• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Problem of religion

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Religion. Defintion. 1. A worldview about ethics or how people should behave. 2. about metaphysics or the nature of the world that is discovered by philosophy rather than science or more by abstract reasoning rather than empirical investigation. 3. About eschatology or matters of life after death and spiritual phenomena. 4. Accepts some principles as incontrovertible. The quantity of principles that are regarded as unquestionable determines how much a religion adheres to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the thesis that some views in the worldview are unquestionable. All religions are fundamentalistic by definition, yet because there are degrees of fundamentalism, some are necessarily more fundamentalistic than others.

Religions are dangerous on the account that fundamentalism discourages critical thought. Fundamentalism also encourages people to believe that some of their views are unquestionable. Because they are discouraged from thinking critically, their abstract reasoning faculties are frequently weakened severely. In order to construct an interpretation of a piece of literature, one needs critical thinking skills. When one lacks critical thinking skills, one easily succumbs to wishful thinking and merely interprets the literature in a way that appears pleasing to him or her. For this reason, the religious often interpret the text in a way that in the views of many is sacrilegious or an act of distortion of the scripture. For example, many Muslims believe that those who use Islam to justify violence are distorting the scripture. Is Islam blameless?

No, it is not. Islam has discouraged people from thinking critically inevitably placed them in a position where they are likely to interpret scripture in an undisciplined fashion, or simply put, interpret it however they please. Is Islam intrinsically more objectionable than other creeds? Possibly true, as after all Christians, Jews and Buddhists do not attempt to justify violence nearly as much as Muslims do. However, is this solely the fault of Islam? Possibly because this religion is unopposed by secular authority and the Muslims who commit violence face few intellectual challengers to their views. Christians, however, most prominently in the Western Europe and North America are forced to question their beliefs on a daily basis because they are forced to deal with a separation of a church and state. However, the same could be said with respect to Islam in Europe or in the United States. Notably, Islamic extremists are much more common in the Middle East and Africa than in Europe or the United States. Thus, there are different kinds of Islam and Christianity. Some forms of Islam are more rigid than others, and the same can be said with respect to Christianity.

As a result, can we conclude that Islam is intrinsically more rigid than Christianity? That is unclear. In order to answer this question we would need to know of a one way correct way to interpret both holy books. At this point, such a feat cannot be accomplished. Language and culture in which both of these holy books were written have changed drastically and we lack much of the important information to construct the proper interpretation of both works. Moreover, even if we did, both works are high on figurative, poetical and ambiguous content which makes constructing a plausible interpretation of either of these books an onerous task.

Simply put, we do not know if true Islam is in itself more objectionable than Christianity, as we do not know what the true brand of each religion is. Since we have discovered that we do not know what true Islam is, what do we make of the claim of Muslims who assert that their religion is not to be blamed for the acts of violence that have been committed in the name of Islam. As sincere as they may have been, they are simply mistaken to assert that true Islam is against such acts. They merely confused their interpretation of the Koran for the true religion and it may well be the case that the acts of violence disagree with their Islamic religious views. However, it must be clearly noted that all they can legitimately claim is that the acts of violence merely disagree with their views.

On the one hand, we see that religion, and Islam most prominently, can produce kind and peace loving people, yet on the other, fanatics who are willing to kill thousands in favor of their beliefs. Is religion to be blamed for this? Certainly because this is a result of people believing that their views are incontrovertible. This, however, is not the entirety of the problem. If someone merely believes that their views are indisputably true, he or she will not have the sufficient motivation to kill thousands. After all, a very high degree of aggression is necessary in order for people to behave in such an ignominious manner. Is religion solely responsible for the problem? Certainly not, as there is a variety of reasons why people became intensely aggressive, poverty or oppression are clear-cut examples of such reasons. Does religion contribute to the problem? It certainly does on the account that it discourages people from being open-minded and compels them to believe that they are right only because a sacred text or a divine authority insists that they are.

