10 – On Fundamentalism ...

Thoughts on Religious Fundamentalism

 

Below are two excerpts related to the topic from two different articles I had written sometime back. 

 Excerpt #1: (Original article: “US Decision-Milieu” on www.rifatafeefuspolicy.blogspot.com.) 

 Addendum to the original article:  It would be worth mentioning here that my puzzlement/reflection over people’s contradictory behaviour related to what would be generally considered “religious” for over 35 years since my mid-teens was richly rewarded by having delved into behavioural aspects of psychology in the late 1990s and early 2000s – that those behaviours were largely psychological in nature and are not related to formal, established religion, in spite of that religions in general are of a psychological nature; that weak minds that do not have adequate control over their behaviours need excessive religious zeal as a means for overcoming the guilt associated with such behaviours which they know to be in conflict with what they have been taught, or perhaps less often, in conflict with moral norms or simple common sense, a process that psychologists would call “reducing cognitive dissonance” that arise from the conflict between the teachings of their beliefs or moral norms or basic commons sense and their actual behaviours.  In this regard, the description by Prophet Mohamed of a “hypocrite” is revealing: “If he talked, he would lie; if he made a promise, he would renege; and if he has been entrusted (with something of value) he will betray (you).”  It was due to my rather frequent observation of this behaviour from those who manifest behaviour of being “religious,” as mentioned above, that I grew curious about the phenomenon.  Zealous religious behaviour can therefore be said to be mere psychological crutches or defence mechanisms unconsciously generated for maintaining one’s sanity; for more on this topic, see towards end of article #22 on the blog mentioned (below).  It should be noted that such behaviour must operate at an unconscious or at least semiconscious level for it to work as psychological crutches; if their owners become consciously aware of the dynamics involved, the device would cease to be effective and they have to devise other crutches to achieve the same ends; or else, they have to change their behaviour in question which was what gave rise to the dissonance in the first place – this process is explained by the Balance Theory in psychology.  Thus by inference, those who go overboard with their zealousness (indicative of heightened dissonance) can be said to be psychologically sick (their words and deeds can be compared to verify or refute this claim) and are thus in need of commensurate help.  The above logic is equally applicable to those who we would consider to be “normal” – politicians who are in the habit of excessive lying, for example; they may claim that attending to their respective temples on designated days is for the sake of social appearances, but in reality – and they are unlikely to admit it even to themselves, which self-deception being a necessary condition for the process to be effective, as we saw – the primary purpose of such visits is to “cleanse” themselves and thus reduce their mental dissonance.  And they would, by definition, fall into the “weak-minded” category, as mentioned.  This mechanism is, of course, relevant for those who have deep-seated beliefs; those who are irreligious have to resort to other means to achieve the same ends – being unduly generous, for example.  While the connection mentioned has been made explicit only in recent times by modern psychology, it must not have been lost on the religious leaders of all stripes since the earliest of times.  Hence they must have used their intuitive understanding of this connection for leading or managing their helpless disciples or “flock” – as in “a flock of sheep.”  And this understanding had been used over historical time, and is in ample use in the modern times as well, for both self-serving purposes and for the common good.  ******** A second mechanism that uses the same underlying psychological phenomenon, namely, cognitive dissonance, arises from the same source, namely, from people’s deep-seated desire to be consistent, and is one of the powerful factors underlying mass conversions – be it religious or political.  Thus, for example, if we took part in a political rally on our own volition – and this self-choice is critical; being coerced in a significant way will render the mechanism ineffective – but later had doubts about correctness of our action, mental dissonance arising from the discrepancy will work on our psyches to convince us that attending the rally was the right thing to do.  And the more such rallies we attend, the more convinced we will become of the validity of the “cause” and therefore the deeper our belief in it.  It can be seen that this is also how we become “religious.”  For beginning from childhood on, our attendance to religious functions (along with related dogmas) will get those actions and beliefs firmly ingrained in us, and given this conditioning, we might even sacrifice our lives to promote what we believe – without any thought as to their origins or correctness.  The same mechanism also can be seen to be underlying the plethora of numerous social norms as well as much of the business choices we make – one might want to wonder about the deeper psychological reasons behind golf matches so dear to top business brass, apart from rational factors as networking.  ********   We can see from the two examples above the powerful nature of the psychological forces that drive our lives in general and religious fundamentalism in particular.  As detailed in my writings on the blog referred, our psyches are not geared to question the validity of our beliefs, especially given the enormous info overload in our lives and resulting pressures to move along to the next task, nor does the world education system endow us with any understanding about the nature of the situation – in fact, it does not even have a clue about the huge problem presented by this situation, let alone that that crippling problem is really responsible for much of the current sociopolitical turmoil and the resulting misery on a global scale.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Excerpt #2: (Original article: “2 – Education & Fundamentalism” (2009) on my main blog  www.rifatafeef.blogspot.com.) 

It is a short way from here to reach the conclusion that religious fundamentalism is a direct spin-off of the very same phenomenon of “the way the human mind works” as described in the preceding paragraphs and which by its nature creates barriers to consensus progressively. 

