Scientific Orderliness of Fundamentalism
In this day of instant news, selfies, and You Tube videos, we humans seem to still delight in the public engagement of the age old game of the dirty dozen.
I say age old game because it seems to me that the game most commonly associated in the United States with the Urban African American practice of exchanging insults – frequently about the sexual activity of the mother of one’s opponent in the game - has, in fact, been a game we humans have practiced in various forms since the beginning of recorded history. Despite some wonderful, historical examples of more respectful but very passionate debates among some segments of we humans, for the most part we humans have been intent on proving our “truths” and justifying our destructive defense of those truths by discrediting the infidel thinking and practice of the other. As many academics have pointed out, war behavior and language often uses the same sexual innuendoes as those of the rival urban groups whose “gotya battles” is the virtual painting of the opponent’s mother engaged in sexual acts which make The Platonic Blow by W. H. Auden practically puritanical by comparison.
Of course, the goal is to find and promulgate a universal truth – the truth which will allow us to hold on to the illusion that we understand the rules which govern or should govern the universe in which we live. Obviously, there is some comfort attached to the possibility that we can know what to expect or that we, like the Gods to whom we ascribe authority, can predict patterns of behavior. Whether the truths are those of the string theory or those of a rigid, exclusive religious group the outcome is the same. The truth limits us. Despite the scientific research rule of the null hypotheses, we human, rational thinkers are prone to succumb to the belief that we can “know” with a great degree of certainly how various factors are related or interrelated and what happens when they meet an intervening factor head on. We scientific thinkers look down our noses at the emotional, unscientific thinking of the fundamentalist. We become committed to using our rational thinking to discovering the root cause of why some young person is attracted to such rigid, limited, exclusionary, destructive thinking. We ask ourselves, “In this age of advanced knowledge and enlightened thinking, how is it that anyone could be so barbaric and self-righteously arrogant to engage in terrorist activity.”
We hire the most educated and enlightened psychologists and other social scientists to discover the etiology of the attraction of young people around the world to the cruel, simplistic, martyr thinking of the terrorist. How it is possible that otherwise intelligent men and women could join their ranks? There seems to be no definitive answers and, thus, no ways to limit this flow of our children to that “empty, evil place.”
Yet, it seems to this very limited thinker that the attraction to the clarity and sureness of science and the attraction to a fundamentalist belief system comes from the same source. Even if our entire life is spent finding what patterns do not hold true and, thus, fail to explain why some people are more prone to certain cancers or why molecules or smaller particles interact as they do, there is a comfort in believing that there is a logical pattern which we may someday discover.
So, too, is it true for the fundamentalist or even mainstream religious thinker. Rules which emanate from some eternal truth are very attractive. Although the rules may be very uncomfortable for some and may even limit the inclusion of some, one does not have to wonder if one is ”one of the chosen;” is a moral person who will please God or the Gods. Some of us may shake our head and weep at the decision of the Elders of the Mormon Church who decide that children raised by gay/lesbian parents cannot be baptized until they reach the age of 18 and can denounce the “choices” of their gay/lesbian parents. In the Mormon church a family is a unit which continues on for eternity. A gay/lesibian couple and their children cannot constitute a family in the hereafter and, thus, cannot be considered a family in this life journey. In the Roman Catholic church, certainly a mainstream religion, it is obvious that God does not condone the use of contraceptives since sex is for procreation unless one can be creative (and lucky) enough to avoid pregnancy by practicing the rhythm method. The fact that millions of members of the Roman Catholic Church use artificial birth control does not change the core truths that God is pissed. Especially in the Old Testament of the Bible used by some religious groups, there are wonderful, passionate arguments about truths. One hears this angry God interacting with angry humans. In theological settings of every religion there are often spirited arguments about “truths.” We want to make sense of the brief sojourn of we humans.
Let us assume for the moment that the fundamentalist thinker, the mainline religious thinke, and the scientist have much more in common than that they have differences.
