Orthodox Jews at the Western Wall / Photo: premasagar
Proponents of religion say you can believe your faith in moderation, but Mick McCormack believes “religion” and “moderation” are mutually exclusive.
Any writing that attempts to tackle “religion” and “fundamentalism” should have an emergency 911 and the address of the writer attached for quick ambulance and police response.
Either he/she is a masochistic mental case or they really need the money to even take on such an assignment. Or maybe both. Well, here I am. You be the judge.
The word “religion” comes to us from the Latin, religare which means, “to bind strongly to.” Someone who is religious has chosen to bind themselves strongly to a particular belief system.
The word “fundamentalism” comes to us from the Latin, fundamentum which means, “of the foundation” or “of the underlying principles”.
We end up with something like this:
A fundamentalist is one who understands the underlying principles which are the foundation of his particular religion and has decided to bind himself strongly to act according to those principles.
Here’s where the fun begins. Almost everybody is a religious fundamentalist.
Even sworn atheists have decided that there is no God. They have bound themselves strongly to the fundamental belief that we have no higher power and they act according to their belief.
How about another example. Let’s take what is considered to be one of the oldest traditional religions, Judaism.
Judaism
Jews believe that there is a God, that He is the only God and that he is the God that has chosen the Jewish people, from their first founding father, Abraham, to be His people and to eventually rule the world with the Messiah coming from the Jews.
They also recognize that if non-Jews want to believe this, they can be accepted into the Jews and be a part of the religion; with everybody else going to hell.
Sounds like the Muslims too, doesn’t it. Let’s try it. (Boy, we’re getting into trouble now).
Islam
Taliban / Photo: AP
Muslims believe that there is a God, that He is the only God and that He is the God that has chosen the Islamic people, from their first founding father, Abraham, to be His people and eventually rule the world with the Messiah coming from the Muslims.
They also recognize that if non-Muslims want to believe this, they can be accepted into the religion; everybody else is going to hell.
Uh-oh. Let’s try Christianity, shall we?
Christianity
Christians believe that there is a God, that He is the only God and that He is the God that has chosen the Christian people, from their first founding father, Abraham, to be His people and eventually rule the world with the Messiah coming from… the Jews.
(Jesus started out as a Jew, but they rejected him, so he, Jesus, also rejected them, except as they believe in Him as God. — It’s a little complicated.) They also recognize that if non-Christians want to believe this, that they can be accepted into the religion; with everybody else going to hell.
The Rest Of The Ism’s
That takes care of the three “major” religions of earth. But, let’s not forget that there are many other “fundamentals” that people are “bound to” – Buddhism, Shintoism, Animism, and all the other –isms.
Suffice to say that the pattern remains. If you believe in something that you bind yourself to for action and interaction with people in life, you are a religious fundamentalist.
The real problem lies with the dreaded word, INTERPRETATION. How do we interpret what we think was written by those purported to be the original leaders of our religious movements and where does that take us?
Prepared For The Journey
One of the great philosophers of history, Benjamin Disreali, wrote;
“It matters not to me what you believe, just remember that whatever you believe will take you somewhere. Make sure that you are prepared for the journey.”
What disturbs societies of the civilized world (and throughout history) is when those who are bound to their beliefs feel they must dictate to others how to live and, sometimes, try to force others to live as they live.
The most universal modern example which can, probably, be agreed upon is the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are the Islamic religious fundamentalists who cut off people’s heads who refuse to get in line with their particular conservative interpretation of Islam.
Of course this has happened throughout the ages, at least since Abraham. Before that, people just cut off other’s heads because they didn’t like how they looked or wanted their camels. (Probably Camel-holics)
The Fundamental Question
So the question remains, “Can any religion remain free of fundamentalism?” The answer is, “Not if you define it in words and actions, which you have to follow for there to be any meaning.” So, “NO!”
Taliban / Photo: Digitalexander
Of course, the alternative is to believe in nothing very strongly and certainly not bind yourself very strongly to it. This gives rise to a new question:
“Can you be happy not believing in or binding yourself to anything on earth enough to care about it strongly and act on it?”
Sure you can. But you probably shouldn’t call it your religion. Calling it that defies the definition. You could call it your social club or something like that. Think about it.
If you call something your religion, it probably involves your god. If your god is so easy-going that he doesn’t mind if you don’t care about what he says to do, how much of a god is he? If he just lets you decide what you’ll believe and when and how you will act on it, isn’t he less powerful than you?
Good Vibrations
Those who want to believe in their god in moderation, soak-up some good vibrations and call it a religion; that’s okay with me.
Just be prepared that, wherever you travel, you are bound to bump up against those who will “religiously and fundamentally” disagree.