To know how this works, we have to understand a basic mechanism through which evolution of human knowledge (which underlies perception) takes place.  In the case of non-religious human knowledge, such evolution is characterized by improvement over historical time whereas in the case of religious knowledge, the process involves degeneration.  Let me elaborate/explain. 

Of the body of non-religions knowledge, scientific knowledge best epitomizes this positive evolution. Science has advanced over time by eliminating concepts/practices that were not verifiable by yielding positive results, such as ancient practice of drilling holes in the skull to drive out demons or the more recent practice of blood-letting to cleanse the body of whatever that ails it.  It might take time, may be a decade or two currently, for viable/proven concepts/techniques to go mainstream.  The body of non-religions knowledge, particularly the sciences, therefore has kept improving over historical time. 

But such is not the case with regard to the body of religious knowledge; in matters religious, there is no viable means to verify the truth or falsity of issues.  Furthermore, matters religious are cloaked with a “sacred” protective veneer (similar to a resistant strain of bacteria that has developed a defensive outer layer impenetrable to conventional drugs), thus few in their right minds would want to be subject to the ire of a populace that fervently believes every minor tidbit to be “sacred.”  This is one factor.  The other is that all matters religious are subject to “interpretations” by those who claim to have the intellectual wherewithal, that is, the clergy, during which process (stretched over historical time) the full body of religious knowledge gradually but steadily gets tainted with the limited (leading to distorted) perceptions of those who do such “interpretation.”  (See above: perception formation.)  Because of these two vital factors, namely, the path for evaluation of religious issues being blocked for the non-clergy, and simultaneously, due to “interpretations” of those issues by the clergy who claim to know but in reality do not,⁽⁵⁾ the body of religious knowledge has evolved over historical time in the wrong direction, towards distortion and degeneration, away from the original messages of the pioneers responsible for them, be it Moses or Jesus or Mohamed.⁽⁶⁾  It should also be noted that a basic reason underlying this degeneration arose from the lack of ability to differentiate the “message” from the incident circumstances that surrounded it, that is, the life conditions and mindsets at the time of those pioneers.  Moreover, the necessity for the messages frequently arose from the dictates of those circumstances themselves.  This makes a significant part of what we inherited from the past as “religion” doubly meaningless in the twenty first century. (See addendum at the end of this account for further elaboration on this aspect of historical distortion.⁽⁶⁾)  

This confused situation is further exacerbated by engaging children in rote-learning from an early age, which stunts their innate curiosity and ability to think and reason critically.  And given that the specialization focus of today’s world’s education system leaves one with narrow worldviews, the process also leaves many of those who get rote-learned educations as children vulnerable as adults to be swayed by eloquent mischief-makers out to get a compliant following, since they claim answers to many questions their victims ponder but to which the latter’s limited information bases and stunted ability for reasoning cannot generate satisfying answers, especially given their lack of suitable value systems to show the way in our complex life conditions; chances of such victimization being further enhanced by heightened aspirations that cannot be fulfilled to one’s content in today’s competitive world. 

With this backdrop, a helpful way to put religious fundamentalism in perspective is to ponder the implications of the “Social Judgement Theory” (SJT), a prominent theory in the field of social psychology, and more specifically, what it says about social perception.  The theory postulates three “latitudes,” or parts, as constituting the sum total of one’s schema for evaluating others’ viewpoints, namely, latitudes of acceptance (agree), non-commitment (neither agree nor disagree), and rejection (disagree).  (This evaluative process can be expected to likely operate at an unconscious or at best a semiconscious level.)  Thus those whose knowledge/beliefs are said to be complex (that is, those with a wide variety in their knowledge/belief bases) tend to have relatively wider latitudes of acceptance and non-commitment but narrower latitudes of rejection.  On the other hand, those with simple (or limited) knowledge/belief bases tend to have relatively narrower latitudes of acceptance and non-commitment but wider latitudes of rejection.  As a result, it is relatively easy to talk about issues with those who have complex or extensive knowledge/belief bases without much argument while such conversations are not possible with those who have simple or limited knowledge/belief bases.  And given the way humans make sense of the world based on what they have between their ears, it would not be surprising in the least that those with knowledge limited to religious doctrines will be among the most “narrow-minded” and with whom one cannot have a reasonable conversation about anything without what they consider their deities’ pronouncements getting in the way! 

We can get further insight into how such narrow-mindedness is reinforced daily by realizing that it is due to the outcomes of the thesis of SJT in conjunction with our innermost yearnings to affirm our beliefs and prejudices that “birds of a feather” congregate with their kind – be it those of various denominations of religious faiths or political inclinations.  In such gatherings much of the talk participants hear will fall within their latitudes of either acceptance or non-commitment, and little will venture beyond either into latitudes of rejection.  Thus common beliefs are reinforced in individuals and they come out of gatherings elated, with “happiness” neurotransmitters flooding their brains.  And since such gatherings make participants happy, they provide powerful motivation to uphold shared beliefs & prejudices but little to question them, as the driving force behind our motives lies in what makes us happy/satisfied/fulfilled.  (This is also the mechanism through which today's one-sided and self-serving TV programs play a pivotal role in polarizing communities and nations.)    