Let us assume that, as frightening as it may be for some, the infidel and the believer can perfectly understand each other. The basic goal of each of them is exactly the same. We both want to live a life which has some meaning. Sure, we could each work very hard, get an education, make money, buy stuff, educate children who may or may not get addicted, or choose some other path very different than our own, get rid of stuff (or not), and then get ready to die. Then we die and then what? Since energy neither is created or destroyed our energy is either transported to some “heavenly, eternal” place or joins other energy to form something or someone new or reconnect with other energy of a planet from which we came or …. The possibilities are endless. Perhaps we do indeed just return to dust and that is it. Still, some part of us seems to want to leave something of import, to feel as if we made a difference. Is my desire to make a difference so different from that of the martyr terrorist or the pilot of the drone or the pilot of a plane dropping a bomb? Is the fact that we are not looking into the eyes of the person we will decapitate what differentiates us from the cruel terrorists?
If I am willing to assume that which motivates the terrorist and me is a very similar spiritual goal, then there is a base for possible discussion. If there is a base for discussion then there is an attempt to “hear” each other with respect. The fact that I am a pacifist is not the main belief which separates us. As long as I think that I am right and the other person is wrong; that I am the good person and the other is the bad person; as long as I think that my God (some spiritual being or the god of science) has the answers then there is no basis for discussion. If there is no basis for discussion, there is no chance of finding a way to co-exist.
I am not convinced that we need more studies to determine why someone joins a terrorist group or some other “conservative” group. I do think that I have more in common with the Muslim terrorist, the Roman Catholic, the fundamentalist Christian, and the scientist than I am comfortable admitting.
Much has been written about the apparent “fact” that mob bosses or gang leaders who can discount the worth of other humans outside the “family” can, within the family, be enormously, kind, gentle, good people. Is this really that surprising? How many of we humans drop bombs from planes or otherwise kill in the name of our “truths” or practice cut-throat business tactics to satisfy the laws of business? We humans compartmentalize, judge, decide who is worthy and non-worthy. We pay homage to the laws of science as we know them today while we use those same laws to design ways to destroy each other or enhance the quality of life for each other.
We do understand the terrorist. I am he or she. He or she is me. That is not a comfortable truth for me, but if I begin with the null hypotheses, my scientific inquiry will reveal …..
Written November 8, 2015
In this day of instant news, selfies, and You Tube videos, we humans seem to still delight in the public engagement of the age old game of the dirty dozen.
I say age old game because it seems to me that the game most commonly associated in the United States with the Urban African American practice of exchanging insults – frequently about the sexual activity of the mother of one’s opponent in the game - has, in fact, been a game we humans have practiced in various forms since the beginning of recorded history. Despite some wonderful, historical examples of more respectful but very passionate debates among some segments of we humans, for the most part we humans have been intent on proving our “truths” and justifying our destructive defense of those truths by discrediting the infidel thinking and practice of the other. As many academics have pointed out, war behavior and language often uses the same sexual innuendoes as those of the rival urban groups whose “gotya battles” is the virtual painting of the opponent’s mother engaged in sexual acts which make The Platonic Blow by W. H. Auden practically puritanical by comparison.
Of course, the goal is to find and promulgate a universal truth – the truth which will allow us to hold on to the illusion that we understand the rules which govern or should govern the universe in which we live. Obviously, there is some comfort attached to the possibility that we can know what to expect or that we, like the Gods to whom we ascribe authority, can predict patterns of behavior. Whether the truths are those of the string theory or those of a rigid, exclusive religious group the outcome is the same. The truth limits us. Despite the scientific research rule of the null hypotheses, we human, rational thinkers are prone to succumb to the belief that we can “know” with a great degree of certainly how various factors are related or interrelated and what happens when they meet an intervening factor head on. We scientific thinkers look down our noses at the emotional, unscientific thinking of the fundamentalist. We become committed to using our rational thinking to discovering the root cause of why some young person is attracted to such rigid, limited, exclusionary, destructive thinking. We ask ourselves, “In this age of advanced knowledge and enlightened thinking, how is it that anyone could be so barbaric and self-righteously arrogant to engage in terrorist activity.”
We hire the most educated and enlightened psychologists and other social scientists to discover the etiology of the attraction of young people around the world to the cruel, simplistic, martyr thinking of the terrorist. How it is possible that otherwise intelligent men and women could join their ranks? There seems to be no definitive answers and, thus, no ways to limit this flow of our children to that “empty, evil place.”
