What makes a Fundamentalist?

[Gav]

More from the New Scientist special. I have a couple more articles that I can post in due course [including one about scientific fundamentalism]. This article is about the psychological make up of fundamentalists.

I've stuck in a note about where this article has come from - just in case anyone is in any doubt.

Fundamentalists are just like us

* 08 October 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Michael Brooks

SCOTT ATRAN knows a thing or two about fundamentalists, and as far as he's concerned, they are nice people. "I certainly find very little hatred; they act out of love," he says. "These people are very compassionate." Atran, who studies group dynamics at the University of Michigan, is talking about suicide bombers, extremists by anyone's standards and not representative of fundamentalist ideology in general (New Scientist, 23 July, page 18). But surprisingly, much of what Atran has discovered about suicide bombers helps to explain the psychology of all fundamentalist movements.

Ideas about the nature of fundamentalist belief initially drew heavily on work from the 1950s, when psychologists were trying to explain why some people were drawn to authoritarian ideologies such as Nazism. Guided by that research, psychologists focused on individuals, looking for personality traits, modes of thinking and even psychological flaws that might mark fundamentalists out from other people. The conclusion they came to was that there is no real difference between fundamentalists and everybody else. "The fundamentalist mentality is part of human nature," writes Stuart Sim, a cultural theorist at the University of Sunderland in the UK. "All of us are capable of exhibiting this kind of behaviour."

Attention has now turned away from individual psychology to focus on the power of the group. "We evolved to have close and intimate group contacts: we cooperate to compete," says Atran. The psychology of fundamentalism is, literally, more than the sum of its parts; taken individually, fundamentalists are rather unremarkable. "The notion that you might be able to find something in a fundamentalist's brain scan is a non-starter," says John Brooke, a professor of science and religion at the University of Oxford.

Much of the research in this area has been done on Christian fundamentalists in North America. A study by Daniel Batson of the University of Kansas and Larry Ventis of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, for example, showed that fundamentalists do not have an abnormally high regard for, or willingness to acquiesce to, authority figures. Studies also show no general inclination towards prejudice, at least in areas where people's behaviour does not conflict with their moral values. Racist they are not; homophobic is a different matter.

And despite the fact that fundamentalist thinking is often portrayed as simplistic, this too is not borne out by research. Measures of cognitive complexity, which describes how an individual combines, classifies and processes information, show that fundamentalists are no different from the wider population. In general they operate solid, logical and sophisticated chains of thinking, albeit thinking that is based on non-negotiable articles of faith. "There are some very sophisticated attempts to defend what to most of our eyes are very unsophisticated positions," says Brooke. "They have a world view that, within its own frame of reference, has a degree of rationality."

In general, fundamentalists seem to be well-balanced people. They score highly on subjective measures of marital happiness, optimism and self-control, and have a low incidence of depression and anxiety.

An obvious explanation for this is that fundamentalist belief is fulfilling some hard-wired psychological need for certainty and security in a world where such comforts are hard to come by. But this cannot be the whole story, because fundamentalists do not choose to become ardent believers simply because of the psychological benefits this brings. They belong to the much larger group of people that psychologists class as "intrinsically" religious: they absorb a creed, believe it is the right thing to believe, and do their utmost to work out its implications in their lives. "Extrinsically" religious people, who join a faith movement for the spin-off benefits, are different, and tend to be more racially intolerant, for example.

Sense of identity

Fundamentalists, then - at least those of the Christian variety - tend to be happy, sincere and healthy. According to Sara Savage, who researches the psychology of religion at the University of Cambridge, that may be because they believe they are playing a role in the greatest story ever told. "Story is probably the biggest form of security we have as humans. It's very powerful in giving you identity."

Secular western culture, on the other hand, doesn't provide a "grand narrative" to participate in, Savage points out. It offers multiple options for making sense of the world around us - a mess that most human minds struggle to deal with. In evolutionary terms, it's really new to us. "I don't think we're that comfortable with it," Savage says. This, she says, is why the kind of world view contained in a religious text resonates with people, and why they are inclined to stick with it at all costs.

Savage suggests that humanity's ways of thinking, of organising, recording and processing information, matured during a period of history when people only had to deal with one world view: a theistic one. This is reflected in most sacred texts, which were written during this period. "Having one world view feels quite natural to human beings," she says.

