What is a meaningful life? How does one discover— and live—what is truly important? How do we manage to spend the time of our lives in a way that will finally seem worthwhile?

Quotations
Thoreau
William James
Einstein
Gandhi
Ken Wilber
Rumi
Nelson Mandela
Thomas Merton

Archives

Chapter Ten
May 2008

The Fundamentalist Turn

The history of Fundamentalism goes back into the farthest reaches of recorded time, for there is an urge toward fundamentalism in all of us—and in all cultures. Most of us want to think that what we believe is right, that the way we are living is the right way to live it, and that anyone who does not agree with us is just plain wrong. We have an urge for certainty as we try to come to terms with the complexities and confusions of life. We want to believe, perhaps need to believe, that we won’t wake up one morning and discover that the underlying assumptions upon which we made our decisions, understood our world, and organized our lives have collapsed from beneath us.

The last chapter explored how cultures arose to fulfill this need, how each child comes into a culture that provides ready-made answers to questions about what is real, what is true, what is right. This is the “consensual reality” with which each child begins the journey of life, and from which a personal worldview is fashioned. This is an absolutely necessary process, with some cultures performing this role quite well, while others—for a variety of reasons—performing it only moderately well, or poorly.

A second function of culture is to support and reinforce a consensual reality for all those who share in it, so that members can know what to expect from each other, and avoid having to question within themselves constantly about the important issues. Up to a point this is necessary and healthy, making life together in society possible. Yet in the modern world, all over the globe, more and more cultures are bumping into and overlapping with each other—and more and more people are finding themselves living in relationship to, or next door to, people with very different answer systems.

This in turn has created the three-part modern dilemma: 1) how will peoples of many different answer systems find a way to live together without constant war and conflict, 2) how will people with a shared worldview support each other while living side-by-side with conflicting answer systems, and 3) what will pluralistic cultures, those that include peoples with many different consensual realities, teach their children?

The Fundamentalist Answer

For many reasons, cultures have a tendency to harden into the view that their particular answers are “right.” And the cultural teachings—to make them more powerful—are often presented as being based on God’s Will. This can easily give rise to the demand that each person must abide by the cultural rules if they are to be acceptable to God, and that the whole community must adhere to these rules or risk bringing down God’s wrath on everyone. This is the Religious Fundamentalist’s position, and when cultures are separated from each other by great distances, this demand, although limiting individual freedom, can make life more settled and peaceful for the majority of those who share it.

On the other hand, all the great cultural and religious systems of the world have within them strong currents of respect for one’s neighbor, of love and tolerance for others: “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Christian); “do good . . . to those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers” (Islamic); be “constantly active for the sake of others” and recognize that “kindness is my religion” (Buddhist); to see that “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow(man)” and to “be of service to those in need, those less fortunate than yourself” (Jewish); always be kind and of service to the stranger, for a stranger might be a God in disguise (Greek); to “affirm the good, do not tread on your neighbor, but live together in quiet wonder” (Taoist); and to see that, ultimately, you and all beings are not separate, “Thou Art That” (Hindu).

With these powerful teachings of tolerance, acceptance of strangers, and admonitions toward love and neighborliness embedded in the world’s religions, conflicts were often mitigated as they underwent the long process of meeting and mingling with each other. There have of course been conflicts—wars, and bloodshed—but at the same time, there are countless examples of people from differing cultures tolerating each other, learning from each other, and even supporting each other. New political philosophies, and even worldviews, have arisen—such as democracy and relativism—seeking to give each cultural and religious tradition weight and value in the communal landscape.

Yet the continuing population explosion of the modern era has inexorably, relentlessly brought more and more people into areas with mixed, mingled, and confused cultural answer systems—leading to ever-higher levels of anxiety and alienation. And into this unrest and unease step the modern Fundamentalists—proclaiming they have the ONE RIGHT WAY. There are of course many different Fundamentalist points of view (with many different sets of answers—often contradicting each other). But no matter the differences, they all share the conviction that only they are right. And given the all-to-human urge to believe there is a “right way,” and that “I have it,” significant numbers of people are joining such groups, banding together and clinging to their widely varying certainties about what is true and right—assuring and reassuring each other that they have the ONE TRUE WAY.

For many of us, living without certainty is too difficult, and the existential anxiety caused by too many unanswered questions seems to mock our freedom: What if the way I am spending my time is not worthwhile? What if the way I dress and act will be laughed at? What if there is a heaven, or nirvana, or Pure Land that I will miss—for all eternity? What if there is an eternal hell, and I am headed for that? What if I am not getting my fair share of the rewards of this life? And on and on and on.

