| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Is religious fundamentalism a disease of the mind? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 7 2007, 12:38 AM (5,009 Views) | |
| jon-nyc | Apr 7 2007, 12:38 AM Post #1 |
|
Cheers
|
Do you think religious fundamentalism is a disease of the mind? (irrespective of the religion) |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 7 2007, 12:43 AM Post #2 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Perhaps you can quote the relevant DSM-IV classification? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 7 2007, 01:11 AM Post #3 |
|
Cheers
|
Interesting question, worthy of its own thread. Is it a cognitive disorder? A shared psychotic disorder? Or should it be thought of more as a social disease? A malignant meme which effects people in an emotionally or psychologically weak or dependent state? (including children of those already afflicted) |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 7 2007, 01:37 AM Post #4 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Hardly worthy of its own thread -- you're the one who brought up "a disease of the mind." We have standards -- notably DSM-IV -- for understanding such things. We don't need (and SHOULD NOT) to resort to psychobabble or dubious viral or genetic analogies or fashionable academic social theory to understand these things. From meme theory, it is every bit as likely that your impetus to even ask the question is every bit as problematic as assuming that religious fundamentalism might be mimetic.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 7 2007, 01:59 AM Post #5 |
|
Cheers
|
Some readers may recognize my use of the phrase 'a disease of the mind' as an homage to another TNCR member. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| bachophile | Apr 7 2007, 02:18 AM Post #6 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
well jon, i think "disease" is a bad way to start the thread if u r really sincere with the question... but putting that aside....and addressing the question directly i think that some viewpoints are hardwired into humans. every society, religion or whatever framework u please, has people that have a need for fundamentalist belief.... i felt that strongly reading krakuer's book on mormonism and seeing the same patterns often seen in ultra orthodox judaism and im sure in all religions... its a universal concept. some people on any gaussian curve will tend towards extremes at either end. in that respect i see the "new atheists" as fundamentalist as anyone else. is it a sickness? disease? not until it reaches the the extreemes of any deviant behaviour. |
| "I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 7 2007, 02:29 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
That's silly - the 'new atheists' base themselves on reasoned argument, fundamentalism is the antithesis of reasoned argument. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 7 2007, 02:44 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I voted yes, because it is a lot like a disease of the mind - it disables the sufferer from being able to think about a certain subset of topics. However Bach's point about a continuum is true, most people suffer from this phenomena to a lesser or greater extent. (Across many different topics). |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Phlebas | Apr 7 2007, 03:27 AM Post #9 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
How do you know that? Fundamentalists are not - by definition - closed minded, unable to think of certain topics, or understand other viewpoints. I think that's your broad brush and preconceived view. Fundamentalism is a belief or set of beliefs. It's not a disease. It is, however a manifestation of something. In some people it could be a manifestation of how they think the world should be, or a reaction against how the world is. |
|
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D | |
![]() |
|
| CTPianotech | Apr 7 2007, 03:44 AM Post #10 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Voted no. If you had used the term radical fanaticism, I may have voted yes. |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 7 2007, 03:54 AM Post #11 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Define religious fundamentalism. I still maintain this board's atheists are far more fundamentalist than its Christians and Jews. (I'm not sure we have any Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists or Shintoists - although we may have the *original* Satanist in The Devil Himself). They don't understand the experiences that can lead one to faith because they are not 'reasoned', and are more than happy to portray those of faith as rather stupid. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 7 2007, 03:58 AM Post #12 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Well there are no doubt many people who simply don't know any better. But that clearly isn't the whole picture, for, if that were the case, fundamentalism would no longer exist. There is a resistance to reason that comes with fundamentalism, which protects it. What other explanation do you have for the fact that large numbers of people in the worlds richest country continue to believe the world is 6000 years old? Or that we don't have a common ancestor with the other species of ape? As far as i can see fundamentalism is just the extreme end of the faith spectrum, the "i believe because i do, because i do, because that's what i think, because i have faith, because it's my conviction" etc. Now there is a question of labelling, i mean a disease of the mind is a term that is not well defined. But whatever the label something is crippling their ability to think.