As a result, they are completely unprepared for the critical thoughts of others whose views disagree with their own. Does this fact lead them to become highly aggressive? Certainly because religion tends to promise great rewards for those who manage to maintain their views. As a result, they become fearful when others question their views and because they lack critical thinking skills, they are unable to approach those who disagree with their views in a civilized manner. Hence, in this respect, religion entails violence.

In addition to Islam, Stalinistic violence is an example of religion entailing violence. Stalinism propounded rigid ethical views which included the maxim that those who abide by them will be greatly rewarded and those who do not will be punished direly. It also propounds several views about the nature of the world (metaphysical) that are philosophical rather than scientific (empirical) in nature. In addition to that, it advocates a worldview that is commonly regarded as Marxist materialism, thus it comments on eschatological matters by vehemently rejecting the thesis that there is life after death. Certainly, it is highly legalistic or fundamentalistic on the account that it accepts many, if not all of its principles as incontrovertible. Stalinism was arguably as legalistic as many groups of contemporary extremist Islam. It is therefore unsurprising that these were the religions guilty of the most violence in the world.

Although religion is not the sole cause of violence, and in many violent acts is not the cause of violence, it is certainly striking that the majority of violent acts today are committed for a religious cause. For this reason, it is important to eradicate religion from contemporary education. All that separates religion from philosophy is the last principle, or the incontrovertibility axiom, which is the proposition that some views must be accepted as unquestionable. If this principle is to be eliminated, the religious influence in the contemporary society will decline significantly.

How can this be accomplished? Should a draconian policy be instituted that bans all educators from teaching religious doctrines or asserting that any particular view is not to be questioned? No, this proposition is likely to violate many fundamental principles of the open society.

This is to be accomplished by restructuring the program of education where critical thinking is emphasized more and no effort is made to convince the children that any view is unquestionable. Slowly, a society will emerge where people will not have a need to believe in things that are unsupported by arguments but merely feel pleasant to believe in. When that is accomplished, there simply will not be any further need for religion.

Religion and the cause for the majority of violent acts today can be eradicated only by virtue of fundamental changes to education. Some political theorists such as Slavoj Zizek, for instance, maintain that we should cease patronizing the religious. We should stop pretending that their views are acceptable only for the sake of being polite. Instead, we should subject their views to a respectful, but ruthless critical analysis of their views. Then and only then will we have bestowed adequate respect upon them becuase only at that point will they be treated like serious adults who are genuinely responsible for their beliefs.

I think that this view is fundamentally wrong-headed. Those adults, especially from third-world countries that are dominated by religious thought have not developed their critical thinking skills. They simply are not adults in the intellectual respect and therefore should not be treated like adults in that regard. Challenging their views will be futile because such persons will not be intellectually astute enough to understand the criticisms of their beliefs, but they will also be enraged. This will only create unnecessary controversy. Unlike their younger counterparts, these people are the kind of children who never grow up. We simply should leave them be and focus on those who truly can be taught to be reasonable and open-minded, namely the youth of today. We may arrive closer to achieving this goal by restructuring our educational program today.
 

Oom

Your time is gonna come.
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
510
MBTI Type
IsfP
Enneagram
5w4
I'm going to paraphrase what I got out of your essay so you can maybe tell me what I'm missing (or if I'm not).

The inflexibility of some religious belief systems have been hampering the critical thinking of the followers of their beliefs. In turn, followers are coming to rely on the inevitability of these beliefs as a crutch to 'not think for themselves'.

The deconstructing of these beliefs by non-believers causes confusion in these people and thus will eventually turn them to rage. Not understanding how someone could believe they are wrong. They can turn violent.

To avoid this from happening. We need to gradually bring the inflexibilities of religious scripture out of our education systems and teach our children to be mentally nimble again. Leave the broken, inflexible people as they are and look towards the future.

