Is Religious Fundamentalism the Default Position of the Religion. ?

[Sha'irullah]

Is Religious Fundamentalism the Default Position of the Religion?​

I have always heard the term fundamentalism be used as a dirty word within religion. To me I find this heavily deceptive. Fundamentalism by definition means the primary core of an ideal or the "fundamentals". The very term "moderate" means one practices something without full compliance to it.

Fundamentalism is always used to place emphasis on the negatives of a religion yet what is often never brought up is that this fundamentalism is the natural default position of the religion. If through moderation the negativities of the religion are ignored or balanced then through fundamentalism is it apparent that the negativities of the religion are its default position.​

 

[Quintessence]

This is partially a semantical issue, methinks. Terms take on different meanings in different contexts. When used in the context of discussing religion, the term "fundamentalism" doesn't really mean simple adherence to the fundamentals. Or at least I have never really encountered people using the term in that fashion when discussing it with respect to religion. Instead, we usually use the term to indicate a rigid adherence to dogma, usually strict Biblical literalism. That rigid adherence often comes into conflict with other people, because they are very uncompromising in their beliefs and practices. They're fanatical, zealots even. This isn't the default position of religion, it's a fringe/extremist position of religion. Unsurprisingly, the term then takes on a pretty negative connotation since fundamentalism tends towards "my way or the highway" and doesn't play nice with the other kids in the sandbox.

But sure, by alternative definitions of fundamentalism, you have a fair point. If we understand fundamentalism as adhering to the fundamentals, than yes, anyone who truly embodies their path would be a fundamentalist by that definition. We just need to keep in mind that "fundamentalist" isn't really used in that fashion when discussing religion. At least it sure isn't in my country. Maybe others have had different experiences with this they'd like to share?

 

[Trantorfuzz]

In response to the OP’s question, the answer is no.

I have always heard the term fundamentalism be used as a dirty word within religion. To me I find this heavily deceptive. Fundamentalism by definition means the primary core of an ideal or the "fundamentals". The very term "moderate" means one practices something without full compliance to it.

Parsing the parts of a word doesn’t always reveal the word’s meaning. Find any ham in a hamburger lately? “Fundamentalism” is almost as opaque. Liberal Christianity could claim to stick to the fundamentals of Christianity owing to its emphasis on helping the poor, which Jesus repeatedly pushed. But, as it happens, Christian fundamentalism refers to a biblically literal theology that originated, not in the first century, but in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Basically, it was a reactionary response to modernism. Since blanket literalism was not characteristic of early Christian theology, intra-Christian criticism of fundamentalism is not deceptive.

By the way, the term “fundamentalism” cannot be meaningfully applied to any and all religions. Hinduism, for example, is prehistorically ancient, voraciously syncretic, and has countless sub-groups. “Hindu nationalism” has meaning, but “Hindu fundamentalism” would be a nonsense phrase. The Yoruba religions, which together constitute one of the eight largest religious groups, have no definitive scriptures. The Daoist Scriptures are so anti-dogmatic and so intent on transcending their own language that the phrase “Daoist fundamentalism” is confusing at best.

Fundamentalism is always used to place emphasis on the negatives of a religion yet what is often never brought up is that this fundamentalism is the natural default position of the religion. If through moderation the negativities of the religion are ignored or balanced then through fundamentalism is it apparent that the negativities of the religion are its default position.

First, this paragraph assumes the truth of the very issue that the OP asked about. And no, fundamentalism is *not* the default position of any religion that I know of.

As for inconsistent doctrines, time eliminates the apparent contradiction. In mainstream Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, commentary on the Scriptures is (and has been for centuries) an ongoing process and the interpretation of Scriptures adapts to different times. One of the reasons that interest in the Scriptures has lasted so long is that the Scriptures admit to so many interpretations. The rigidity of the fundamentalists naturally draws criticism from other religious groups. So does the cruelty of many fundamentalists.

Your position recalls remarks that I've read in so-called "New Atheist" literature. Unfortunately, Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens don't know jack about theology or history, and this ignorance is sadly evident in their three anti-religious books, "A Letter to a Christian Nation," "The God Delusion," and "God is Not Great," all of which which I have read.