Well people who believe they are Napolean and that everyone in the world is secretly plotting to kill them simply have a 'belief or set of beliefs', yet generally speaking, we're willing to call them mentally ill. When you describe how these beliefs (which are simply statements about the world held to be true) for some people may be manifestations of how they think the world should be or reaction against how the world is, you seem to be describing the psychological causes. [I mean to claim some statement is true because you want the world to be a certain way is itself a cognitive failure.] |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Apr 7 2007, 04:03 AM Post #13 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I'm not an atheist but there's a group of people here I agree with very often-- the atheists. ![]() And for the record I voted yes. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 7 2007, 04:07 AM Post #14 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No. People want to dismiss religious fundamentalists as unthinking, or more accurately to the stated question, unable to think properly. In reality, they can think just fine (or at least as fine as any random sampling of other groups), they've simply reached conclusions and beliefs about certain issues that don't agree with others' opinions. The problem is that the difference is one of theological beliefs, not what the square root of sixteen is. There's no objective measuring rod, no concrete proof that the opinions of those others are actually more correct or superior to the beliefs of the fundamentalists. Those who would set such a standard have no real agument for soing so other than "Well, they think differently than I do." Every attitudinal disagreement is not evidence of flawed brain function. I don't agree with some fundamentalist Christian beliefs, but I agree with a lot of the same things. And frankly, I agree with some assertions made by fundamentalists of other religious faiths. Whether they've gotten the answers right on every single count is hardly a reason to consider them mentally diseased, since by that definition we're all in the same boat. But at least fundamentalists, of any faith have shown the courage to consider the questions of God, humanity, and the nature and implications of the relationship between the two, that other people are simply too intellectually or spiritually lazy to take up. Even if they may have reached opinions that someone else may not agree with, at least they've gotten into the ring. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 7 2007, 04:25 AM Post #15 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
People who believe the world is 6000 years old are wrong. People who believe we do not have a common ancestor with apes are also wrong. This is proved beyond reasonable doubt. What's more it is basic reasoning which invalidates fundamentalist positions: "i believe the Koran is the literal word of God" "Why?" "Because *insert logical fallacy here*". |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Apr 7 2007, 04:36 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
What I don't like about fundamentalists is that they assume they know for everyone else what is true and how to live. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 7 2007, 04:50 AM Post #17 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Fundamentalists hardly have such scorn dumped on them over how old they think the earth is. The real beef is over the more basic, core beliefs that are then extended, correctly or incorrectly, into other areas such as the one you point out. Anyone who would consider someone to have a mental disorder based on evidence of a disagreement over such unprovable issues as religious belief, have way too high a view of the value of their own particular beliefs, and in fact, of themselves. They end up simply exhibiting the exact same behavior that they find so distasteful in those others. When it comes right down to it, I think the difference is actually less religious than something else. No one likes having the superiority of their own thoughts and beliefs challenged, whether those beliefs are religious or secular. Charges of "mental disorder" made in cases like this, made from any front, aren't anything more than chest-thumping, trying to scare away the other gorilla standing in the clearing. The claim is entirely irrelevant to the real truth of which gorilla, if either, is actually the best in the jungle. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Apr 7 2007, 04:51 AM Post #18 |
|
Finally
|
Wow. Dewey speaketh sooth.....again. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| bachophile | Apr 7 2007, 05:08 AM Post #19 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
no, the issue is not what their arguments are based on...the issue is how dogmatic and non tolerant is a viewpoint. your comment is a benign example of it.... u r so convinced of your truth that u are not equipped to see another view as valid... as does the religious fundamentalist. i have no agendas...i make no secret of the fact that i believe in God, yet i find fundamentalism, on BOTH FUKCING SIDES of the gauss curve to be an anathema. my most fundamentalistic belief is found in tomk's sig line... walk humbly... |
| "I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 7 2007, 05:36 AM Post #20 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
By your reasoning if someone was convinced that invisible ant eaters were stalking them and was petually terrfied of grisley ant-eater death, it would be wrong of us to consider that person to have some kind of mental disorder because the issue of invisible ant eaters is an unproveable issue. Of course this is nonsense as is your argument. Further the example again demonstrates that questions of proveability are completely irrelevent. We can't prove invisible killer ant-eaters don't exist but we don't need to. All one needs do is point out that there is no defense for the belief that they do.
Well mental disorder is ill-defined. But it's just a label, labels are irrelevent, what matters is the reality. If you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old you are wrong, fullstop. If you believe that human beings do not have a common ancestor with other apes you are wrong, fullstop. These two wrong beliefs are widespread. If all there was to it was simply a lack of exposure to the ideas and arguments. If there was no thought distuption involved then such sillyness would no longer be with us. However there is mental disruption invovled there is some resistance to reason. This resistance to reason is a kind of pathology and it is not restricted to fundamentalism it's simply most extreme there. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Apr 7 2007, 05:56 AM Post #21 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Moon you do make a excellent case for fundamentalisn being a disease of the mine. Atheistic fundamentalism--that is.
|
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 7 2007, 05:57 AM Post #22 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Of course, Moonbat, anyone who disagrees with your take on the question is simply wrong - and provability of the issue is irrelevant. :rolleyes: I've known a lot of fundamentalists, and you outstrip most, if not all of them.
