Questions about fanaticism and how to avoid it.

[Random_Australian]

I've been wondering lately about those who take things a bit too far. People who, given the chance, would legislate their views on religion be mandatory, that kind of thing. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll use the not-entirely-accurate label 'fanatics'.

Here are some questions. I am interested in your answers. Unless they are about specific people or groups that are the subject of n+1 flamewars here. In which case, there are other threads to yak about that stuff.

1) What do you think the main pathways are to becoming a fanatic?

In a previous thread, social effects (eg. Jesus Camp) were brought up, and the fact that some people just seem to go straight there without anyone telling them. I'm going to guess that is emotion based. But what other ways are there?

If you know any examples of someone turning into someone like that, and you don't mind posting what you think happened, that would probably give us some insight into how that kind of thing occurs. No pressure, though.

2) Of course, while isolated people generally aren't that harmful to the whole of society, groups of fanatics really can be. Given how you answered question 1, how do you think you can minimise the amount of people going fruity by the methods you outlined without curtailing liberty or the like?

3) ;) If you were trying to set up a general description of a fanatic, (eg. "fanatics have properties x,y,z), could you do it without deliberately making the criteria fit someone you don't like?

In light of this, and considering whatever else you like, do you think you can set up a set of general criteria of what a fanatic is? (In other words, can you be trusted to judge who is and who isn't a fanatic)

Ok, so that one was fairly obvious. No-one is that impartial. So the next option is to get a group of people together to hammer out something between them.

But what group? If you had to put together a committee of only ten people to decide some criteria, how would you choose that ten? Would you put yourself on the committee?


4) Yay democracy! (Not actually a question)

I'll respond when I get the time with my answers. Must dash!

[Speck Tater]

1. My theory is this...

People become fanatics because they are profoundly uncomfortable with uncertainty. They are frightened, and have a deep-seated need to know the absolute truth. Being unable to deal with the idea that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, they take the position that their particular belief system is, in fact, the absolute truth. That relieves their discomfort, but only as long as they associate with others who share that delusion. If anyone questions that delusion they lash out to defend that delusion. To respect a differing point of view, even to respect another's right to have a differing point of view, casts doubt on their much-needed feeling of certainty.

Therefore, they must stamp out any voice that would question their delusion, because allowing others to speak out against their delusion makes them profoundly afraid that their delusion might not be correct, and if their delusion is not correct, then they have lost the certainty that they so deeply crave.

The kind of fanaticism that tries to force its "certainty" upon everyone else is, therefore, a serious mental disorder. If these people could somehow be taught to be comfortable with uncertainty then they might outgrow their need for fanaticism.

Just my theory.

[ironbark]

6. Thank you...that covers my pov

but I'm troubled by the conviction that you conveyed the "absolute truth" ;-)

[JerseygirlCT]

9. I tend to agree

I think there are just people who have a need for this sort of certainty. Anything less leaves them highly uncomfortable.

As a person of faith, however, I tend to think people who fall into this category are actually using it to hold belief at bay. Anyone who is a believer and is unable to admit to the important part that a leap into the unknown plays in faith is missing out on a great deal, IMO. These tend to be the people who believe as they're told, not as they really believe. And I think, that's where the danger comes in: if your belief depends mostly on taking orders, then it's fairly easy to find someone or something nefarious to fill that role (of giving the orders).

[Nay]

2. Read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer for a good overview. NT

[TZ]

3. More interesting questions

But again, difficult to answer. You are trying to apply logic and reason to something that totally rejects logic and reason.
Let me try though. I think a lot of fanaticism comes in response to very bad things happening to one..In my family for instance, I have members who are very suspicious and distrustful of any German/Catholic because of having large amounts of our relatives killed by Nazi's in WW2. My dad, for instance refuses to by ANYTHING of German manufacture, or to have anything to do with ANYTHING of German origin, even though most modern Germans are quite ashamed of that chapter of history. But it also can be perceptions of bad things happening, not even to the individual but to people similar in history..Lets put it this way, without giving the truly offensive specific comments,many of my relatives are quite fanatic about Israel and indeed at least one of them voted for Bush because he was "the only one who can protect Israel"..and they have nasty things to say about Arabs in general.
People I would get together to discuss this? No one in politics for sure, since they would never be completely honest about this, since I believe that politicians actually benefit from fanaticism quite a bit.
Maybe some moderates in a religion (like the Islamic Imams who try to battle the well known extremism of their faith) some people who have never been indoctinated into a religon (sort of like me, I suppose) some people who have rejected the religion due to bad experiences with fundies/fanatics). I would like it to be people from all walks of life as well, because that is also important..I really do believe that socioeconomics have a strong influence on faith and fanaticism.
The thing is, I'm not sure how willing the general population would be to listen to findings from such a group, because as I said, alot of people, even if not fanatics themselves, benefit in some way from it and therefore would go out of their way to make sure said conclusions and studies were "spun" in a way that they prefer.