Yet, it seems to this very limited thinker that the attraction to the clarity and sureness of science and the attraction to a fundamentalist belief system comes from the same source. Even if our entire life is spent finding what patterns do not hold true and, thus, fail to explain why some people are more prone to certain cancers or why molecules or smaller particles interact as they do, there is a comfort in believing that there is a logical pattern which we may someday discover.
So, too, is it true for the fundamentalist or even mainstream religious thinker. Rules which emanate from some eternal truth are very attractive. Although the rules may be very uncomfortable for some and may even limit the inclusion of some, one does not have to wonder if one is ”one of the chosen;” is a moral person who will please God or the Gods. Some of us may shake our head and weep at the decision of the Elders of the Mormon Church who decide that children raised by gay/lesbian parents cannot be baptized until they reach the age of 18 and can denounce the “choices” of their gay/lesbian parents. In the Mormon church a family is a unit which continues on for eternity. A gay/lesibian couple and their children cannot constitute a family in the hereafter and, thus, cannot be considered a family in this life journey. In the Roman Catholic church, certainly a mainstream religion, it is obvious that God does not condone the use of contraceptives since sex is for procreation unless one can be creative (and lucky) enough to avoid pregnancy by practicing the rhythm method. The fact that millions of members of the Roman Catholic Church use artificial birth control does not change the core truths that God is pissed. Especially in the Old Testament of the Bible used by some religious groups, there are wonderful, passionate arguments about truths. One hears this angry God interacting with angry humans. In theological settings of every religion there are often spirited arguments about “truths.” We want to make sense of the brief sojourn of we humans.
Let us assume for the moment that the fundamentalist thinker, the mainline religious thinke, and the scientist have much more in common than that they have differences.
Let us assume that, as frightening as it may be for some, the infidel and the believer can perfectly understand each other. The basic goal of each of them is exactly the same. We both want to live a life which has some meaning. Sure, we could each work very hard, get an education, make money, buy stuff, educate children who may or may not get addicted, or choose some other path very different than our own, get rid of stuff (or not), and then get ready to die. Then we die and then what? Since energy neither is created or destroyed our energy is either transported to some “heavenly, eternal” place or joins other energy to form something or someone new or reconnect with other energy of a planet from which we came or …. The possibilities are endless. Perhaps we do indeed just return to dust and that is it. Still, some part of us seems to want to leave something of import, to feel as if we made a difference. Is my desire to make a difference so different from that of the martyr terrorist or the pilot of the drone or the pilot of a plane dropping a bomb? Is the fact that we are not looking into the eyes of the person we will decapitate what differentiates us from the cruel terrorists?
If I am willing to assume that which motivates the terrorist and me is a very similar spiritual goal, then there is a base for possible discussion. If there is a base for discussion then there is an attempt to “hear” each other with respect. The fact that I am a pacifist is not the main belief which separates us. As long as I think that I am right and the other person is wrong; that I am the good person and the other is the bad person; as long as I think that my God (some spiritual being or the god of science) has the answers then there is no basis for discussion. If there is no basis for discussion, there is no chance of finding a way to co-exist.
I am not convinced that we need more studies to determine why someone joins a terrorist group or some other “conservative” group. I do think that I have more in common with the Muslim terrorist, the Roman Catholic, the fundamentalist Christian, and the scientist than I am comfortable admitting.
Much has been written about the apparent “fact” that mob bosses or gang leaders who can discount the worth of other humans outside the “family” can, within the family, be enormously, kind, gentle, good people. Is this really that surprising? How many of we humans drop bombs from planes or otherwise kill in the name of our “truths” or practice cut-throat business tactics to satisfy the laws of business? We humans compartmentalize, judge, decide who is worthy and non-worthy. We pay homage to the laws of science as we know them today while we use those same laws to design ways to destroy each other or enhance the quality of life for each other.
We do understand the terrorist. I am he or she. He or she is me. That is not a comfortable truth for me, but if I begin with the null hypotheses, my scientific inquiry will reveal …..
Written November 8, 2015
RSS Feed