For informed (as opposed to ignorant) critiques of Christianity, see David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and the more recent "God's Problem" by biblical scholar and ex-Christian Bart Ehrman. Even Bertrand Russell's simple and dated "Why I Am Not a Christian" is far, far superior to the "New Atheist" rubbish that I've waded through.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

If we understand fundamentalism as adhering to the fundamentals, than yes, anyone who truly embodies their path would be a fundamentalist by that definition.

This is exactly what the overly zealous Christian fundies do. It's just that when you interpret the Bible literally, not much good can come out of it. Not all religious fundamentalism is bad, but some religions are just rotten at the core.

 

[ChristineES]

In my opinion, there is no default position in any religion.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I think it would depend on the teachings of the religion and whether or not it was framed in such a way as to suggest that it should be taken in a certain way and the freedoms given to the practitioner in terms of their authority to interpret and to devise their own understandings (not all religious teachings convey similar levels of individual freedoms of practice).

 

[Professor Paradox]

I think it depends on the religion and its teachings.

Christianity and Islam seem to be more prone to fundamentalism and violence than most other religions.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

In my opinion, there is no default position in any religion.

Then why would there be scriptures? Would you not call the scriptures the default position?

 

[Secret Chief]

"unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs."

I think one should distinguish between the religion and the people. There are of course irreducible tenets; these are what essentially define a religion. But demanding and getting or not getting unwavering attachment, perhaps literally, is a human response to the tenets; and thus will vary.

 

[LuisDantas]

Interesting matter, the one the OP raises.

A related one: how and why did the current usual understanding of "Fundamentalism" arise? How avoidable or necessary was that shift in perception? What, if anything, should be learned from that?

 

[RJ50]

Fundamentalism is a dirty word in any religion, especially Christianity and Islam, as it can lead to abuse and extremes of behaviour!

 

[LuisDantas]

Fundamentalism is a dirty word in any religion, especially Christianity and Islam, as it can lead to abuse and extremes of behaviour!

It sure is. But it is interesting to consider why, and how this compares to similar situations in, say, law.

This is one of the rare instances where religion should, in fact, teach law.

The way I see it, fundamentalism is always dangerous, and therefore creates the need for some sort of control or overview system. Basically, it must be recognized that people can't be allowed to become too insulated from larger society, despite their right to some privacy and personal freedom.

Ironically enough, the history of lack of proper self-regulation from the most demographically succesfull religions of this day makes them particularly ashamed of fundamentalism.

That is something, but still just a start. Diagnosis and correction mechanisms are still needed and must be implemented and kept instead of just acknowledged as a good thing to have. Anything that is seen as a source of larger guidance and a source of societal values must be questioned regularly. Be it religion, parenthood, education or law.

 

[RJ50]

I am of the opinion that if people wish to believe in a deity, that is fine providing their religion observance is moderate. However if their belief system expects them to act in a way that is abusive and extreme they should seriously question what sort of deity would wish them to behave in that manner!

 

[Secret Chief]

Religious fundamentalism apparently began its currency in America amongst Christians. So sayeth Wiki.
The word need not be pejorative, but usually is in common parlance.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

 

[Sunstone]

Religious fundamentalism is religion become an illness.

 

[Sunstone]

The word need not be pejorative, but usually is in common parlance.

Here in Colorado Springs, many fundamentalists used to call themselves "fundamentalists" right up to 9/11, when they suddenly switched to calling themselves "Evangelicals".

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I think it depends on the religion and its teachings.

Christianity and Islam seem to be more prone to fundamentalism and violence than most other religions.

Well, what do you expect from the two of the biggest religions? I'm sure violence could be linked to Hinduism or Buddhism a lot more if they were the top two.

 

[Sunstone]

Then why would there be scriptures? Would you not call the scriptures the default position?

Which of the thousand and one interpretations of scripture is the default one?

 

[Secret Chief]

Here in Colorado Springs, many fundamentalists used to call themselves "fundamentalists" right up to 9/11, when they suddenly switched to calling themselves "Evangelicals".

Oh dear! Let's hope suicide bombers don't get rebranded as evangelicals or another name change will be needed.

 

[Secret Chief]

Which of the thousand and one interpretations of scripture is the default one?

Good point.