“The Christians' struggle to validate their beliefs has ignited a global holy war”

But while a rigid adherence to a religious world view may be psychologically unremarkable, when a few of those minds get together in a group, things start to happen. "It's mostly small group dynamics rather than personal psychology or indoctrination," Atran says. He portrays human psychology as having evolved an array of buttons just waiting to be pressed by environmental conditions. Group psychology, Atran thinks, is a particularly responsive set of buttons because group activity, especially in the family, has been so important in our evolutionary development.

However, the group response can be triggered by things that have nothing to do with the evolutionary pressures that formed them: a shared ideology, for example. The group's activities push the "family" button, Atran says, and loyalty to the new group becomes paramount. "By the time the group is formed, they are emotionally felt to be family," he says. "Somehow the same wiring is triggered." In the end, members of the group do anything to maintain the bond and to reinforce the centrality of their group's beliefs.

So what happens next? Because fundamentalist groups are at odds the dominant culture, maintaining the group's fundamentalist world view demands isolation from that culture. The first casualty is tolerance of diversity. But even then it is hard to make the isolation total, with the result that Christian fundamentalists living in the US, for example, compartmentalise their experiences of the world. And that inevitably leads to inner conflict. "All humans do it, but the more we do it, the worse the psychological outcomes," Savage says.

But how does this kind of conflict translate into a social war, like that being waged over the role of science? Part of the answer lies in fundamentalists' need to bolster group identity by reframing their beliefs in the terms of the dominant culture. In a secular, scientific culture, Savage points out, a certain level of evidence is generally required in order for knowledge to count and for individuals to act on it. Fundamentalists respond by attempting to "prove" their core beliefs: they "science-up" their faith, framing it in a way that they think ought to make sense to a scientific culture. Their claims then become, in their eyes at least, as valid as science's claims. No wonder scientists find fundamentalists' claims so infuriating: they are operating on patently false credentials.

However, this tactic has backfired, with damaging consequences. According to James Barr, professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, and author of a number of books critical of Christian fundamentalism, these false credentials have produced a "deep intellectual self-distrust" that shows itself in an insatiable craving for intellectual credibility. That is why creationists strive to have a debate with scientists, and why they trumpet any academic qualifications they might possess. It may also explain why, for instance, George Gilder, a senior fellow of the fundamentalist Discovery Institute in Seattle, invokes the uncertainty principle of quantum theory to shore up a faith-based philosophy.

But to no avail. According to Barr, fundamentalists have failed to gain intellectual acceptance even within mainstream Christian scholarship. Because the fundamentalists come to the Bible with a partisan agenda, they are unable to offer any striking insights. As a result, fundamentalist biblical scholarship is "sterile", he says. Fundamentalist Christianity is widely considered as irrelevant to modern theology as it is to modern science.

And that, for the fundamentalists, is a terrible blow. Irrelevance is not something that people with this group psychology can tolerate. A movement that considers itself a key player in the greatest story ever told can't afford to be perceived as peripheral.

At this point, the desperation sets in.

Today's struggles are only the latest manifestation of this psychology. A glance at the history books shows it is not difficult to make a link between fundamentalist Christian groups' sense of participating in a story of cosmic significance and the rise of Islamic extremism. In fact, Atran says, it can be argued that the group psychology of fundamentalist Christians, their struggle to fulfil the prophecies of the Bible and thus to validate their cherished beliefs, has ignited a global holy war. "People attribute Islamic fundamentalism to Islam, but I think it has as much - or more - to do with Christian fundamentalism," Atran says. "You'll find no apocalyptic visions in Islam; it comes from the book of Revelation. That's what is being played out today."

[Peach]

Interesting. This bears out my observations of my father's side of the family--which includes fundamentalist Baptists, devout believers in ESP and the significance of near-death experiences, intense Quakers, and (in my father's case) dogmatic atheists. Nice people, all, and very well balanced.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Gav

SNIP:

"People attribute Islamic fundamentalism to Islam, but I think it has as much - or more - to do with Christian fundamentalism," Atran says. "You'll find no apocalyptic visions in Islam; it comes from the book of Revelation. That's what is being played out today."

Ah, yes. It's not their fault. And the Jews, dont forget them too. I guess Atran used the "The Koran for Christians" for his research.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Gav

SNIP:

"People attribute Islamic fundamentalism to Islam, but I think it has as much - or more - to do with Christian fundamentalism," Atran says. "You'll find no apocalyptic visions in Islam; it comes from the book of Revelation. That's what is being played out today."

Ah, yes. It's not their fault. And the Jews, dont forget them too. I guess Atran used the "The Koran for Christians" for his research.