Your fundamentalism is expressed through your all-consuming faith in "reason," as defined by humans, particularly the humans of western civilization in the past three hundred or so years. The foundation of your fundmentalism is not nearly as rock-solid as you think when you realize that: 1. Many civilizations have come and gone using systems of logic and reason quite different from that currently seen in the current West; and 2. If the theistic belief in a supreme being whose definition of "reason" transcends humans' limited understanding of the term is correct - the baseline, essential uprovable in this equation - then however you, or any human cares to define "reason" is really not an adequate yardstick to judge the correctness of another's beliefs. And your argument that there is "no defense" for those core beliefs is sadly lacking in substance and is ultimately only your opinion. The best that you can argue is that there is no argument that you find defensible. Many others, even many in the rarified atmosphere of your own intellgience level, disagree with your assesment. Fundamentalism is not what someone thinks the age of the earth is. It's defined by the core beliefs that make a person even have an opinion on that secondary issue. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 7 2007, 06:01 AM Post #23 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
As far as i'm concerned dogmatic views are those held uncritically, the new atheists sing the virtues of critical thinking so to call them dogmatic seems incoherent. If you simply refer to tone well that would make this statement: "for pities sake the moon is bloody well not made of cheese" 'dogmatic'. The danger fundamentalists is surely a bit more significant than their tone of voice, rather it's the nature of their beliefs, how they arrive at them (blind faith) and how changeable they are (not at all).
Whether an argument is valid or invalid is decided through rational analysis, is there contradiction, what are the assertions ,do the conclusions follow from the assertions, is there evidence for the assertions etc. etc. The reason i don't see this 'other view' as valid is because it's trivial to show their arguments are flawed. Bach you talk about new atheists being the other side of this Gaussian but i rather think you have the wrong axis, this gaussian is a gasusian of rationality. And the new atheists do sit on one side. Have actually read any of their books (I'm thinking Harris/Dennet/Dawkins)? Perhaps you should - if you're actually willing to consider the ideas you might be suprised. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| bachophile | Apr 7 2007, 06:16 AM Post #24 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
aha, this is the crux of our difference...we have different axes. i dont consider rationality as an appropriate axis (way too 19th century for me) in this discussion. and so, i also know i can not convince u that the dogmatism of dawkins is equally repulsive to me as the dogmatism of the various creationists. for me the correct axis is simply of tolerance. i can tolerate many divergent view points without feeling my own is suspect. it bothers u that people have irrational beliefs. i guess u can say it bothers me that it bothers u. |
| "I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 7 2007, 06:36 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
It's nothing to do with me. What i think is irrelevent. What the evidence shows is what is significant. Again though your arguments are self refuting for they would apply to anyone who _ever_ claims another person is wrong. So if you you claim that the guy who says there are pink unicorns on Mars is wrong, fullstop. Then you're a fundamentalist.
1) Your argument works as a defense of any conclusion. Anything no can be defended by saying "oh yes but your just putting your faith in 'reason'" If an argument works to support any conclusion, then it is worthless for distinguishing between conclusions more likely to be true and conclusions less likely to be true. You can see this very easily because everything you say in an attempt to defend crazy irrational beliefs works for the invisible killer ant eaters or invisible ninjas or pink unicorns on Mars, etc. etc. The reason it works equally for them is because they are equivalent - crazy irrational beliefs. 2) What civilisations have come and gone is irrelevent. the number of people saying something is of no significance. The amount of time people said something is of no significance. To suggest there were different 'systems' of logic and reason is completely incoherent. What do you mean by a "system of logic and reason"? Either a conclusion/set of conclusions is valid given the information or it's not, either it's self-refuting or it's not, either it's rational or it's not. How people use a given word my change over time but again that is irrelevent what matters is not the word itself but the concept that the word is being used to refer to.
Unproveability is irrelevent. What matters is the basis for belief. Whether or there is a magic man in the sky or whether there really are invisible killer ant eaters alters nothing. All we have to go on is experience from the senses and our reasoning from that experience. When you say the best i can do is that there is no argument i find defensible you once again appeal to some weird relativist idea of truth. So the guy who thinks the moon is made of cheese because he found a peppercorn under his table does not have an invalid view it's just that i find it invalid. That's the best i can do. It's not less true than my view that the moon is infact made of rock, it's just a different perspective. Likewise the guy who believe he can fly is just as correct as the person who thinks that when this guy jumps off the cliff he will not fly he will fall. When i say they have no defense i mean that what they say doesn't support their conclusion in the same way that it is trivial to point out that finding a pepper corn under your table does not imply the moon is made of cheese.
Well indeed the core delusion is the thing that means people continue to think the Earth is 6000 years old or that humans don't share a common ancestor with other apes in the 21st century. That is at the heart of the pathology. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |











12:44 AM Jul 13