This will lessen violence that is affiliated with religious foundations.
-----------------------------

You have a great viewpoint!:yes: I agree in what you say. Rather the implications of unburdening our children will take time and wont be welcomed. There aren't any easy ways around it, but I feel like you have found a potential solution to the problem of religious violence.
 

Polaris

AKA Nunki
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,529
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The belief that all beliefs are controvertible is itself an incontrovertible belief. Everyone's a fundamentalist on some level, so why criticize people for it? It makes more sense to look at the consequences of certain beliefs and decide which ones are unacceptable. This is sort of what you've done, but you blame the negative consequences on the wrong thing.
 

Halla74

Artisan Conquerer
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
6,898
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm going to paraphrase what I got out of your essay so you can maybe tell me what I'm missing (or if I'm not).

The inflexibility of some religious belief systems have been hampering the critical thinking of the followers of their beliefs. In turn, followers are coming to rely on the inevitability of these beliefs as a crutch to 'not think for themselves'.

The deconstructing of these beliefs by non-believers causes confusion in these people and thus will eventually turn them to rage. Not understanding how someone could believe they are wrong. They can turn violent.

To avoid this from happening. We need to gradually bring the inflexibilities of religious scripture out of our education systems and teach our children to be mentally nimble again. Leave the broken, inflexible people as they are and look towards the future.

This will lessen violence that is affiliated with religious foundations.
-----------------------------

You have a great viewpoint!:yes: I agree in what you say. Rather the implications of unburdening our children will take time and wont be welcomed. There aren't any easy ways around it, but I feel like you have found a potential solution to the problem of religious violence.

Oom!!! OK, I am SO glad you summarized the novella OP. :yes: There's no way I could read it without chuggin half a bottle of Ritalin, which is generally not advisable close to bedtime. :shock:

I must say I concur, and would also like to point out that the same retardation of thought occurs with political parties. At some point in time after an affiliation has been chosen, the beliefs of the party can quickly become those of the followers, despite the inability of the followers to state substantive details of why they believe as such.

Right?
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
The belief that all beliefs are controvertible is itself an incontrovertible belief. Everyone's a fundamentalist on some level, so why criticize people for it? It makes more sense to look at the consequences of certain beliefs and decide which ones are unacceptable. This is sort of what you've done, but you blame the negative consequences on the wrong thing.

No, not everyone is a fundamentalist on some level. Not everybody has beliefs that they are not willing to question under any circumstances.


I must say I concur, and would also like to point out that the same retardation of thought occurs with political parties. At some point in time after an affiliation has been chosen, the beliefs of the party can quickly become those of the followers, despite the inability of the followers to state substantive details of why they believe as such.

Right?

Many political parties are religious in the strictest sense of the word. That is, they follow a view that informs them about ethics, the nature of the world that is discovered by abstract reasoning(metaphysics), matters of spirituality or life after death (eschatology) and surely accept at least some principles as incontrovertible. In fact, some of these political views are very religious as they comment on all three subjects very thoroughly and embrace many principles as incontrovertible.

Marxism is a clear-cut example and Stalinism was one of its main applications. Stalinism is analogous to Marxism as many violent religious denominations of Islam are to Islam itself.
On that note, the retardation of thought in political parties is a result of religion.

However, some other political views that also entail retardation are less religious as they comment on the three subjects of inquiry less thoroughly. However, the unwillingnes of the adherents of such parties to question their views is a result of a religious component of their views. Namely that of fundamentalism, or the axiom of incontrovertibility. Most individuals who are not willing to question their political views believe that their views are unquestionably correct and simply need no justification.
 

Charmed Justice

Nickle Iron Silicone
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
2,805
MBTI Type
INFJ
No, not everyone is a fundamentalist on some level. Not everybody has beliefs that they are not willing to question under any circumstances.
I agree here.

What about those who are religious, but also believe themselves to be open-minded? Do you think it's possible to be both?
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
I agree here.

