Psychological Reasons
qqq...@pc.nu
from a common ancestor with apes/monkeys - that it is astounding that
one rather believe in creation myth.
Belief in creation myth instead of evolution is simply not accepting
facts of the world as we see them.
This is a mystory to me; creation myth is popular.
Could the following chains have some truth to it.
Creation Myth destroyed => Bible is not all true => Maybe Jesus is not
true either => Maybe I do not get a life after death, as promised by
Jesus
OR
I do not respect Creation Myth => I do not respec the Bible => I
believe God will be angry => I go to Hell
Could it be that simple?
Regards,
qqq123
Alexander
In one sense absolutely but in many others no.
This is certainly the supposition and justification many
fundamentalists use to support their worldview but this is the end
result not the total sum of their subject position.
The really interesting question is how they came to this position in
the first place and how they maintain it. It is not as simple as a
punishment/reward scenario.
To begin with there are many Christians who adopt a more allegorical
than literal approach to the Bible while still adopting Jesus as their
saviour. The more moderate Christians are also happy to accept
evolutionary theory while still adopting similar attitudes toward
reward/punishment as outlined above (but generally redefine the concept
of 'heaven' and 'hell' away from a literal understanding of the terms).
With so much variance in interpretation of the Bible the resistance to
evolutionary theory only really comes from those requiring a literal,
inerrant approach which suggests there is something else at work than a
simple reduction to punishment/reward offerings.
My own theory (which is mine, the theory which I thought of) is that
fundamentalists fall into a broad grouping of extremist thought which
is resistant to external change (not merely when it comes to evolution,
but all forms of social change which doesn't adhere to their specific
world view). The Christian extremist view is intimately tied to issues
around morality, a sense of alienation from the parent culture and a
highly defensive insular outlook that ringfences values and ideals as
'owned' by themselves exclusively (e.g. that only a fundamentalist
understands 'truth' or applies proper 'morality' in day to day
conduct).
Looking at fundamentalists we would expect to find groupings delineated
by:
A degree of isolation from other cultures/ideologies (this can be
geographical isolation - midwest towns in the US) or cultural isolation
in more populated areas where the group forms its own associations and
practices (specific schools, group events - anything which minimises
contact with external forces).
Aggressive resistance to change. Due to the parochial outlook of
fundamentalist culture then any challenge to that ideology is resisted
to the point of fanaticism. This need not be physical aggression (it
depends on the degree of exclusion the group feels is being imposed)
but also highly reactive protests and political campaigns. There is a
horrendously bizarre feedback loop that goes on here as the ideology
imposing itself is seen as justifying their parochial attitude in the
first place. Hence evolutionary theory is 'evidence' of the type of
moral decline they were warning everyone about in the first place.
Communal identification. Fundamentalist groups will identify
automatically with others who also claim exclusion. Christian
fundamentalists still disagree vehemently over various doctrinal issues
(the one I've seen interminable arguments on relate to the eschaton and
issues around the tribulation and millenarianism) but the strong sense
of alienation from the parent culture leaves them open to unify against
what they perceive as threats. While all excluded social groups will
do this to one extent or another the degree to which extremists unify
is on a whole different level. This really is a case of 'means
justifying ends' and what the varying groups lack in proper unity (if
Christian fundamentalists 'won' in the US they would fall to
factionalism and in-fighting within days) they make up for in a drive
for what they see as a common purpose. This is motivated primarily by
the need to prevent change as outlined above in order to preserve their
own ideology and prevent the incursion of altered attitudes in life.
So how do evangelicals and fundamentalists reach this position in the
first place? Freud (wrong about many things, but quite prescient when
it came to religion) identified it as an authority figure necessary for
the individual to deal with very intense non-internalised anxieties
derived from child and adolescent traumas. This isn't entirely
satisfying from a social psychological level as we know that
individuals can move away from extremism once exposed to more moderate
religious positions, but the case can be made that individuals that
maintain an extremist view to the exclusion of all other evidence and
experience do so as they are unable to deal with difficult
psychological issues that remain unaddressed within their life.
This could be a socialised or institutionalised process (such as a
single community that has one single set of beliefs and communalised
structure, everyone knows everyone else and everyone is raised to a
belief that is more or less identical. In this environment it is
likely that an individual would find it hard to function outside of the
group so maintains the values of everyone else as, socially, it is
simpler and more constructive to do so) or actual traumatic events
(such as the death of a loved one, abuse, near death experience) that
the individual has never internalised.
