In recent discussions and in books concerning the nature of religious belief, what has been called the rise of fundamentalism in religion has been considered to be on an upswing. Those religions that historically adhered to a literal interpretation of religious texts have been considered most fundamental in their beliefs, and those that have taken a more liberal interpretation of them have been considered to be less dogmatic.  However, fundamentalism is not only about interpretation of texts, it also concerns the belief of people who consider themselves fundamentalists (religiously speaking) that their religious belief is being attacked in some form or fashion.  In other words, fundamentalism as it is popularly defined, is reactionary by nature.  Fundamentalist beliefs can be a reaction to one’s fear, one’s doubt concerning religious belief, or can be a reaction to what is perceived to be an outside threat, such as the supposed growth in secularism in today’s American society. Fundamentalism as a form of belief is a reaction, then, to either ones own beliefs, the beliefs others, or both.

           When the word fundamentalism is used, it is usually referring to religion.  That is to say that there are fundamental laws of science, but those scientists that adhere to such laws are not considered “fundamentalists”.  Rather they are considered good scientists.  On the other hand, those that adhere strictly to one or another religious text are considered “fundamentalists” in the sense that they strip any extra interpretive senses from the actual religious texts.  The fundamentalist, then, can be said to be fundamentally a religious phenomenon.  The fundamentalist is the person who does not allow for a broad interpretation of religious texts, especially if that text is the basis of his or her belief.  Any such interpretation is generally met with strong aversion by the fundamentalist.  The Episcopalian religion generally allows for a much broader interpretation of the bible than does the Baptist, for example.  The difference is that while the Episcopalian might allow the Baptist interpretation, the Baptist will most likely not allow the Episcopalian’s interpretation.  In this sense, the Baptist is more a fundamentalist than is the Episcopalian.  Fundamentalists generally allow for a much more limited interpretation of religious texts than those religious peoples who are not fundamentalists.

            The fundamentalist is limited in their interpretation of religious texts, usually by the church leader, or their own allowances.  While a fundamentalist might read the text and take meaning from it directly, the more liberal religionist might read the text and allow for metaphors and symbolism. The use of metaphors and symbolism as being valid tools of argumentation is becoming more and more common as the religious texts themselves become more and more antiquated.  Adherents of intelligent design theories tend to rely upon metaphors and symbolism in order bolster their arguments that the universe is willfully designed by a god.  There use of literary devices allows them to conclude that not only is the universe designed by a god, but is in their opinion, designed by a specific god: the Christian God.  The fundamentalist would allow this conclusion, but at the same time not allow the literary devices.  While the believer in intelligent design might allow that the earth is eight billion years old, the fundamentalist would not because of her strict adherence to religious texts.  This creates friction between the fundamentalist and the believer in intelligent design.

           Every religious believer is a fundamentalist in some sense.  That is to say, every religious believer is reactionary religiously speaking.  This is because religious propositions are based on a fundamental truth: that there is a god that exists and deserves to be worshipped in some way.  If this religious proposition is doubted than the religious person is forced to add credibility to the reasons that they give for their belief, and the plausibility of the conclusion (that there is in fact a god).  This single necessary conclusion for all religionists is the basis for fundamentalism and so all religionists are fundamentalists if their religion includes such a belief.  To say that every religious believer is a reactionary means that they hold this one belief to be trueno matter what, and that any argument against that belief must be proven wrong no matter what.  The “no matter what” nature of religious belief is what forces all fundamentalism to be reactionary by nature.  The scientist, for example, is not necessarily a reactionary because she can point towards the credible reasoning in her argument even though the conclusion of that argument is attacked and may even change given enough alternative credible premises.  The fundamentalist, in putting forth reasons for the existence of God (the necessary conclusion of all fundamentalist arguments), is not at liberty to change the conclusion, and so must continually change the reasoning that is used to warrant his conclusion.  With every change in the reasoning while adhering to the necessary conclusion, the argument becomes weakened.  The fundamentalist, in not allowing a broader interpretation of religious texts is forced to react in non-rational ways in order to defend his original and necessary conclusion.

           If an argument is shown enough times to be weak or invalid, then doubt is inevitable.  In such cases, the fundamentalist must react to his own doubt, creating anger and/or fear.  At the same time the fundamentalist is faced with the task of defending an indefensible argument to the world, and is forced to do so in order to hold a belief that is doubted in his own mind.  Many fundamentalists turn to the familiar adage that faith is the cornerstone of truth.  While this is contradictory to any rationally thinking person, it must be accepted by the fundamentalist in reaction to their own belief and to the viewpoints concerning that belief by the world around them.  The fundamentalist has a dilemma: allow a broader interpretation of religious texts and in doing so, allow for a more liberal and hence weaker argument, or adhere to the fundamental belief and accept the contradiction that is inherent in such a belief.  The liberal interpretation is a weaker argument because it allows for vague and ambiguous propositions to be considered as fact, and the fundamentalist’s belief is weak because it must accept contradiction as being inherent in the argument.

           Many religious people argue that secularism is on the rise in countries such as the United states, but according authors such as Karen Armstrong (The Battle for God) and Sam Harris (The End of Faith) this is not true.  If fundamentalism is on the rise, then there must be reasons for its upsurge.  On possible cause is that in times of hardship, people tend to want something solid, a fundamental basis if you will, for their life and/or their environment.  Fundamentalism offers just such a basis.  When absolutes are desired, reasons that make those absolutes become less important than the desire for the absolute.  This acceptance of absolutes based on nothing but desire is a direct result of a reaction to one’s fear, one’s doubt concerning religious belief, or can be a reaction to what is perceived to be an outside threat.  Such fallacious reasoning is typically referred to as wishful thinking. It is a reaction to one’s own desires.  A fundamentalist belief allows the individual to simply state that their belief “is true” prima facie rather than accept doubt about the belief, and then develop credible reasons for believing in the first place.  The belief becomes true simply because the individual wants it to be true.  As science breaks down fundamental questions concerning the universe, the existence of humanity becomes less and less centralized: life and any meaning that individuals may have given it becomes less plausible, and doubt as well as fear ensues.  This doubt and fear breaks down the need for rational thought and creates the need for quick and easy fixes such as fundamentalism.  The rise of fundamentalism is ironically caused by the rise in our ability as human beings to understand and explain our surroundings.  Fundamentalism is a reaction to the growth and evolution of human knowledge.