, the limited interpretation of religious fundamentalists becomes viewed as old-fashioned and backwards.  This viewpoint becomes interpreted by the fundamentalist as an attack on religious belief as a whole rather than an attack on his belief alone. If I as a fundamentalist am viewed as backward and old-fashioned, I am forced to justify my belief.  That justification, seen as not being necessary by me, is seen as necessary by those around me.  In turn, the fact that I am asked to justify my beliefs and the fact that I cannot do so is seen as an attack.  The rhetoric coming from evangelicals and other religious believers is just this sort.  To be asked to justify one’s beliefs is to claim that the credibility and the plausibility of those beliefs are in doubt.  Therefore, instead of admitting that they cannot justify their beliefs in any useable way, they hide behind the cloak of religion, and claim that it is all religion that is being attacked.  The rhetoric is slight.  This both frees them from the full responsibility of justifying unjustifiable claims and creates a division between religious and non-religious peoples rather than religious fundamentalists and religious liberals.

The argument that religious beliefs are under attack by a secular society has been argued to be untrue.[1]  However, what are under attack are fundamental beliefs and factions.  These sorts of fundamental beliefs are not simply the latest Islamic inculcation, but all fundamentalist beliefs.  The reason for the attack is that fundamentalists do not allow for any interpretation other than their own.  But rather than admitting this and creating a divide between themselves and other more liberal approaches to religion, the fundamentalist is forced to join hands with the devil as it were.  They understand that there is strength in numbers.  While the atheist may claim that all religion is detrimental, he can allow for its existence and be tolerant of those who choose religion over rationality.  This point is hidden under religious rhetoric from fundamentalists that claim that all religion is under attack rather than their own particular brand of belief.  What is inevitable, however, is that all religious belief eventually becomes fundamental in the sense that it becomes antiquated.  There are clear lines and relations between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.  Forms of Judaism are now seen as antiquated, just as forms of Christianity are becoming viewed as being backward and morally unjustifiable.  It is important to remember that at one time, one could be put to death for not accepting Christianity just as at one point one could receive the death penalty for not accepting the Greek gods and goddesses.  Historically all religious belief becomes antiquated, out-dated, and eventually is forced to become reactionary.

Fundamentalism does not allow for broad interpretations of religious texts.  Rather the interpretation becomes “strict” in the sense that each religious faction has its own interpretation that is to be accepted as non-questionable and accepted prima facie.  Universal statements are problematic in regard to religious belief because of the inherent contradiction and ignorance inherent in religious belief.  The inherent contradiction becomes more and more apparent as humanity is able to find more credible evidence and more plausible explanations for its existence, meaning, and epistemology.  At one time, religion was humanity’s science, but was forced to give way to better methods and more exact analysis just as at one time, religion was humanity’s sole source of morality, but was forced to give way to more reasonable forms of ethical theories.  As human knowledge and perspective broadened, human belief systems were forced to plea for acceptance through ignorance.  As religion evolves from sole source, to secondary source, to optional source, it is forced to rely more and more on faith, the acceptance of propositions without justification (ignorance). With each change, liberality is born and with each new evolution fundamentalism is born: the liberal becoming fundamental as new and improved liberal forms of belief are born out of necessity.  Each form of religious belief must define itself by defining boundaries that differentiate it from other forms of religious belief.  The only way a religion can define itself is through its interpretation of the foundational religious texts that it claims.  As those foundations become ridiculous, the religion becomes fundamental.

When absolutes are desired, reasons that make those absolutes become less important than the desire for the absolute.  The cycle of sole-liberal-fundamental religion stems from the necessity of all religious propositions to be absolute.  Religious arguments cannot change their conclusions based on evidence, but they can change their evidence to fit their conclusions, which is exactly what they do.  This is closely related to something known in logical circles as confirming the consequent.  The religious consequent, interpretation x is the right interpretation etc…, cannot be changed.  Such illogical arguments can only survive short periods of time given that they can be recognized by society (a problem itself).  Given that illogical arguments soon become extinct, what is left is the desire for those arguments to be valid, rather than evidence to strengthen the validity of those arguments. When emotion becomes the sole “evidence” for one’s beliefs, blind passion becomes the foundation rather than cool and collected analysis. The desire for one’s beliefs to be true has been shown to be stronger than the recognition of truth itself.  Human beings tend to believe what they desire rather than what is actually true.  This is problematic, especially if one cannot recognize or differentiate the desire for truth from truth itself.  Fundamental religious beliefs have their basis in just such desire, and therefore, the passionate reactions of religious believers would seem to be nothing more than emotional outbursts by people who have lost the ability to differentiate reason from emotion.

Fundamentalism in the religious context is a reaction to the growth and evolution of human knowledge. It is unable to liberate itself from blind faith and ignorance.  Furthermore, it is unable to liberate itself from broken arguments because of their absolute nature.  In creating a paradigm in which absolute statements are to be accepted imperatively, fundamentalism has dug its own grave: it is forced to accept slow death by antiquity, becoming seen as more and more ridiculous as newer forms of its old beliefs become accepted.  However, the new forms will inevitably become seen as antiquated as well, becoming forms of fundamental beliefs as well.  Because of this vicious cycle all forms of religious beliefs are inevitable reactionary, one reacting to the other as one becomes antiquated because of the birth of another.  Fundamentalists however, try to circumvent what is solely a religious problem, by claiming the all religious beliefs are being attacked by the “secular” society.  This is simply not the case.  Fundamentalism grows as more and more “liberal” religious beliefs become antiquated by the innumerable new interpretations of religious texts, creating new forms of fundamentalism.  The “war against religion” should be changed to “the war between religions”, which is what it has been all along.

 

 

The Rise of Fundamentalism II (The War Between Religions)    2/11/2008