What about those who are religious, but also believe themselves to be open-minded? Do you think it's possible to be both?

Good question. These days I don't know anymore. Because religion is believing in something you can't possibly know. It's having faith. It's ignoring other options.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Everyone's a fundamentalist on some level, so why criticize people for it?

Whoa, please explain that.
I'm interested in hearing why you've said this.
(what exactly do you perceive fundamentalism to be?)
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I agree here.

What about those who are religious, but also believe themselves to be open-minded? Do you think it's possible to be both?

To be religious by definition means to hold to a worldview which comments on ethics, metaphysics and eschatology and accepts some of its own principles as unquestionable. Hence, anyone who is religious is necessarily not open-minded about some things (adheres to principle 4, which is accepting some views as unquestionably true).

In principle, it is possible to adhere to a religion that accepts very few principles as unquestionable and in that respect one can be both religious and open-minded. The answer to your question depends on the kind of a religion one adheres to, if their religion is highly fundamentalistic or accepts most or all of its principles as incontrovertible, then no, one cannot be open-minded while adhering to that religion. However, if one's religion is not very fundamentalistic, one should be able to remain open-minded. (About most things, not all however, as a religion by definition necessitates some degree of fundamentalism.)
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Religion is like sex - when we are in the grip of passion we do things we would not otherwise do. And we think things we would not otherwise think. And believe things we would not otherwise believe.

So it is quite possible to be a believer and an unbeliever. In the grip of religious passion, I believe. But when the passion passes, as all passion does, I have my doubts.

And its exactly the same with sex. When I am making love, I put aside all my doubts and give myself to the moment.

And of course passion drives out reason, and reason drives out passion.

So reason and passion are mutually inhibitory.

And why should we be surprised as our whole body works on the same principle.

At this very moment your heart is only beating under the influence of two mutually inhibitory impulses.

So how natural that our very thoughts keep time under the mutually inhibitory impulses of passion and reason.
 

Charmed Justice

Nickle Iron Silicone
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
2,805
MBTI Type
INFJ
Hence, anyone who is religious is necessarily not open-minded about some things (adheres to principle 4, which is accepting some views as unquestionably true).
I see. Do you believe that everything deserves to be questioned? Are their somethings that we shouldn't be open-minded about in your opinion?

However, if one's religion is not very fundamentalistic, one should be able to remain open-minded. (About most things, not all however, as a religion by definition necessitates some degree of fundamentalism.)
Have you seen this brand of religion with Christians or Muslims?
 

antireconciler

it's a nuclear device
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
866
MBTI Type
Intj
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so
Whoa, please explain that.
I'm interested in hearing why you've said this.
(what exactly do you perceive fundamentalism to be?)

Isn't it tricky?

---
proposal: detach "fundamentalism" from "incontrovertible belief holding"

grounds: there may be discerned two uses of "incontrovertible belief holding", one which is "fundamentalist", the other which is is retained by the normal operation of the mind for which:

hypothetical: should there arise feeling of disgust for the idea of the discernment, we direct this disgust against the former use of incontrovertible belief holding and leave the second use undefined, to be yet filled in

hypothetical: should there exist the second use, then use of "fundamentalism" gains a parallel and mirrored second use

support: the second use of incontrovertible belief holding suggested as a normal function of the mind can be provoked by sufficient doubt which challenges the person, but according to the following two ways which are distinguished:

(1) the person does not question as a form of sacrifice which guarantees the doubter's safety. Impossible to detect except in hindsight or as the doubt is crumbling, for to see clearly is to undo it. It is unconscious.

(2) the person does not question as a form of standing up for one's self which is the ending of sacrifice and unconsciousness. It is the assuming of agency, for there exists some questioning which is not questioning, but is the frightening of oneself and does not serve the intended function of enlightening, and instead, keeps the eyes shut.

error theory: adopting the critical attitudes of the enlightenment liberates enough energy that the mind becomes carried away in it, but there is no error, only the failing to distinguish when to distinguish runs counter to the current age which has not yet sufficiently articulated itself into its other
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I see. Do you believe that everything deserves to be questioned? Are their somethings that we shouldn't be open-minded about in your opinion? ?

I would say yes, we should question everything. This is the only way we may have an opportunity to discover errors in every aspect of our lives. If every part of our lives is questioned, then errors cannot take refuge in any part of our thought. Yet, if we do not question some things, we are allowing a place in our worldview where some erroneous ideas may be left undisturbed.

The bottom line is, we need to do all we can to avoid errors in our thought as they entail problems in our society. The most reliable way to accomplish that is by critically examining all that we can critically examine.


Have you seen this brand of religion with Christians or Muslims?

Liberal Christianity is perhaps the closest thing to this I know of. They tend to take great liberty with regard to the figurative interpretation of scripture and unlike the Conservative Christians, they almost never insist on one correct, and an unquestionable interpretation of scripture.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Religion. Defintion. 1. A worldview about ethics or how people should behave. 2. about metaphysics or the nature of the world that is discovered by philosophy rather than science or more by abstract reasoning rather than empirical investigation. 3. About eschatology or matters of life after death and spiritual phenomena. 4. Accepts some principles as incontrovertible. The quantity of principles that are regarded as unquestionable determines how much a religion adheres to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the thesis that some views in the worldview are unquestionable. All religions are fundamentalistic by definition, yet because there are degrees of fundamentalism, some are necessarily more fundamentalistic than others.

Religions are dangerous on the account that fundamentalism discourages critical thought. Fundamentalism also encourages people to believe that some of their views are unquestionable. Because they are discouraged from thinking critically, their abstract reasoning faculties are frequently weakened severely. In order to construct an interpretation of a piece of literature, one needs critical thinking skills. When one lacks critical thinking skills, one easily succumbs to wishful thinking and merely interprets the literature in a way that appears pleasing to him or her. For this reason, the religious often interpret the text in a way that in the views of many is sacrilegious or an act of distortion of the scripture. For example, many Muslims believe that those who use Islam to justify violence are distorting the scripture. Is Islam blameless?

[…]

On the one hand, we see that religion, and Islam most prominently, can produce kind and peace loving people, yet on the other, fanatics who are willing to kill thousands in favor of their beliefs. Is religion to be blamed for this? Certainly because this is a result of people believing that their views are incontrovertible. This, however, is not the entirety of the problem. If someone merely believes that their views are indisputably true, he or she will not have the sufficient motivation to kill thousands. After all, a very high degree of aggression is necessary in order for people to behave in such an ignominious manner. Is religion solely responsible for the problem? Certainly not, as there is a variety of reasons why people became intensely aggressive, poverty or oppression are clear-cut examples of such reasons. Does religion contribute to the problem? It certainly does on the account that it discourages people from being open-minded and compels them to believe that they are right only because a sacred text or a divine authority insists that they are.

Your point, while relevant in many ways, is problematically incomplete.

Religion is not responsible for an individual’s desire to harm. To levy summary blame on the basis of opportunity is to misapply judgment on a system of thought that merely provides occasion. Certainly, fundamentalist belief provides sanctuary for zealotry and other antisocial behaviors; while it is important to identify accountability, we should not presume that a single entity is necessarily wholly responsible for deviant human behavior. We must remember that autonomy and agency hold lease over our fundamental behaviors – irrespective of external stimulation.

Although you briefly make mention of this point, your emphasis seems to offer religious thought as a cornerstone cancer on the mind -- outweighing many other potential vices to manipulate and distort the thinking of the intellectual underclass. This seems unfair.