On the other hand, if you want to dedicate yourself to non-religious activities that are meaningful in your life, say, saving the whales or feeding the children of the world, or any number of wonderful causes, by all means do it.
Just don’t buy yourself a ticket on the grief-train by calling it “religious.” Call it humanitarian, travel the world with the quiet pleasure of doing good, and be happy.
I won’t tell God. Who knows, maybe He will meet you on the journey and smile.
Can religion remain free of funamentalism and still have meaning? Share your thoughts in the comments!
About the Author
Related Posts
20 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
Tom, (or Chris)
Perhaps you would have the time to listen to a lecture found on the Website Veritas.org. Here is the link. I’d like your counterpoint view.http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/716
Thanks for the comment.
M-
↵ -
I too have to disagree with the claim that everyone is a religious fundamentalist. By saying “religious” you imply a belief in a supernatural being or beings that influence, manipulate and control the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. I always have a problem when people trace the origins of words and claim that from this origin comes the word’s true definition. Believing in ANY belief system does not by default make you religious. That is a definition so vague it loses all meaning.
Since Atheists don’t believe in the supernatural, they are not religious. The saying: “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby” sums it up nicely.
To the title question: fundamentalism will exist in religion as long as moderates allow it. Atheists hold no sway to fundamentalists, only the moderates can pull people away from the violence, bigotry, xenophobia and sexist beliefs of fundamentalists. As long a moderates turn a blind eye, they are empowering those who take ancient fables a little too seriously.
↵ -
I have a couple of problems with this article:
#1: Why are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam designated the 3 “major religions” of the world? If you are speaking of the number of people who follow a certain religion, then Judaism is a pretty small player. Populations who support Hinduism and Buddhism far outnumber Judaism.
#2: In this regard, wouldn’t the author’s argument apply to every subset of that religion: that is, Baptists must be fundamentally Baptists, Methodists must be fundamentally Methodists, and so on. How can all Christians be “fundamentalists” when most of them disagree upon the fundamentals?
#3: The B’ahai faith and certain sects of Hinduism follow a loose interpretation model in which they believe that every religion can be followed and there is no one true faith. How can those people be fundamentalists?All in all, though this is an intriguing concept, I think it would have been better if it had been more well-researched and split up into a multi-part article. To nitpick, Disraeli is incorrectly spelled above.
↵ -
Thanks Akila for the good comments and correction. Check back soon and see if, just maybe, we can accommodate you and follow up on this subject.
Just a short comment on Judaism. Historically it is the “mother religion” of both Islam and Christianity. Thus, its tenets have permeated life on planet earth more passionately than some of the eastern religions which are believed in larger numbers. What say you!
↵ -
Any discussion of religion brings out real character. Nothing else comes close. Mick shows a special thoughtfulness in this commentary. His discernment is right on. He does not try to coerce or evangelize in anyone’s favor. I’ve noticed some of the response. It seems that the more uneasy one is about his beliefs or religion he is most defensive. Very few, even atheists, can hardly claim ambivalence as his core belief. Atheists are absolutely fundamentalistic, but feels it necessary to call it something else for ” conscience sake.” I know a state supreme court that calls gambling, gaming because the state constitution forbids gambling. Secular Fundamentalism shows itself to be a fierce religion. No humanist wants to admit it and will protest to the “highest heaven” that there are no fundamentals involved. Yea, Yea! Mick, write a follow up.
↵ -
Ahhh the wonderful world of words… Do think that if anyone assumes they have the “Truth”, they must obviously be beyond the human condition. Fundamentalism is a frightening thing, and comes from frightened beings holding on with their dear souls…
There is a different interpretation of the “binding” aspect of Religio – see http://philiphorvath.com/site/2009/04/25/on-religion – you might enjoy.
Thank you for favoring liberty and individualism
↵ -
I think that it doesn’t matter what the subject matter is, there will always be people who take it to the extreme.
Whether it be religion, shopping, video games, and the list goes on.
↵ -
Very thought-provoking. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
↵ -
Thanks “all” for the comments!
Philip,
What a DEEP question!! Read your site page information. I do know that, wherever I have traveled in the world (over 70 countries), that most people are searching for something to “attach” themselves to for finding meaning in their lives. Other people around them just don’t seem to fill the “soul-need” for a higher power.
Years ago, one of my professors was quoted as saying, “Meaning is, in its origins, a physical activity, a social activity (it requires another), and a survival activity. Meaning is the primary human motion, irreducible.”
Perhaps what the religious fundamentalist does is search for meaning and label it the search for truth. This quest makes them feel that the human condition is beneath them, as they and God have become a team.
Thanks for the info.↵ -
“Atheists are absolutely fundamentalistic but feels it necessary to call it something else for ” conscience sake.”
