Why Fundies Fear Intellectuals

[stromboli]

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/03/14/fundamentalists-fear-intellectualism/

You are what you believe.

At the core of each of us is our belief system. It is around that belief system that a large part of our personal identity is formed. One of the real strengths of fundamentalism is that it provides a stable core belief system. To borrow from 80′s new wave and avant-garde band, Talking Heads, “Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.”

It is much easier to believe you understand who you are and to be stable when your core belief system is stable. For folks like liberals and progressives this is a little more difficult because the walls around our core beliefs are a little less rigid and more willing to flex as new information presents itself. Which means that we, more frequently than fundamentalists, are reshaping our understanding of who we are and how we relate to society, even if in small ways.

This just isn’t true for a fundamentalist Christians. The protective walls around their core beliefs are tall and rigid â€" and with good reason. We have to keep in mind, these core beliefs are so much more than ideas or ideals, they are identification and identity. Who we understand ourselves to be is formed around them. When you challenge a specific belief you are also, in small part, challenging the person’s understanding of who they are.

For fundamentalist Christians, it is even more complicated than just that. In both direct and subtle ways, they believe their salvation, at least in part, is dependent upon being correct on issues of faith.

Intellectualism invites the constant assessment of the “correctness” of a person’s belief system. That’s dangerous ground for a fundamentalist Christian. When you confront them on a particular belief you are not only confronting them on an idea that they have held to more rigidly for a longer time than most other folks but you are confronting the very core of who they understand themselves to be. For them, it is those core beliefs upon which their salvation hangs in the balance, at least in part. Questioning it doesn’t just question the thought but, for them, it puts into question a lifetime of holding on tightly to that thought.

When you take all of that into consideration, it’s really not surprise that most fundamentalist Christians react negatively to or avoid all together any intellectual questioning of their core belief systems. For that matter, it’s not surprising that fundamentalist of all camps tend to have a less than positive reaction to intellectualism. They just want to be right and the rest of us just hope to sort out some small version of the truth. A subtle difference but an important one.

You can call this a lot of things, from intellectual laziness to fear. To me because of my personal experiences in religion, it is like someone who enjoys sitting in a corner with their crayons and a coloring book that has lots of pictures in it, and they just want their coloring book and don't want to be bothered with any other influence or outside input of ideas, and get hostile when you try to take their coloring book away or give them something different to play with. Never mind that the coloring book is full of fantasies and they are rejecting any other viewpoint, they just want their coloring book.

But it also has to do with intelligence. I've posted a number of things on here relating to atheists being more intelligent and more inclined to accept outside ideas, as well as the fact that less intelligent people aren't capable of seeing their own stupidity. Smart people are far more likely to continually fact check themselves and reexamine their world view.

No one here is going to call Michele Bachman, Sarah Palin or Bill O'Reilly a genius. They are either incapable or unable to examine their own beliefs for fault or to reconsider their beliefs. The smart people are being assailed by the dumb people. But in the case of these people, they are also playing to an audience, so in my mind nothing they say is valid.

This is the problem in a democracy. Consider that half the people are technically dumber in terms of IQ, this means they are the ones with more set beliefs and the more likely to vote someone into office with those same set beliefs. They don't want to vote for someone they see as a trouble maker but someone who pushes the same buttons they do. That is why the dramatic shift in demographics from theist to atheist is important- more people to oppose the status quo. I have read articles that say we are as a whole getting smarter, so maybe in the end we will prevail. Its the current trends that are so upsetting.

[Solitary]

The funda"mental" cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cock sure while the intelligent are full of doubt.

This is a quote from Bertrand Russell, and how long has he been dead?  Solitary

[Unbeliever]

If a person's whole moral system is based on articles of faith, then if that faith is found to be so faulty as to be incredible to that person, what happens to their morality? Theists seem to believe that it goes completely out the window as soon as does the  faith. Some even believe that we atheists throw away faith in God so that we'll feel morally unbound, free to pillage the world.

[stromboli]

Religion does everything to stifle critical thinking. In the last few months I have been active-after a long absence- on ex-Mormon forums. They were nonexistent when I left the church, they are numerous now. The growth of exmo websites has easily surpassed pro church sites. The reason? Critical thinking. The term they use now is "broken shelf" meaning the evidence was too massive to ignore and their religious shelf broke. The LDS church is leaking at the seams, and they are unable to adequately shore it up because the flaws, lies and historical truth overwhelms any attempts at apologetics.

Gosh darn intellectuals, the lot. But it took a significant number of people of note to leave before other people started questioning. The more inquisitive people are the more flaws they find and the cracks get bigger. Btw, this article was written in a religious website- a liberal one. Ironic that it fits well on here.

[Unbeliever]

How many of those exmos give up religion all together? I hope a lot.

[stromboli]

How many of those exmos give up religion all together? I hope a lot.

