posted January 30, 2005 07:48 AM            

quote:

---

From 1988 to 1993, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
sponsored an interdisciplinary study known as The Fundamentalism
Project, the largest such study ever done. More than 100
scholars from all over the world took part, reporting on every
imaginable kind of fundamentalism. And what they discovered was
that the agenda of all fundamentalist movements in the world
is virtually identical, regardless of religion or culture.

They identified five characteristics shared by virtually all
fundamentalisms.

The defining features are
1: God's law applies to all people, everywhere and everywhen.
2: Men are meant to be in control of everything, women fill
support roles.
3: The single correct set of God's law is the only law that
needs to be taught, and the only education anybody should be
allowed to have.
4: Motivations are grounded in an attempt to return to a
non-existant "golden era".
5: Fundamentalists have no problem denying history to hold
their beliefs.

There may be a connection between fundamentalism and fascism,
i.e. fascism can be described as "political fundamentalism."
That language is a bit different, but the underlying motivations
and methods are closely related.

Fundamentalism is often a reaction to a world that seem beyond
control and understanding, an attempt to impose reason and
order on the world through force of belief and force of arm.
It shouldn't be surprising then that those rejecting the world
around them resort to basic, instinctual patterns in organizing
their group. This instinct is probably grounded in prehistoric
tribal band behavior at some level, but that connection exists
on very tenous grounds and I would not go to far in extending it.

---

Reason in the Balance and why Fundamentalists are Beyond Reason http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/beyond_reason.htm

The Difference Between Science and Pseudoscience http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/y2k/scivmagic.htm

Best regards,

Erik

------------------

posted January 30, 2005 09:16 AM            

One of the primary problems with this kind of research, in my opinion, is that non-believers themselves do not read the source material of the believers, and take the word of self-identified believers as the word of the source material. In other words, they don't consider whether the self-identified believers are conscientious observers of their own religion. As an example, in the USA at least, Christians tend to be highly uneducated about the Bible. Almost every day I hear one or more Christians attribute statements to their religion which are in direct conflict with the Bible. If believers themselves do not get their beliefs straight, how then can an outsider? At best, all that can be done is a cultural observation, and not a religious one.

The abbreviated list you posted, for example, which supposedly applies to all fundamentalists of all religions:

"1: God's law applies to all people, everywhere and everywhen."
This is probably an accurate statement, with the slight modification that many belief systems do not have a single god, but more than one, and some do not have gods at all.

"2: Men are meant to be in control of everything, women fill support roles."
Not entirely correct, and there are examples to the contrary. On this point, however, I challenge you to point out a non-religious, non trivially-small culture that doesn't do the same thing. Again, I think the researchers are confusing religion with culture commonly surrounding some given group of self-identified religious people. In this case, I think they're confusing a human trait displayed by nearly all cultures, religious and non-religious, with religion.

"3: The single correct set of God's law is the only law that needs to be taught, and the only education anybody should be allowed to have."
Wrong, and there are many examples to the contrary. In fact, historically speaking, some of the most brilliant minds in history were possessed by believers. In addition, most universities were started by religions or the religious. This one is so wrong I'm surprised it was ever considered. Whoever made up this item is guilty of rule #5.

"4: Motivations are grounded in an attempt to return to a non-existant 'golden era'."
It's hard to say on this one. At least to Jews and Christians that have bothered to read their own source material, there never was a "golden era." People have always been a troublemaking, disobedient lot, and there never was a period when things were good.

"5: Fundamentalists have no problem denying history to hold their beliefs."
I would agree with this, because that is pretty much a human trait, not limited to the religious.

As for how the list applies to me personally, I'm Christian and would say that I disagree with four of the statements, at least as you have them worded. If this list is truly the result of five years of study by 100 scholars, I fear for the state of scholarship. Frankly, for all our brainpower and accomplishments, I'm not so sure that we humans are very smart. The human condition doesn't appear to be improving very much, short of basic sanitation and some technological conveniences. We're still slaves to the elite.

I also take it as your assumption, based on the links you provided and your post itself, that the religious are not logical or in possession of reason. I really hope you do not think that, because it's a very foolish assumption.

posted January 30, 2005 10:06 AM            

There is not much wrong with a normal religion, it's only when the religion is getting more fundamentalistic (not taking into account other people/religions/non-believers) that things are getting worse.

posted January 30, 2005 12:10 PM            

As a non beleiver, I think I will have no problem accepting a god if it exists whenever it is proven to exist by a scientific method.

No matter what you say a closed mind cannot be healthy by any definition. That would not mean that this person could not interact with the people around him/her. It would just mean that the interaction or relation is limited by the way that person values his fundametalism.

Bert Mercier

posted January 30, 2005 02:41 PM            

quote:

---

As a non beleiver, I think I will have no problem accepting a god if it exists whenever it is proven to exist by a scientific method.

---

quote:

---

Isn't the basic fact of a fundamentalist, is that he has a closed mind unable to change no matter what.

---

I completely understand the unwillingness to believe however, as I was that way for ~28 years. However, there was a point in my life where God revealed Himself to me, opened my eyes as it were, so that I (personally) have all the "proof" I need. Therefore, to those who truly believe in God, there is no need to "keep an open mind" on the subject. The facts are there and we do not deny the facts. The point of contention however, is whether or not our "facts" are acceptable to you, or are your "facts" acceptable to us. In reality, we all do the same thing....hold unwaveringly to what we believe is true; there really isn't a difference between the two in that sense.

In many ways I guess I would be considered a "fundamentalist", but like Troy, I don't subscribe to all 5 points; #1 and #2, but not 3,4, or 5. 2/5ths seems like flawed logic to me

posted January 30, 2005 03:10 PM            

Maybe i needed to use the word "absolute" (compared to "relative") when writing about fundamentalism.
But the believers (most of them) all state that their God is the only one, and that we must follow his rules.
Each religion having it's own God, claiming it's the only real one, claiming it's law is the only one.

Most absolute religions tend to force their views upon other people using brute force or just by saying "it's in the Holy Book" and other must take these words for proven facts.
And that's were they clash with other people. Living together mean you accept other people's belief (or non-belief) and not push your religous agenda forward.

------------------
marc@verfaillie.be www.verfaillie.com www.idemdito.org

posted January 30, 2005 03:48 PM            

quote:

---

Most absolute religions tend to force their views upon other people using brute force or just by saying "it's in the Holy Book" and other must take these words for proven facts.

---

I guess the real truth is that its common for people to murder other people whether they believe in a god or not

Perhaps the term radical would be better yet?

posted January 30, 2005 04:24 PM            

quote:

---

Perhaps the term radical would be better yet?

---

------------------
marc@verfaillie.be www.verfaillie.com www.idemdito.org

posted January 30, 2005 06:19 PM            

The best I can tell a non-believer is "I don't blame you for not believing. If you had never seen an elephant, it would be pretty hard to convince you of that, too." I also concede the metaphor is imperfect, so substitute "elephant" with the otherwise seemingly unlikely-unless-you've-seen-it object or phenomenon.

I do think, however, that you should at least concede that the list Erik posted is not really correct. It is impossible to correctly generalize that much about fundamentalists, given all the evidence to the contrary. I would also disagree with the term "radical" because I do not consider myself radical. I consider myself a truth-seeker, regardless of what the truth may be. There are many things I've learned that I really wish weren't true, and are in opposition to what I believed to be true when I first started learning them. I must maintain intellectual honesty and admit I could be misinformed.

posted January 30, 2005 06:25 PM            

quote:

---

Bert,
That's a pretty "non-committal" statement as you are well aware that God is never going to be "proven" by scientific methods.

---

Bert Mercier

posted January 30, 2005 06:36 PM            

quote:

---

As a non beleiver, I think I will have no problem accepting a god if it exists whenever it is proven to exist by a scientific method.

---

Same for me. (Not limited to god; also true for Bigfoot and Nessie... )

posted January 31, 2005 04:37 AM            

Real progress needs to be based on common ground. Science does
provide the basis for a common worldview to be recognized and
accepted by everyone irrespective of culture or religion,
provided people are allowed to be educated in the available
scientific knowledge.

Education is the key to a better world – not religion.

Best regards,

Erik

------------------

posted January 31, 2005 07:44 AM            

For example, a principle like "Eliminate discrimination in all its forms,
such as that based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion,
language, and national, ethnic or social origin." is seen as "clearly
aimed at criminalizing those who refuse to accept homosexuality as positive
and good", and another like "Ensure universal access to health care that
fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction." is seen as
"thinly disguised call for socialized medicine that includes abortion
and population control".
http://www.realnews247.com/united%20_nations_new_world_religion.htm

If you don't know the Earth Charter and want to read it:
http://www.earthcharter.org/innerpg.cfm?id_menu=19

posted January 31, 2005 08:25 AM            

Thanks for the links.