[Mr Epee]

I'm tired of people taking the fun out of fundamentalism.

It used to be that a person could just drag a soap-box out to the corner square, start eviscerating popular culture and get some healthy gesticulation going. It was a good chance to get things off your chest and amuse folk in the process.

The advent of easy-access mass media has allowed too many people to be taken too seriously. Crazy ideas gain traction, and look at the mess it has caused.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by Peach

Interesting. This bears out my observations of my father's side of the family--which includes fundamentalist Baptists, devout believers in ESP and the significance of near-death experiences, intense Quakers, and (in my father's case) dogmatic atheists. Nice people, all, and very well balanced.

Do you buy Mr. Atran's view that suicide bombers are compasionate people, not acting out of hatred, but love? Family gatherings must be fun!

[Slim]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Do you buy Mr. Atran's view that suicide bombers are compasionate people, not acting out of hatred, but love? Family gatherings must be fun!

Nothing says LOVE more than 20 lbs. of C-4

I'd feel bad for the valet working that event.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Slim

Ah, yes. It's not their fault. And the Jews, dont forget them too. I guess Atran used the "The Koran for Christians" for his research.

Don't attribute this to me - I just posted it.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by LOAS

Do you buy Mr. Atran's view that suicide bombers are compasionate people, not acting out of hatred, but love? Family gatherings must be fun!

Nothing says LOVE more than 20 lbs. of C-4

I'd feel bad for the valet working that event.

Quality discourse guys. Nothing says that you have actually read something than your inability to comment on what is actually in the text.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Gav

Quality discourse guys. Nothing says that you have actually read something than your inability to comment on what is actually in the text.

"SCOTT ATRAN knows a thing or two about fundamentalists..."
Really now. Here is a link to his publications that defend Islamic Terrorists.

http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/satra...s_on_terrorism

“The Christians' struggle to validate their beliefs has ignited a global holy war”

This claim, out of the blue, with nothing to back it up, along with the last line about Islam not being responsible for their actions, and his list of other publications demonstrates to me that he is just another apologist.

If he had compared and contrasted the two, that's a different story. He didnt.

Rubbish, trash, biased spew. That's all my friend. IMNSHO. If you bait us with this trash, dont expect "Quality Discourse".

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Slim

"SCOTT ATRAN knows a thing or two about fundamentalists..."
Really now. Here is a link to his publications that defend Islamic Terrorists.

http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/satra...s_on_terrorism

“The Christians' struggle to validate their beliefs has ignited a global holy war”

This claim, out of the blue, with nothing to back it up, along with the last line about Islam not being at fault, and his list of other publications demonstrates to me that he is just another apologist.

If he had compared and contrasted the two, that's a different story. He didnt.

Rubbish, trash, biased spew. That's all my friend. IMNSHO. If you bait us with this trash, dont expect "Quality Discourse".

That's better! Now we are having a discussion! You get the idea ...

I'll have a read. Please don't forget that I posted these articles because I found them interesting and thought that you guys might enjoy a discussion about them. There is no troll baiting in this thread so far. Try not to get so precious.

[Peach]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Do you buy Mr. Atran's view that suicide bombers are compasionate people, not acting out of hatred, but love? Family gatherings must be fun!

As far as I know, I have no suicide bombers on that side of the family. However, I do tend to avoid family gatherings on that side, being much less inclined to fundamentalism, so who knows?

[Gav]

I've had a look at that url you've posted and I don't see your point. That's Mr Atran's list of articles at the Uni' of Michigan. Which article does he use to justify jihadists? I get the sincere impression that you didn't read any of those articles.

So returning to the to this article (which is where you are getting your quotes from) and I think I see the problem. This particular line is from a boxout in the article. I copied it over but I haven't formatted it.

My mistake.

Atran's position isn't even all that is covered in that article.

Moving on ...

What do you find objectionable? That there is the possibility that Christian and Islamic fundamentalists share similar group dynamics? That essentially they have the same outlook? That fundamentalists are human beings? Yes even the Islamic ones?

The fact that you leapt straight to suicide bombers (lets leave aside the fact the most successful bombers aren't even islamic) highlights - again - your own prejuidices. Is there something wrong with discussing, rationally, the fact that ALL extremist idealogies (yes even the Christian ones) are bad?

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Gav

I've had a look at that url you've posted and I don't see your point. That's Mr Atran's list of articles at the Uni' of Michigan. Which article does he use to justify jihadists? I get the sincere impression that you didn't read any of those articles.

