Thursday 12 October 2006

Pic of the day: Typical atheist from the role-playing game Oblivion.

Causes of "fundamentalism"

The year is 2006. In my lifetime, less than 50 years, we have had an explosion of information that has literally multiplied our formal knowledge about the world we live in. And this is just the continuation of a process that has lasted for centuries. While the growth of knowledge was slow for millennia before, it has steadily accelerated, especially after the printing press and public schools appeared 500 years or so ago. The short of it is that even a ten year old child today has a much better understanding of the world than the great sages of old.

Despite this, we see in some parts of the world that a large part of the population profess belief in early Iron Age religions without modification for later knowledge. That is, they claim to accept all parts of that religion as it was presented at that time. This includes references to the worldview at the time, a worldview that does not match observed facts that we have access to today.

It is possible (and indeed common) to believe in ancient religions but at the same time accept scientific facts that have come to light later. Most religious people do this. They see their religion as revealing timeless truths about human nature and the invisible spiritual world to which we can connect inside, a world that is independent of time and space. The inner experiences of modern men and women verify the knowledge passed down to us in this regard. But the outer experiences of the modern world, with its microscopes and telescopes, radioactive dating techniques and systematical analysis of data, does not support the world myths of that age.

***

Let us first establish what a myth really is. It is commonly used as a synonym for a (shared) lie, but this is not an exact use and best spared for very casual talk about unimportant issues. When we are talking about "greater myths", those that are important to people, we should use a more stringent definition. There are many attempts to define the word, but in this context I will assume that a myth is the best adaptation of known facts that still give meaning. A myth then describes the world as people then and there see it, but in a meaningful way rather than just a list of facts. The myth is expected to explain as much as describe the world we see.

Myths are not a thing of the past. We have probably just as many myths today as our ancestors 2000 or 4000 years ago. But we don't recognize them as myths. They are so advanced that they blend in seamlessly with our knowledge. This was probably always the case, but myth from a different age do not do this, and so they stand out as myths. For instance today we believe in the myth of nations, that these are real entities worth killing or dying for rather than just partitions of land. This myth has in some form existed for thousands of years, but not everywhere and at all times.

The myth, then, has two different components: It describes the known world, and it provides meaning. I believe this is the important thing to consider when we see people embrace myths that are no longer seen as relevant and true by the rest of us.

I do not think simple stupidity is a good explanation for fundamentalism or literalism in general. Stupidity is universal, literalism is not. For instance, it is very rare in Scandinavia and uncommon in all of Europe. On the other hand it is fairly common in the USA, which has a similar culture and large number of people of European descent. Literalism and it's more violent form, fundamentalism, is also very common in much of the Muslim world, which encompasses several different ethnicities.

Rather I believe that these people feel that the modern worldview does not give meaning. It does not match the values they hold on to. And it does not cause people to behave in ways they respect.

It actually makes sense. If a "truth" causes people to behave in destructive or irresponsible ways, there is every reason to question its veracity. After all, we already have various other similar situations: When people are drunk, or insane, or very angry, and some teens as well. They do things that society does not approve of. They break the rules. But when they sober up, or become sane, or calm down, or grow up... they regret and are ashamed of what they have done. Surely, one would think, it is the same with these liberals. They say and do shameful things (like "touch yourself, it is fun" and "women should marry women") and claim that society is responsible for criminal acts, not the criminals themselves. They would not say things like that if they were thinking clearly, would they?

***

In terms of Spiral Dynamics, literalists tend to be in the Blue (law and stability) vMeme, but not all Blues are even religious, much less taking their religion literally. In fact, until recently it was common among both Christians and Muslims to concentrate on the spiritual lessons of their holy scriptures rather than try to expand them into science, and their interaction with society was a kind of compromise: Society respected basic values of the religion, and the religious let the secular government do the actual ruling. Fundamentalism is something fairly new, at least it was not widespread before.

The reason for this is almost certainly the emergence of the new Orange and especially Green value systems. While Orange was individualist and simply shifted focus from the religious realm to the scientific and economic, Green is collective and value-oriented... but the values are not the same. They don't believe in one nation under God, but a chaotic world in which humans define their own values. They don't want us to send missionaries to the jungle so the poor stone-age people can get hospitals and schools and learn about Jesus and clothes, saying instead that the wild people have the right to remain wild, as if anyone would want that. They tell children to doubt their parents and teachers and think for themselves. And look what happens: Terrorists, school shootings, abortions and divorces. Back in the good old days, things were so much better.

In real life, of course, things were not so much better. Life was nasty, brutish and short. Robbers robbed, and mobs lynched, sometimes the wrong person. There was never an age where humans kept peace for any great length of time. An age of ignorance was an age of poverty, and the few ruled the many with an iron fist. But like an old man who only remembers the sunny days from his childhood, the fundamentalists long back to a golden age that only exists in their head.

As long as we keep telling people that their values are ridiculous, they will continue to cling to a worldview that validates those values, and deny any other. You'd think that the Green vMeme, which thinks even the most brutish tribe has a culture worth preserving, would also show respect for their own neighbors. But such is human nature, that we often have different standards for our theory and practice, for that which is far off and that which is near at hand, for others and for ourselves. Being postmodern does not change this. We will need a much more significant upgrade of the human soul for that.