I disagreed with Mick’s use of the word “religious”; I had no problem with his claim that everyone has fundamental beliefs.
Though, perhaps I was wrong in interpreting that Mick was claiming atheists are religious fundamentalists. As he says, “If you call something your religion, it probably involves your god.”
On the Craig lecture:
Here are the main cosmological arguments for god. Essentially: the universe has a cause, there must be a first cause in the sequence of incidental causes, the universe exists, every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, and therefore the explanation of the universe is God.
Also, the universe cannot be eternal (infinite regress), nor come from nothing (can’t get something from nothing). And the cause of the universe must be greater than the universe itself.
I’m not particularly swayed by this logic, but regardless, this kind of ‘prime mover’ god I don’t have any fundamental qualms with. I believe that this sort of god is expanded beyond then narrow definitions of a personal god.
It is a personal god I take issue with, particularly one who decides who and who doesn’t get into his paradise based on trivial and inconsequential rules. In fact, isn’t belief in this sort of cause of causes god completely incompatible with the three monotheistic religions?
A personal, separate and father-like god, to me, is a god made is man’s image. And because of this, it is a shallow comfort. A personal god is the characterisation of a watchful parent-figure to give protection and meaning in one’s life. Religion is always an attempt to find meaning, or quality. And because we are conscience of our existence, in our contemplation of our existence we must face a fundamental existentialist crisis. We are asking ourselves, what does it MEAN to be alive? How are we to deal with the constant feel of being completely isolated?
But how exactly do we RELATE to a ‘prime mover’ god without giving him human qualities (such as gender!)?
Phillip, what a fantastic post. I love that you brought up Fromm. Exactly what I was getting at. I agree that religion “… is the attempt to come to one common story that denies progress and evolution and must by default have a teleological component”. Regardless if we are atheist, pantheist, or theist, we must be progressive in our views towards the universe/the self.
↵ -
Additionally: we must not be fundamentally ATTACHED to any belief system. It is through this desperate attachment that destructive fundamentalism rears it’s head. I like how Phillip put it: “fundamentalism… comes from frightened beings holding on with their dear souls”.
So, how do we stop that? In what does the end of (destructive) fundamentalism lie?
↵ -
Chris,
Thanks for the well thought out reply. My question now is, “Are there really very many true Atheists or are many who think of themselves as Atheists just people who are fed up with what established religions (and “spiritual abusers”) have been telling us about God?Sounds like you agree that there is a Supreme Being who designed and moves the Universe but cannot possible throw your support behind those who use religion as a means to power.
I’d be interested in following up with anyone who can help answer that question and Chris’s question as to ending destructive fundamentalism.
M-
↵ -
I remember singing the catchy tune in Sunday school “Father Abraham had many sons, and many sons had Father Abraham….”
It was not mentioned amid the parables and dogma that Father Abraham’s other sons were followers of Judaism and Islam.How do the followers of these religions maintain such radical cognitive dissonance in their minds regarding each other?
Really? How?!↵ -
“Sounds like you agree that there is a Supreme Being who designed and moves the Universe but cannot possible throw your support behind those who use religion as a means to power.”
Honestly, I’d likely pitch my tent in the pantheist camp. My “god” is the equivalent of the Universe itself. A prime mover is an also infinite regress itself (who created Him, and Him before Him, on so on and so on) unless we say he is BEYOND the universe itself (which he must be if he made something from nothing) . But if he does not exist in THIS universe, does he exist at all? And again, how am I to relate to him?
But say there is a prime mover, and if it his will that constitutes the laws on the universe, can we not say the universe itself is him? Is it not an extension of his being? Is it not fair then to worship the laws of the universe itself? I like Thoreau here: “We are enabled to apprehend at all what is sublime and noble only by the perpetual instilling and drenching of the reality that surrounds us.” What I relate to is the reality I am surrounded in, I rely on myself to “instill and drench” reality to experience the ‘divine’. I’m not waiting to be reborn in paradise. This is what we have. In a sense, I can relate to god’s creation but not to himself. So what do to worship then besides the magnificence of the universe?
I would wager that the majority of atheists are (to be frank) disgusted at mainstream religions, and this may be their prime reason for being atheists. As you said, its not the God concept, but rather the organizations (specifically their rituals and social beliefs) that claim to be in his favor that are extremely unattractive to atheists. And I would also wager that there are very few hardcore atheists. Those I know personally are very open to the idea of a god (the cause of causes type, though) but cite lack of evidence, and perhaps are unwilling to stretch the imagination to accommodate such a theory. Many claim your are misusing the word “God” when you talk of a prime mover. They also seem to express the same thought as me, if such a “god” were to exist, how could we COMPREHEND him, let alone relate to him.