To escape the tension of these endless questions, many of us are willing to sacrifice our freedom—and even the universal teachings of love and compassion—for a little solace from the confusion and doubt that spring from uncertainty. So the ranks of the Fundamentalists increase—and any one of us can feel the pull to join, to be reinforced in the feeling that “I have it right,” that the way I am living is the right way to live. Each of us can feel the fundamentalist urge in ourselves.

Science is even beginning to find the mechanisms of this tendency in us. In a recent experiment, psychologist Drew Weston worked with two groups of people who strongly supported different candidates in an election. Each individual was shown two videos, one in which their candidate clearly contradicted himself, and the other in which the candidate they opposed contradicted himself. When asked what they had seen, the supporters of each candidate saw the contradictions of the candidate they opposed, but not those of their own candidate. Weston reports that "test subjects on both sides reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted.” (Italics mine)

During the experiments, the subjects’ brains were being scanned, and Weston says, "We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning.” On the contrary, the parts of the brain that lit up were those associated with emotions. So the subjects seem to have used their emotions to guide them in forming their conclusions. And the most fascinating part is that, rather than being troubled by the contradictions of their candidate, the subjects seemed to get significant pleasure out of twisting the information to fit what they wanted to believe. As Weston concludes, "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

And if this is true of beliefs about a political campaign, isn’t it likely to be even more true concerning beliefs as crucial as the meaning of one’s life, the nature—or existence—of God? (Or even the validity of one’s scientific research? It is important to note that Weston’s research suggests that Materialists would be just as likely to see things that support their point of view, and not see things that disagree with their point of view, as would Fundamentalists. It seems to be a trait shared by all of us, regardless of denomination.)

This powerful desire for certainty is perhaps the reason that those who are so convinced that they, and only they, are right can seem more self-righteous than right (to those who are not a part of their group). From the outside, it can seem that they are so adamant about their beliefs for the very reason that deep inside they are filled with doubt—they are trying so hard to convince others because inside they are so unsure. Their anger and even rage toward those who differ with them spring from the fear and doubt they are trying to avoid within.  They hope that by winning over or destroying those who oppose them, they will be able to quiet the voices of doubt and fear within themselves—voices they are trying desperately to avoid, to silence, to deny to themselves.  “If only everyone would adopt my point of view,” they unconsciously feel, “then perhaps I would no longer have so much conflict and doubt within myself.”

Again, a certain degree of honoring and supporting one’s own group is probably healthy and necessary, and to do this, our minds tend toward finding support for what we already believe, while looking intently for flaws in the beliefs of others that conflict with our own. But the more dangerous attitude of seeing “the other” as wrong, or bad—or even evil—can quickly emerge, and this is a very short step from seeing the “other” as scapegoat, as the “cause of our problems.”

Thus we humans seek answer systems that provide clear-cut guidance concerning life’s questions. If we are born and raised in a culture that has strongly established answers, we receive a settled and stable way of life—but not much freedom of choice. Most humans in the past lived in this way—in cultures where the answers were sanctioned by the community and the religious organization of their time and place.  But this is true no more! In the modern era, many of us have great freedom—which has brought enormous mobility and individual creativity—as well as a sometimes frightening loss of clarity about how to live and what is right. And it has brought much conflict within our societies about how to live together with those “others” who have very different views from our own.

The Fundamentalist Dilemma

Although it is easy to get in touch with the urge toward fundamentalism, it is much more difficult to overcome the inherent contradictions that exist in the worldviews of most Religious Fundamentalists today. To start, anthropology has shown that many of the laws, rules, and customs that developed over long periods of time in every culture were adaptations to specific problems faced in those specific environments.

Suspend judgment for a moment, and assume with me that at least one, and perhaps several, cultural answer systems did arise from the Transcendent Domain. Even if this is so, how do we know which of the answers were meant to be specific to a particular time and place, and which were meant to be universal—were meant for all times and all places? Think of the differences in belief between peoples who lived in desert areas for generations, versus the Eskimo living in the Artic ice and tundra. Many of the practices, habits, and beliefs of each group, often attributed to the Divine, are specifically related to the physical world in which the culture arose. So how does one know that the answers, even if they arose in the Transcendent Domain, were meant to apply to all people everywhere? Especially when we can see that cultures as well as climates change dramatically over time.

