How dangerous are religious extremist and did they create this hateful climate we live in today ?

Question

Religious fundamentalists are united by fear. Whether they are Christian, Muslim, or Jew, fear is the common denominator. They fear change, modernization and loss of influence. They fear that the young will abandon the churches, mosques and synagogues for physical and material gratification. They fear the influence of mass media and its ability to subvert the young with song, dance, fashion, alcohol, drugs, sex and freedom. They especially fear education if it undermines the teachings of their religion. They fear a future they can’t control, or even comprehend.

Perhaps it’s not surprising to realize that it is fear that also connects the myriad of nationalist, separatist and independence movements who also engage in political violence. Although experts, academics and analysts hypothesize about a multitude of causal effects that lead to violence and terrorism, fear is the underlying motivator.

Answer 1

They are extremely dangerous.

Fundamentalism is about hate for any other viewpoint.

As you so eloquently stated, fear is the motivator.

Answer 2

Religious extremists are only dangerous when they push back too hard. As they are doing.

I agree that fear is a motivating factor, but I think you are being unnecessarily harsh here.

The way to combat Fundamentalism is not to scorn it, but to understand it.

Yes, it is a reaction to modernism. Yes, it is based in fear. But it is also based in the general acceptance of the scientific method as the only valid way to arrive at the "truth", which is *inappropriately applied* to religious insights.


Religion (mythos) isn't *supposed* to be subject to the tests of scientific rationalism.

And the modernist drive to re-cast religion in the light of "reason" (logos) has caused a lot of problems.

For example - bible literalism is a fairly recent thing - it's a modernist attempt to change religious thought within Christianity *as a reaction to* our abandonment of the mystical and mythical.

And the types of religious expression that garner the most scorn are those what came into being *precisely* because of the bleak inner landscape brought about through science and modernism in the last century; the working conditions of the factories, the application of science to killing vast numbers of people in WWI and WWII.

Before modernism, religions that had prospered served, among other things, to help people adjust to essential limitations, to accept things as they were. The mythical, mystical and ritualistic had given people a sense of the transcendent value of the past, a way to see the (slower) changes in the world as something that fit in with a "grand plan", and so were not alien/frightening.

But the changing world, the world that only looked forward, could not be served by that kind of religious thought. The Western world was breaking free of the previous limitations on development and discovery, and that affected everyone, including religious people. A new way of being religious had to be found.

Two things arose from that need: Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism. The first was an attempt to apply the rules of proof that work so well in scientific rationalism to religion, and the second is a reactionary rejection of all rationalism.

It's a bad idea.

It would be far healthier, IMO, to reclaim the separation of mythic/mystic and scientific thought. Religious scriptures were not intended to be science textbooks. And the measuring devices of the scientific method are not applicable to religious insights.

No one thinks that the point of the story of Echo and Narcissus ought to be utterly ignored because we know that nymphs never existed. And no one dismisses the insights into human behavior supplied by Aesop's Fables because we know, scientifically, that lions and mice don't actually talk to each other, or that wolves don't actually wear the skins of sheep in order to fool other sheep.

Again, religious truths are not like the proofs of scientific rationalism, but more like the intuitive insights of poetry or music or art. Conflating the two only results in bad science and bad religion.

But I don't think that it's going to go away, because a lot of people are threatened by modernism. There are people who, having accepted the scientific method as the only valid path to truth, feel that their most sacred values are being challenged, and who are motivated by fears, anxieties, and desires that are not unpredictable in the face of the modern (and largely secular) world. The "timeless truths" are now put under the microscope and found to be historically false or scientifically invalid.

And so they push back, and try to reclaim the truths of their religious texts by insisting on the literal, material factuality of the stories in those texts. And they become more entrenched in their positions because *they have thrown away* the value of mystic/mythic thought and accepted scientific rationalism where it doesn't belong; where, in fact, it actually destroys the value of religion.



Things don't develop in a vacuum. We never start with a "clean slate". What has gone before affects what happens now.

Modernism was the midwife for the very kinds of religious developments that the modern scientific community expresses such contempt for.

And, quite predictably, the more that fundamentalists are criticized, the more entrenched they become.

Anyone who passed their high school science classes ought to be able to see it coming. After all, Newton said it a long time ago:

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"

And observation would tell us that the power of mythos is still very much alive, or people would not flock to movies like "Lord of the Rings".

Ignoring that will not get you what you want.

Answer 3

You're right about that. But I don't know that the fear is that people will leave their flocks for material goods. I think religious leaders fear people will see religion as a sham and then what will they do to earn a living.

Answer 4

Dude as quickly as I consult with racists they many times advance evolution and genetics as the explanation why they think of X or Y is inferioir becauase Z volume of years in the past their ancestors did no longer do D besides as his ancestors and additionally that previous tirade approximately jails having extra religious human beings in them and black human beings being extra religious and for this reason they are so backward (have been given those from racist boards). So all in all i'm no longer listening to religious motives for hate lots... different than against gays and abortion. additionally approximately your theory on fearing little ones leaving in the back of mosques... youthful Muslims are lots extra religious then 30 plus Muslims.

Answer 5

I think humans are by their very nature fearful, and therefore hateful, of everything that is unfamiliar. Religion only provides a conduit and a justification for their expression of this fear and hate. Religion is the effect, not the cause.

Answer 6

All this that you have described can be condensed into one thing they fear the most - "change."
This is not a new phenomena; it has been going on since caveman days when any stranger was a potential enemy and source of fear.

Answer 7

We created the fear in this current climate by responding the way we have to the religious extremists.

Answer 8

I think they played into it a great deal, but I don't think they're the root cause. No, I think all of this politically correctness that we have to deal with caused most of the climate. We have to walk on egg shell so much around others that we can no longer stand to be around them.

Answer 9

The #1 form of violence is domestic violence. What did you and yours argue about today? MONEY? Who's going to do the dishes. Don't be simple!

Answer 10

I think you got all the answers already!
Your little essay, sounds like an insightful anti religious manifesto. And I agree!