I still hold that the key to eliminating most DRF (destructive religious fundamentalism) lies with the moderates. I think adherents have the power to move religious establishments far more than the authorities too. Moderates have to stand up and reject DRF. Fundamentalist are madly, maniacally clinging to power. Take away their power (their influence) and they are left naked. Let their words fall on deaf ears. Too many moderates let their dissent with religious authority go unvoiced.
↵ -
Chris,
I believe that you are very close to the truth in your above elaboration. However, I still have a problem with the idea of “moderates” in religion. How, exactly, does one define a moderate in religion? Does he or she just sort-of believe in the precepts of their faith? Do they believe them in theory but would not dare act on them? Do they not believe in reading the Torah, Bible, Koran, Upanishads, Tripitaka, etc. and actually following closely in practice? If so, are they not just hypocrites attending social clubs called churches?
And how could a so-called moderate actually have the passion to rise-up against a radical? By their very nature, they have conflict avoidance syndrome.
M-↵ -
Josh,
Great question! Perhaps radical cognitive dissonance comes when one’s religious leaders practice denial and historical reconstruction for so long that followers only really know the “truth” that the latest radical is preaching to them.What do you think?
M-↵ -
Yes, of course. Religion can remain free from fundamentalism. Follow my views on religion. It is free from all kinds of ‘ism’
Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator, this paper I presented at the 1st Int. Conf. on Revival of Traditional Yoga, held at The Lonavla Yoga Institute (India), Lonavla, Pune in 2006. The Abstract of this paper is given below:
The Universe includes everything that exists. In the Universe there are billions and billions of stars. These stars are distributed in the space in huge clusters. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of galaxy, star and planets etc. Gravitation can be considered as the cause of various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Human form is superior to all other forms. Withdrawal of gravitational wave from some plane of action is called the death of that form. It can be assumed that gravitation force is ultimate creator. Source of it is ‘God’. Gravitational Field is the supreme soul (consciousness) and its innumerable points of action may be called as individual soul (consciousness). It acts through body and mind. Body is physical entity. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous system. Electromagnetic waves are its agents through which it works. This can be realized through the practice of meditation and yoga under qualified meditation instruction. This can remove misunderstanding between science and religion and amongst various religions. This is the gist of all religious teachings – past, present and future.
AND
‘In Scientific Terminology Source of Gravitational Wave is God’ I have presented this paper at the 2nd World Congress on Vedic Sciences held at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi on February 9-11, 2007. The Abstract of this paper is given below:
For Centuries, antagonism remained between science and religion. Science and spirituality require to be fused. An integrated philisophy is to be developed. It is written in the scriptures that entire creation is being maintained only through love or force of attraction. In Persian it is known as quvat-i-jaziba. It is on account of this force that the entire creation, which come into existence through the combination of small particles and atoms, is being maintained and sustained. The creation or universe includes everything that exists. In the universe there are billions and billions of stars. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of a galaxy, star and planet etc. and various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Gravitation force is the ultimate creator, sustainer and destroyer of the universe. These are the three attributes of God. Providence has located within the human body a spiritual faculty. When this faculty is developed like physical and mental faculties we find that Truth-the goal of science and God-the goal of religion are one and the same thing.
↵ -
Anirudh,
Please reference my first reply to Tom Allen at the top of the comments on this page. I asked him to take a look at http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/716 It seems that gravity had to have a first cause. Your comments are welcome.
Mick↵ -
Hi Mick. Apologies for the late response. Unfortunately I live in a country where a 30MB MP3 requires a scheduled overnight download. I will attempt to do so but I’ll assume that the lecture contains the standard cosmological argument above.
There has to be a first cause, right? Modern astrophysics has this as the central mystery of the universe. Since space and time are just properties of the universe, how can a discussion of what happened ‘before’ or ‘outside’ the universe have any meaning?
The fact is that we don’t know. There are theories. One is the ID theory. Another is the infinite-succession-of-collapsed-universes theory. Many theories are romantic-sounding and pleasing to the mind. No theory is verifiable. This is where the egoistic human need for ‘an answer’ often comes in and makes a decision based on circular logic and/or the ego-driven elevated status of humankind.
I’m an atheist because there is no rational argument for intelligent design (let alone an omnipresent meddler mentioned in the writings of a superstitious, irrational society 2,000 or so years ago). If such an argument makes itself known, I will ‘believe’ in it, in exactly the same way that I would believe the earth was flat if suddenly it was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
As for creation, what with the object of desired knowledge being distinct from the universe I inhabit, along with all its physical laws, I’m happy with not knowing, and with the very likely idea that I and the rest of humanity will never know.
But there are a lot of people who aren’t happy with not knowing and for whom the God of the Gaps is their personal fix.
↵