As I mentioned, religion provides opportunity for deviant thinking (and, subsequently, deviant acts) to flourish. It is able to accomplish this by offering fertility of interpretation in contemporary doctrine and insular historical text. In creating a justifiable basis for negative behavior to gain validation and support, many who commit otherwise unthinkable acts do so with a clear conscience, as they are able to validate their actions against a form of spiritual holism – an ideology that combines certain spiritual and non-spiritual ingredients into a hybrid system of thought.

Does this brand of thinking increase the probability that an already poisoned mind will violently respond? Certainly. Is it the singular rationale for the violent behavior? Certainly not.

Many factors must be considered, if one wishes to gain a complete picture of his opposition. Exploitation in religious doctrine must be integrated with powerlessness in socioeconomic status. Weakness of personal esteem must be interlinked with intransigence of submissiveness in culture. Vulnerability in identity must be merged with accessibility of education. The list of variables continues, SolitaryWalker, and cannot be simplified into a clean indictment of any singular one.

To capitulate analysis at this point is to undermine the credibility of one’s stance altogether. Without proper seasoning, one’s entrée is naked of taste. Of quality.

While I find much accurate about your stance, I find unsettling your single-handed targeting of fundamentalism in religious thought as the sole culprit in destructive acts that seek to channel religion as motive.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Your point, while relevant in many ways, is problematically incomplete.

Religion is not responsible for an individual’s desire to harm. To levy summary blame on the basis of opportunity is to misapply judgment on a system of thought that merely provides occasion. Certainly, fundamentalist belief provides sanctuary for zealotry and other antisocial behaviors; while it is important to identify accountability, we should not presume that a single entity is necessarily wholly responsible for deviant human behavior. We must remember that autonomy and agency hold lease over our fundamental behaviors – irrespective of external stimulation.

Although you briefly make mention of this point, your emphasis seems to offer religious thought as a cornerstone cancer on the mind -- outweighing many other potential vices to manipulate and distort the thinking of the intellectual underclass. This seems unfair.

As I mentioned, religion provides opportunity for deviant thinking (and, subsequently, deviant acts) to flourish. It is able to accomplish this by offering fertility of interpretation in contemporary doctrine and insular historical text. In creating a justifiable basis for negative behavior to gain validation and support, many who commit otherwise unthinkable acts do so with a clear conscience, as they are able to validate their actions against a form of spiritual holism – an ideology that combines certain spiritual and non-spiritual ingredients into a hybrid system of thought.

Does this brand of thinking increase the probability that an already poisoned mind will violently respond? Certainly. Is it the singular rationale for the violent behavior? Certainly not.

Many factors must be considered, if one wishes to gain a complete picture of his opposition. Exploitation in religious doctrine must be integrated with powerlessness in socioeconomic status. Weakness of personal esteem must be interlinked with intransigence of submissiveness in culture. Vulnerability in identity must be merged with accessibility of education. The list of variables continues, SolitaryWalker, and cannot be simplified into a clean indictment of any singular one.

To capitulate analysis at this point is to undermine the credibility of one’s stance altogether. Without proper seasoning, one’s entrée is naked of taste. Of quality.

While I find much accurate about your stance, I find unsettling your single-handed targeting of fundamentalism in religious thought as the sole culprit in destructive acts that seek to channel religion as motive.

I did not state that religion is the only cause of violence, but a significant cause, significant enough to be the main cause of violence. In fact, even in the text that you have cited, I stated that although there are many other reasons why people engage in violent behavior, religion is certainly a notable reason.

If religion no longer plays any role in our society, all violence will not be eliminated, but a great deal of it will be. Possibly even, most of the violent acts will no longer have a motivator.

In the passage below, I have stated clearly that although religion is responsible for much of the violence in the world, it is not the sole cause of all of the violence.

Is religion solely responsible for the problem? Certainly not, as there is a variety of reasons why people became intensely aggressive, poverty or oppression are clear-cut examples of such reasons. Does religion contribute to the problem? It certainly does on the account that it discourages people from being open-minded and compels them to believe that they are right only because a sacred text or a divine authority insists that they are.
.
 