Perhaps the Transcendent, if it did provide answers, had the wisdom to see that many questions require answers that are specific to a particular time and place. Perhaps many answer systems were not meant to apply to all times and all places. Perhaps it is only our human arrogance that comes to assert that “our” answers are the right ones for every time and place.
Further, even if the followers of a particular answer system are right in believing that their answers arose directly from the Transcendent, what happens when the circumstances of life dramatically change for their descendants? Life situations can and do change from generation to generation. What happens when the sons and daughters of the desert, or the forest, or the tundra move to a city—how should they understand and live in relation to their old beliefs? Even if the cultural patterns they believed in before did arise in the Transcendent Domain, were those rules meant to apply in a completely different clime? Is God incapable of change? Or is it stubbornness in clinging to merely human interpretations that is the problem?

For instance, there are very detailed rules about what to eat, when to worship, what to do on the Sabbath, when to have sexual relations, how to treat an enemy, and so forth elaborated in the Jewish Scriptures. And many of these rules became a part of the Christian Bible. But as people have moved and situations have changed, many problems have arisen—witness the struggles that have gone on within Judaism and Christianity for thousands of years with regard to which rules must be followed explicitly and which can be abandoned or changed. (One of the main criticisms of Jesus during his life was that he broke some of these scriptural injunctions.) Different branches and sects within Judaism and Christianity arose precisely because these differing groups came to very different conclusions about which rules were to be followed and which could be changed.

This is not unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Through the centuries, every religion in the world has made significant changes in interpretations of what the Transcendent “meant” in its message. Yet many people have the audacity to assert that THEY are the only ones who now have it RIGHT, that they know better than all the people who went before, even in their own tradition, exactly what God had in mind.  And they unabashedly claim to know better than anyone in any other tradition exactly what the Transcendent was saying to all of humankind.

Isn’t this a bit strange when you think about it? If they imagine an all-powerful God, would such a being not be capable of giving a different set of rules to the Eskimos, versus a tribe living in the Amazon rain forest? Of giving a different message through the centuries as cultures change? Why would an all-powerful God be frozen in time, incapable of change? And do such Fundamentalists really have the ability to speak for an omniscient God? Wouldn’t one have to be omniscient oneself in order to know what God is thinking about how all peoples everywhere should live and behave?

Further, isn’t it a bit of a coincidence that, among thousands of competing worldviews, an all-powerful God, timeless and equally present all over the created world, just happens to believe exactly what they believe, agrees  with them alone, at this particular moment in time—in every detail? Even if they have changed their views over their own lifetimes once, or twice, or several times. And even if the views they hold are different from millions of other Fundamentalists of a different persuasion? One of the main teachings of most religious traditions through the centuries has been an attempt to get people to be a little more loving and accepting and compassionate toward those with whom they disagree. What has become of this teaching in the Fundamentalist, and where is the humility that is taught as a core virtue in so many religious traditions?

There is actually a very good reason to believe that some of the teachings of each religious tradition did not come from the Divine, even if some of them did. One need only observe the history of traditions other than one’s own (it is much easier to see the pattern in other cultures). Looking at the historical record, most everyone can see that some cultural “answers” in other peoples’ cultures did not seem to have been given by the Divine, but arose from hundreds or thousands of years of habits that gradually evolved into the rules of that society. These habits grew up simply as “this is how we do things here in this place.” And at a particular time and place, there were usually good reasons for such practices. Yet as the centuries passed, some of these laws, rules, and customs picked up a religious sanction, and today are presented by their proponents as having been handed down from God. But since this pattern is so easy to see in every culture anthropologists study, isn’t there a great likelihood that the same is true for every culture—even your own?

Who Created Religions?

Thought Experiment
Consider for a moment, aren't all religious organizations human creations? Not necessarily the original teachings, but the organization, the structure—and the changes and adaptations over time to the organization itself? But if this is so, how do people in a religious organization, although believing completely that some of the core teachings originated with the Transcendent, know for sure which rules and beliefs originated there, versus those that are more likely to be cultural and human additions?

The changing landscape in every cultural and religious tradition over time creates a real dilemma for anyone trying to defend a Fundamentalist worldview. If changes have been made in religiously sanctioned “answers,” how does one know which answers have a local origin, and which truly arose from the Transcendent Domain as unchangeable verities? And crucially, who has the right to decide which is which? Who has the right or the authority to judge which rules are merely local culture, and which are “fundamental” to the whole system?