So returning to the to this article (which is where you are getting your quotes from) and I think I see the problem. This particular line is from a boxout in the article. I copied it over but I haven't formatted it.

My mistake.

Atran's position isn't even all that is covered in that article.

Moving on ...

What do you find objectionable? That there is the possibility that Christian and Islamic fundamentalists share similar group dynamics? That essentially they have the same outlook? That fundamentalists are human beings? Yes even the Islamic ones?

The fact that you leapt straight to suicide bombers (lets leave aside the fact the most successful bombers aren't even islamic) highlights - again - your own prejuidices. Is there something wrong with discussing, rationally, the fact that ALL extremist idealogies (yes even the Christian ones) are bad?

Heh. I keep saying what I dont like about it. You keep saying you either dont see my point, or that you dont see what I object too.

I'm not going to parse the article, line by line, point by point. I'm taking it as a complete work, and not a collection of unrelated sentences or independent thoughts to be parsed on the validity of each one. Sorry.

I did not jump immediately to bombings. I jumped on Atran's sudden, unsupported, and desparate leap to the claim that Christian Fundamentalists are responsible for Islamic Fundamentalists and the so called global holy war.

The author attempts to generalize fundamentalism, but continues to use only Christian fundamentalism as the primary example. You see no problem with this? How about a little intellectual honesty (from the author) ?

There are quite a few links to quite a few articles from the main site I posted. If you choose to believe I have not read any of them, it's your choice. If you want to attribute my comments to prejudice, that is also your choice. From your comment it seems like you didnt follow the links very far. There is indeed quite a bit of information about Atran and his writings if you look.

Do you think the piece is fair generalization of fundamentalism?

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by Peach

As far as I know, I have no suicide bombers on that side of the family. However, I do tend to avoid family gatherings on that side, being much less inclined to fundamentalism, so who knows?

I hope you saw my joke for what it was. However, I was trying to point out irregularities with Mr. Atran's article. Atran wants to establish that fundalmentalist and suicide bombers are cut from the same cloth (which IMO is meant to further establish a more negative association to the term fundalmentalist). He seems to express a foundness/admiration for the suicide bomber, while placing the blame for igniting a global holy war on the Christian fundalmentalist.
I think problems with these "Fundalmentism" threads arise because of the difference in how people define what or who a fundalmentalist is.
Islamic fundalmentalist = terrorist = Christian fundalmentalist = ID proponent = abortion clininc bombers ?

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by Gav

Quality discourse guys. Nothing says that you have actually read something than your inability to comment on what is actually in the text.

The first sentence was a serious question which I would ask you as well. The second was humor.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Gav

(lets leave aside the fact the most successful bombers aren't even islamic)

Excuse me, but---what?!

Are you under the impression that the 9-11 crew, the Spanish and London subway gangs, the Bali nightclub fellows and the guys pulling 3 or 4 bombing a day in Baghdad alone are Hindu or something?! That Hamas is Jain, Hezbollah Christian and Islamic Jihad Jewish?!

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Excuse me, but---what?!

Are you under the impression that the 9-11 crew, the Spanish and London subway gangs, the Bali nightclub fellows and the guys pulling 3 or 4 bombing a day in Baghdad alone are Hindu or something?! That Hamas is Jain, Hezbollah Christian and Islamic Jihad Jewish?!

Could it be that he wasn't talking about those specific bombers? For many on this site, "bombers" is a generic term used to describe all who use some type of explosive munitions. Our military could then be considered "suicide bombers", who are just unsuccessful in killing themselves in the execution of their duties. Just a guess.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Gav

So returning to the to this article (which is where you are getting your quotes from) and I think I see the problem. This particular line is from a boxout in the article. I copied it over but I haven't formatted it.

My mistake.

Atran's position isn't even all that is covered in that article.

Moving on ...

Yes, that solves everything. It was a formatting problem. How prejudicial of me to leap to judgement based on fonts.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Excuse me, but---what?!

Are you under the impression that the 9-11 crew, the Spanish and London subway gangs, the Bali nightclub fellows and the guys pulling 3 or 4 bombing a day in Baghdad alone are Hindu or something?! That Hamas is Jain, Hezbollah Christian and Islamic Jihad Jewish?!

Up until the early 2000's the Tamil Tigers were by far the the biggest and meanest users of suicide bombs.

Not sure if Islamic suicide bombing has caught up (IIRC, there was a fairly recent cease-fire that has greatly cut down on the Tigers' attacks).

--Philistine