Polaris

AKA Nunki
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,529
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Jennifer said:
Whoa, please explain that.
I'm interested in hearing why you've said this.
(what exactly do you perceive fundamentalism to be?)
I went with Solitary's definition, which is to hold an incontrovertible belief. If you think of believers in terms of a spectrum, on one end you have people who won't question anything--these are the full-blown fundamentalists--and on the other end, you have people who question everything. I doubt anyone really falls into such extremes, but it's a useful abstraction. In any case, what I'm saying is that even the people who question all things will still practice some form of fundamentalism. Such a person will at the very least believe that all things can or should be questioned. If they were to question that belief, rather than hold it as a matter of fact, they would paralyze the belief itself. To question whether you can even question, rather than to question all things but the questioning itself, is to stop questioning to that extent. It's kind of like enantiodromia: as open-mindedness intensifies, it grows more like fundamentalism and finally gives way to its opposite.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I went with Solitary's definition, which is to hold an incontrovertible belief. If you think of believers in terms of a spectrum, on one end you have people who won't question anything--these are the full-blown fundamentalists--and on the other end, you have people who question everything. I doubt anyone really falls into such extremes, but it's a useful abstraction. In any case, what I'm saying is that even the people who question all things will still practice some form of fundamentalism. Such a person will at the very least believe that all things can or should be questioned. If they were to question that belief, rather than hold it as a matter of fact, they would paralyze the belief itself. To question whether you can even question, rather than to question all things but the questioning itself, is to stop questioning to that extent. It's kind of like enantiodromia: as open-mindedness intensifies, it grows more like fundamentalism and finally gives way to its opposite.

The definition of a fundamentalist is not one who merely neglects to question some things, but one who holds to an ethical principle that some things are never to be questioned. A lot of people exist who do not have such a principle. In fact, most do not. For instance, conventional teenagers may not make an effort to question many things, but they surely don't have maxims that prohibit them from doing so. The same can be said with regard to the conventional office workers who do not belong to any religious or a political group, they may go through their lives not having questioned anything, yet it is doubtful that they will establish a moral principle that they should not question anything.

In short, we have a confusion here between somebody who merely neglects to question some things and someones who has a moral principle decreeing that some things should not be questioned. The first kind of a person is not a fundamentalist, yet the second kind is.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
I did not state that religion is the only cause of violence, but a significant cause, significant enough to be the main cause of violence. In fact, even in the text that you have cited, I stated that although there are many other reasons why people engage in violent behavior, religion is certainly a notable reason.

If religion no longer plays any role in our society, all violence will not be eliminated, but a great deal of it will be. Possibly even, most of the violent acts will no longer have a motivator.

In the passage below, I have stated clearly that although religion is responsible for much of the violence in the world, it is not the sole cause of all of the violence.

Hmm.

Covering one eye while gazing at the night sky will earn you only a fraction of the available beauty.

Violence in religious identity is not necessarily consequent to encouraged violence in religious identity. Human motivation is a complex machine.

Discerning this distinction is important to unfurling a better appraisal of the problem of religion.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Hmm.

Covering one eye while gazing at the night sky will earn you only a fraction of the available beauty.

Violence in religious identity is not necessarily consequent to encouraged violence in religious identity. Human motivation is a complex machine.

Discerning this distinction is important to unfurling a better appraisal of the problem of religion.

My argument was that religion conduces to acts of violence because it convinces people that their beliefs are unquestionable true for one. Secondly, many religions teach their followers that they have a duty to impose their views on others. Thirdly, religion discourages critical thought and open-minded inquiry, for this reason it conduces to people becoming hostile to those who disagree with them.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
When a preacher says that he doesnt want someone who hasnt yet accepted god into his life by his side if he were in the hospital. That just rubbed me the wrong way.
 
Top