As we saw in Chapter 7, even if a religious tradition has been at times guided by wise and holy people, at other times all traditions have been led by those who were motivated by worldly power, prestige, and personal fulfillment—rather than by a primary concern with things of the spirit. How then does one know that all the interpretations of the religious organization one is a part of truly reflect what the Transcendent originally meant, since it has sometimes been influenced, shaped, and molded by those with less than Divine motives?

Again, everyone who looks at the history of religions other than their own sees this pattern—in fact, often take great glee in pointing out the instances they see. Yet some of these same observers, when looking at their own traditions, are blind to its existence there—exactly like the participants in the study by Drew Weston cited above, in which the supporters of each political candidate could see the problem with the honesty of the candidate they opposed, but not with the one they supported. In fact, the participants seemed to take pleasure in twisting the facts to fit what they already believed. Perhaps this is partly what Jesus had in mind when he suggested that we first cast out the mote from our own eye, before looking to cast out the mote from the eye of our neighbor.

Equally problematic for anyone willing to look honestly at the history of their own belief system (yet still trying to convince themselves that all their beliefs came directly from God), is the clear line that can be traced in every major religious system of beliefs which arose in a previous religious system—ideas that were imported from a completely different religion but attributed to the Divine Source of the new religion.

The Unrelenting Point

At this point it might be good to remind that at the start of this section, I asked you to suspend judgment for a moment and accept the possibility that at least some laws and rules and customs did arise in a Transcendent Domain. And nothing I have said in the last few pages contradicts that idea. However, these pages do highlight a great dilemma for the Fundamentalist: even if you wish to live according to the Transcendent Wisdom of your tradition, how do you separate the Divinely-inspired Wisdom from the cultural chaff in which it is embedded? Does it really seem likely that every answer that is still in effect within your tradition—put together by leaders throughout history with a wide range of motives—came from the Transcendent?

And what do you do with the fact that the rules and laws of all of the major religious traditions, including your own, have changed significantly through the centuries? Different denominations and sects within each religious tradition have had very different laws, rules, and customs at different times in their own histories. Not infrequently, differing groups within the same religion have fought with each other, often violently, each proclaiming that the very same God who gave the “other” group a different set promulgated their “true” version of the rules and laws. And then over time both groups have changed their views, often adopting some of the views of the other.

Sometimes it is argued that one must simply have faith in one’s own tradition. But this gives no guidance as to how to sort out the increasing number of conflicts between groups in the modern world. And it gives no help for anyone who wishes to really know the truth. Could intensity of belief help? No, it gives little guidance—all over the world there are many individuals and groups who really, really believe that they have THE RIGHT answers, and are willing to fight and die to uphold those answers. Yet this certainty exists equally for those with dramatically opposing views. All cannot be right. It is unavoidably clear that a person can be deeply sure that he or she is right without being right, and that strength of conviction is not a measure of the truth or falsity of belief.

If you are deeply embedded in one answer system, then accepting “your set” of rules is not difficult. But given the historical research of the last couple of centuries, it has become increasingly difficult for an educated modern mind to ignore the inclusion of local and cultural elements in every religious tradition that have subsequently been canonized into Divine Law.

(If you are not willing to see this, then you may as well stop reading here. You are a true Fundamentalist, and I bow to the your right to believe what you choose to believe, and to the gifts that such certainty provides). 

(And for those who were willing to follow my request at the beginning of this section to suspend judgment for a time about whether or not there was a Transcendent Source for at least some rules and laws, you can now take a deep breath and return to whatever belief system you choose.)

How Then Shall We Live?

The Fundamentalists proclaim that they, and only they, have the right answers. If they live somewhat isolated from others, perhaps this can work. But in the modern world of constantly colliding cultures, with a different answer system on every block, this stance becomes highly problematic. Especially when Fundamentalists insist that everyone must live by their rules—and when they attempt to gain the political power to force everyone else to live as they do, even those who do not share their beliefs.

For those of us who resist the siren song of fundamentalist certainty, how then shall we live? How will we decide the rules, customs, and values to embrace—as individuals, and as societies? How will we interact with our neighbors, next door and in the next country, who are different from us? And how will we arrive at common ground for governmental decisions, and for creating a better society.

Actually, these issues, although modern, have arisen many times before. For instance, in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, the underpinnings of Greek culture were being called into question by the defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian Wars. At the time, Athens had become a trade center and a mixing ground for many different peoples. Cultures were clashing; received cultural answers did not seem to be working. Into this field stepped Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, launching the full-scale charge in western thought to replace an over-reliance on cultural answers with the third major tool for answering life’s questions: Reason and Rationality.

Footnotes