The later converts to fundamentalism, in my experience, tend to be
those who've never dealt with a variety of issues so 'come to Christ'
as a way of dealing with unexpressed anxieties. The sense of community
and capacity to defer guilt on a 3rd party is a good short term release
as it happens, but this still leaves the individual unable to
acknowledge their own neuroses which is quite damaging. The late
convert uses the new found faith to explain their past life in ways
that avoid guilt association which is why I believe that the truism
'there is noone more zealous than a recent convert' may actually hold
water. Failure of their new found belief structure would mean they
individually have failed, there would be noone left to blame except
themselves therefore they 'must' maintain their faith or be forced to
acknowledge things they were trying to avoid in the first place. This
projection of guilt and anxiety happens in day to day life as well -
any individual with a specific obssession about blame or position of
extremism is probably doing so through similar need to avoid
confronting issues centred on self-loathing or extreme anxiety. It's
simply the case that the institutionalised nature of some religious
practices make it far easier for that projection to occur.
The communal fundamentalists fall into a way of belief more through
habit than personal zeal but the inherent isolationism makes the group
difficult to penetrate. It's only through personal exploration and
acceptance of other ideologies and ways of being that the communal
extremist comes to accept more moderate views. Again, Freud was bang
on the money when he stated that release of religious views had to be a
personal journey, enforced or sudden changes are just as damaging as
the underlying concepts themselves.
The overlay of the reward/punishment scheme is a template that is
simply utilised by fundamentalists to justify their subject position
retroactively. In other words it's an 'after the fact' imposition.
Any isolated group will adopt practices that reinforce a sense of
communality to the exclusion of others if left in situ long enough.
The manner of the social structure used to justify that exclusion will
change and evolve from culture to culture but the underlying principles
(the need to define our 'self' and identify others from our own social
grouping) are fairly well known. It needn't be the bible in otherwords
- it could be UFO's or L Ron Hubbard or Neo-Nazi fantasies of ZOG and
so on.
The psychology of extremists (not just religious ones) is something
that fascinates me on many levels and, as in all social psychology,
there is no meta narrative that would explain all behaviour, but there
are certainly empirical patterns within extremist thought that are
clearly demarcated.
I'd offer references but all my books are packed right now. The one
accessible book I usually direct interested parties to is the
'Psychology of Religion' by Argyll. It's a few years old now but still
contains some fairly robust and interesting data about faith and
identity. The foreward is appalling unfortunately and contains some
basic errors about the Scopes Trial which surprised me - the remainder
is excellent however.
>
> Regards,
>
> qqq123
John Coleman
For young earth creationists, yes. For IDers who concede the mythical
nature of the first 11 chapters of Genesis something more subtle is
needed. Maybe
evolution => no qualitative distinction between man and animals => no
foundation for ethics => nihilism.
Some of the implications in this chain are weaker than the implications
in the fundamentalist chain, which might be one of the reasons that the
IDers have had a harder time selling their approach to their intended
audience (including e.g. educated catholics) than young earth
creatonists have had in selling their approach to their
(fundamentalist) audience.
-John Coleman
VoiceOfReason
Excellent analysis. Worth a nomination, IMO.
Alexander
VoiceOfReason wrote:
> Alexander wrote:
> > qqq...@pc.nu wrote:
> > > The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming - that man has decended
> > > from a common ancestor with apes/monkeys - that it is astounding that
> > > one rather believe in creation myth.
> > >
> > > Belief in creation myth instead of evolution is simply not accepting
> > > facts of the world as we see them.
> > >
> > > This is a mystory to me; creation myth is popular.
> > >
> > > Could the following chains have some truth to it.
> > >
> > > Creation Myth destroyed => Bible is not all true => Maybe Jesus is not
> > > true either => Maybe I do not get a life after death, as promised by
> > > Jesus
> > >
> > > OR
> > >
> > > I do not respect Creation Myth => I do not respec the Bible => I
> > > believe God will be angry => I go to Hell
> > >
> > > Could it be that simple?
> >
> > In one sense absolutely but in many others no.
> >
<snip for brevity>
> Excellent analysis. Worth a nomination, IMO.
Oh cheers. I appreciate that.
qqq...@pc.nu
John Coleman wrote:
> evolution => no qualitative distinction between man and animals => no
> foundation for ethics => nihilism.
evolution => no qualitative distinction between man and animals =>
ethics based on the animal collective is imposed on man, as devloped
through evolution of social animals => not nihilism
Regards,
qqq123
thissteve
qqq...@pc.nu wrote:
>
> Creation Myth destroyed => Bible is not all true => Maybe Jesus is not
> true either => Maybe I do not get a life after death, as promised by
> Jesus
This is the explanation, but stop at "Maybe Jesus is not true either."
That's enough to destroy Christianity and cause Christians to fight
against it.
The inerrancy doctrine is the cornerstone of conservative Christianity,
but it shouldn't be as it is useless for Biblical interpretation. Josh
McDowell, arguing for the inerrancy doctrine, once wrote (roughly)
"Some claim that the inerrancy doctrine dies the death of a thousand
qualifications, but that isn't true." He then proceeded to list a
thousand qualifications.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "VoiceOfReason"
<papa...@cybertown.com>:
Excellent post; seconded.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless