Questions and Observations about Fundamentalism

image from the Resurgence/google images.

My Twitter feed, and occasionally Facebook News Feed, has been occasionally alight with people sharing a rather interesting news article. In it, reported here by The Huffington Post, a Neuroscientist has allegedly said that we will soon be able to cure/engage with fundamentalism as a mental illness. This is an interesting idea, and I agree with Taylor that "there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage", but I am very wary of her usage of terms, and the underlying ideas that lead to this notion of curing fundamentalism.

The term 'fundamentalism', of which we often use the term 'fundamentalist' to describe those who subscribe to the 'ism', is a loaded and often emotive word. We associate it, in different religions, with extremism and violence. We know, or at least we think we do, thanks to the media that it was 'Islamic Fundamentalists' that led to terrorism, and the current Iranian regime. We 'know' that Jewish fundamentalist/extremists are responsible for the militant Zionists and the Israeli/Palestine conflict. We also 'know' that 'fundamentalist' Christians are violently against abortion, uneducated, and generally stand in the way of progress and enlightenment. This is the association that many of us have with fundamentalism, in the religious sense.

I don't want to get deep into the aforementioned deeply complex issues, and I don't claim to be an expert on the Israel conflict or the balance of religious and political power in the more Islamic elements of the Middle East. But I do want to briefly push back on Christian fundamentalism, because I think the general discourse in this area  has committed a slightly amusing category error.

As this Wikipedia article helpfully points out, the Christian usage/origin of the term comes from an effort to understand and define the fundamental elements of the Christian faith. In the debates between theological liberals and conservatives, five fundamental areas of contention are the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the atonement, the bodily/historical nature of the Resurrection, and the historical nature of the miracles that populate the Gospel accounts of Jesus. In the original sense, Christian 'fundamentalists' simply thought that the Bible was inspired, and that Jesus is a historical figure in line with the central truths that most Christians share, that we see in the Apostles Creed;

"1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen."

These so-called Fundamentals, in many ways, are quite literally fundamental! To be a 'fundamentalist', in many ways, is to believe simply the things that Christians have believed since the time of the Early Church! I am quite definitely, in this definition, a fundamentalist, but I don't engage politically with dynamite or pronounce things from my own authority! We need to be careful not to sensationalise our terms, and lump sincere Christians who anchor their faith in a historical reality, with extremists of various faiths who do deserve clear differentiation.

With this in mind - this observation that firm principles are central to Christian understanding and identity - I would have three questions to ask Dr. Taylor, who as you can see here is an accomplished neuroscientist. I don't ask these questions to belittle her scholarship, but merely challenge the assumptions and perhaps unintended consequences of this idea of 'fundamentalism as mental illness'.

Who defines fundamentalism?

What would be the symptoms - poor application of basic principles, or belief in those principles?

What would a 'cure' for religious fundamentalism look like?

- would it be religious liberalism, scientific atheism, agnosticism, or something else?

I wonder what answers to those questions might be. What do you think?

______________________________

If this has wet your appetite, I'd encourage you towards my page on the Resurrection, and my critical review of a book that sought to disprove it. You should also understand that the absolute fundamental for me is Jesus, about whom I've written a fair bit. I'd also recommend Glynn Harrison's book "The Big Ego Trip", which balances neuroscience/psychiatry and Christian ethics. Basically, there is a lot more to us 'fundamentalists' than you might think, so stick around and enjoy the range of articles on this blog!