Yeah, brought that up. Most are now atheists.

[Unbeliever]

Here's a good quote:

Because morality is a social necessity, the moment faith in god is banished, man's gaze turns from god to man and he becomes socially conscious. Religious belief prevented the growth of a sense of realism. But atheism at once makes man realistic and alive to the needs of morality.
Gora (Goparaju Ramachandra Rao)

[stromboli]

Very good quote. Thanks.

[trdsf]

If a person's whole moral system is based on articles of faith, then if that faith is found to be so faulty as to be incredible to that person, what happens to their morality? Theists seem to believe that it goes completely out the window as soon as does the  faith. Some even believe that we atheists throw away faith in God so that we'll feel morally unbound, free to pillage the world.

And this is what really worries me about these people -- if the only reason they feel bound to respect civil society is the imaginary voice in their heads, then what prevents that voice from telling them to do antisocial things?  And prevents them from acting on that voice, and justifying it because "god told them to"?

Even more worrying is that we've already seen it -- every clinic bomber and doctor murderer has justified their actions in exactly that way.  The 'right to life' is not as absolute as they claim, and only the voice in their heads prevents them from taking action... or inspires them to.

[stromboli]

And this is what really worries me about these people -- if the only reason they feel bound to respect civil society is the imaginary voice in their heads, then what prevents that voice from telling them to do antisocial things?  And prevents them from acting on that voice, and justifying it because "god told them to"?

Even more worrying is that we've already seen it -- every clinic bomber and doctor murderer has justified their actions in exactly that way.  The 'right to life' is not as absolute as they claim, and only the voice in their heads prevents them from taking action... or inspires them to.

Just the upheaval that came with electing a black president was pretty shocking. We reinvented racism in America in short order, fundamentalists came out of the woodwork all over calling him a Muslim, churches blatantly calling people to vote against him, etc. Just that one thing. We went from a relatively rational and mildly conservative society to hard right wing in no time. Any major event that upsets civil order- a major geological event, for example- and in this climate, who knows?

[trdsf]

Just the upheaval that came with electing a black president was pretty shocking. We reinvented racism in America in short order, fundamentalists came out of the woodwork all over calling him a Muslim, churches blatantly calling people to vote against him, etc. Just that one thing. We went from a relatively rational and mildly conservative society to hard right wing in no time. Any major event that upsets civil order- a major geological event, for example- and in this climate, who knows?

There was a brief window after Election Day 2008 where there was kind of a collective sense of amazement at the social barrier that had just been broken.  I recall running around the following morning trying to find a copy of the local paper; myself and a businessman -- who, as it happened, was black -- converged on the same rack which had only two copies left, and took one each, grinning like maniacs at each other.  It was a breathtaking moment, and seemed that maybe we were moving towards a post-racial America.

And then the honeymoon was over and the gloves were off and the bigots came flying out of the woodwork.

And for everyone who thinks sexism is dead--wait until Hillary is elected next year, you'll see exactly the same thing, a brief window of amazement and pride at shattering that glass ceiling, and then all the old bullshit that we like to think we're past is going to come right back up again in one horrible heave.

[SGOS]

There was a brief window after Election Day 2008 where there was kind of a collective sense of amazement at the social barrier that had just been broken.

That was a heady time, and I think a social barrier was broken.  After all, enough people voted him into office.  That's good for something.  The conservative backlash is partly racial, but also driven by Party affiliation.  It's the way the Republican party operates.  No matter what Democrat is voted into office, there will be a storm of hatred, so it's not just about a black president.  Although, I was surprised at how quickly the race issue surfaced.  I knew there were disgruntled Southerners, but I thought they had learned to control themselves.  It seems they just needed the necessary lightning rod to stir them up.  But a black president is a racial landmark.  Of course, after George Bush, almost any Democrat would have won in 2008.

[Solitary]

There is a belief among psychiatrists and psychologists, that the thing we fear the most is what we want the most. One thing I agree with them on. 

[Unbeliever]

And this is what really worries me about these people -- if the only reason they feel bound to respect civil society is the imaginary voice in their heads, then what prevents that voice from telling them to do antisocial things?  And prevents them from acting on that voice, and justifying it because "god told them to"?

Even more worrying is that we've already seen it -- every clinic bomber and doctor murderer has justified their actions in exactly that way.  The 'right to life' is not as absolute as they claim, and only the voice in their heads prevents them from taking action... or inspires them to.

Sounds suspiciously like the Nuremberg Defense, huh?

"Well, heck, I was just following orders!"

[Solomon Zorn]

Of course, after George Bush, almost any Democrat would have won in 2008.

Even Indiana voted blue that time, for the first time in some 45 years or so! But the republicans will be back again, probably in the next election. I just hope Ruth holds out on the Supreme Court until we have a democratic president to nominate her replacement ( I really wish she would retire now so that Obama could insure some semblance of balance).