We can reasonably conclude that religious fundamentalism is a state of mind arising from the indoctrination of people from a young age with religious doctrines that originated in response to circumstances far removed from those of our time and moreover seen extensive distortions over historical time; the transformation of this mental state towards extremism being greatly enhanced by the downsides of both “the way the human mind works” and the way the world  education system is currently set up, and further exacerbated significantly by the exploitation of thus transformed states of mind by some people to attain their own ends – regardless of the nature of those ends or whether underlying motives are labelled “bad” or “good.”  And given its complex nature, it will be prudent for those dealing with religious fundamentalism to take account of the various factors that collectively contribute to that illusive phenomenon.  It will also be clear from preceding accounts of the dynamics of the processes involved that it will be futile to try to reason with those who are literally brainwashed with narrow belief systems that have seen progressive distortions over historical time⁽⁶⁾ and moreover do not have even an inkling that many beliefs they so ardently hold do not have much of a reality to them.  … … 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 ⁽⁵⁾ Example: The Galileo fiasco; his support and popularization efforts for the newly formulated Copernican heliocentric theory, as opposed to the old geocentric theory which the clergy “interpreted” to be concordance with the Bible, led to his incarceration and house-arrest for the remainder of his life.  Likewise, Galileo’s compatriot Giordano Bruno’s intuitive theorizing that extended the Copernican model, asserting that “stars were distant suns surrounded by their own planets” (Wikipedia) led him to be burnt alive by the Catholic Church.  Current such “interpretations” by the clergy extend to abortion, stem cell research, and nuclear physics, among others.  

 ⁽⁶⁾ Significant insight into this process of historical distortion in the realm of Christendom can be gleaned from Dan Brown’s international bestselling novels The Da Vinci Code and Angles & Demons. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Addendum to Excerpt No 2 above – which highlights historical distortion⁽⁶⁾:  In the present Afghanistan, the Taliban has the perception (which is brutally enforced) that all adult males ought to have beards because Prophet Mohamed had it, and thus that it is a Sunna.  (In fact, this perception had not been invented by the Taliban; they inherited it from the conservative / extreme elements from generations of the historical past.)  What they do not seem to comprehend is that it was the norm for adult males to have beards not only among the Moslems but among non-Moslems as well; in fact, until recently, the vast majority of adult males in the West also had beards.  Thus the practice can be said to have arisen from circumstances of the times – earlier societies had more important things pertinent to their daily lives, given the limited resources available, than producing shaving equipment.  A related aspect that the extremists cannot fathom is that the Prophet did not have modern conveniences as cell-phones, automobiles, and even AK-47s.  And if they are sticklers to the Sunna, I wonder why they keep using these devices, and not use pigeons and camels and swords instead!  A similar argument can be made about how a group of people was ruled.  In the Prophet’s time there were no nations with defined borders – there were only scarce objects of value as water wells or oases with fertile land around over which there was fierce fighting.  Nor were there any organizational set-ups that engaged in affairs of administration – pertinent decisions were made by consultation among tribal elders.  Today, not only do groups of people have boundaries demarcating land that is called theirs but have organizational set-ups as cabinets and departments and the like to handle their affairs.  And yet they are adamant on imposing select pet past practices onto today’s public, paying little heed to the glaring discrepancy between the circumstances of the worlds of then and now.  Thus it will not be an exaggeration to say that these people are not only out of touch with reality, but don’t know what the hell they are talking about!  Even other practices being imposed on Moslems in the name of Shari’a such as head scarfs for women (this was a distortion of the Koran’s message,^(note) according to Sheikh Sai’d Al-Ashmawi, a former chief justice of Egypt’s Supreme Court and author of 15 books on Islam/Shari’a) and today’s bank interest (interpreted as riba) are no more than distortions due to their ignorance – their lack of understanding of not only how the world works, but even the philosophy of the religion’s message in the name of which they keep making pronouncements.  In my opinion, the fuss they keep making about those practices has little to do with the religion of Islam but relate to their distorted perceptions arising from psychological states of their mindsets elaborated in the first excerpt above.  (These two latter are loaded topics which hopefully I will be able to deal with more thoroughly at a future time.)  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

^(note)  Recall our old custom in the Maldives of "libaas-lehvun" for girls approaching puberty.  Then, extreme poverty had barred people from dressing girls; they were barely able to feed themselves!  But since Islam commanded them to, people were forced to squeeze what they could for the purpose.  The situation was the same in the Hejaaz in the Prophet's times.  Moreover, the Prophet only instucted them to cover their breasts.  (Even today, women of many African and Amazonian tribes go topless in part because they are more comfortable in the hot tropical climates with minimal clothing.)  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please note that the societal behaviour that we call religious fundamentalism and/or religious intolerance is an outcome arising from the fusion/amalgamation of many/all the processes outlined in the two pieces above – and possibly of other processes as well; that is, they are not an outcome induced by any single of the above factors. 

 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Note for Those Who Do Not Know Me:  Prior to my development-focused graduate studies in the USA, I had a religious background at Al-Azhar in the late-1960s, and after obtaining the General Certificate of Education offered by University of London in science-related subjects, went on to study architecture at Ein Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.