[uberllama42]

4. I'd like to raise the example of Sylvester Graham

I would define him as a vegetarian fanatic. He was a Presbyterian minister, but as far as I can tell his dietary dogmas were not religious in origin. He was a passionate enemy of white flour and advocated vegetarianism as a way to curb appetites for alcohol and sex. Not being an expert on his biography, I would guess that his fanaticism was emotional in origin. He was a very popular lecturer and might have enjoyed the attention.

Who doesn't enjoy the self-righteous pleasure of condemning modern society?

I think a free and open exchange of ideas can sometimes be an effective remedy for this kind of fanaticism. It is not always effective, but then neither is brutal repression of dissent. White bread was the result of the tastes and preferences of urban consumers in early industrial America; we needed a food system that would feed a large number of people cheaply and quickly, and urban bakeries helped to fill a niche in that market. Educating consumers about the market forces involved, at least in this example, would make this brand of fanaticism less likely.

I am a vegetarian and whole-wheat advocate, but since I have an understanding of why people eat white bread and why they eat the amount of meat that they do, I am not about to blow up a bread factory or an industrial slaughterhouse. Perhaps this is a simplistic explanation, but greater understanding of one's ideological opposition tends to discourage action against the 'effect' and encourage addressing the cause of the problem.

Along those lines, I think a fanatic is characterized by an aversion to understanding the 'other side of the argument'. A fanatic is not necessarily wrong but probably rejects any evidence which contradicts their tenets. A fanatic likely does not understand the forces at work in an ideological struggle and has no inclination to examine those forces. Accordingly, the fanatic adheres to his/her solutions regardless of how effective they are.

I think a council tasked with defining fanaticism would involve economic and scientific expertise, diversity of political thought, and an understanding education or at least psychology.

I would also like to agree, tentatively, with the sentiment of 'Yay, democracy.'

[struggle4progress]

5. It may be more useful to study particularities rather than generalities

There is no such thing as "fanatics" -- though there are individuals labeled as "fanatics." That the symptoms may be similar enough in the individual cases, to justify the similar labels, does not necessarily mean the underlying psychology or pathology is the same. So collecting opinions about "what causes fanaticism" may not produce as much information about "fanatics," as one would get if one were to study several particular examples in detail

[TZ]

7. I'm curious then

If there are no such thing as fanatics, what would you label groups like the Taliban, or even here in this country folks like the Westboro Baptist Church? Zealots perhaps is more descriptive, but these are GROUPS of extremeists that do have certain commonalities I think...

[struggle4progress]

8. Forgive me for not making myself clearer. It is a philosophical point,

I do not think, for example, that there is any such thing as "trees" in an abstract sense: I recognize only that there are many particular objects, each of which might be called "a tree," though they differ so widely in their characteristics that no absolutely clear-cut definition is possible. I think particular instances are worth examining, and I will admit (say) that "redwoods" are closer to existing in any abstract sense than "trees" are, because the characteristics of "redwoods" are better defined than the characteristics of "trees"

In the same fashion, I do not think that there is any such thing as "fanatics" in an abstract sense: I recognize only that there are many particular persons, each of which might be called "a fanatic," though they differ so widely in their characteristics that no absolutely clear-cut definition is possible. Again, I think particular instances are worth examining; but the possibility of a useful typology for "fanatics" is somewhat less clear than the possibility of a useful typology of "trees." With "trees," one actually makes some progress by distinguishing "oaks," "maples," "birches," and so on -- with human "fanatics," a factually-based materially-useful classification seems rather harder to produce

If you label member of the Taliban, or of the so-called "Westboro Baptist Church" as fanatics, I will of course have a general sense of your criticism of them, and I will probably concur with the general flavor of that criticism. And in ordinary conversation, I am very unlikely to try to slice-n-dice philosophical niceties, since that sort of thing generally brings nothing useful to the table

But if the question is, How does one avoid fanaticism? and if one accepts (as examples of "fanatics") members of the Taliban or of "Westboro Baptist Church" -- then I begin to have some serious doubts. The Taliban appears in one particular economic, cultural, and historical context; "Westboro Baptist Church" occurs in a completely different economic, cultural, and historical context

If one wants to understand phenomena, then phenomena should first be studied in some particularity: abstraction can be a powerful tool, but abstractions are most useful when they are derived from a multitude of specific instances. Here, I should be concerned for the following reason: instead of beginning with the phenomena, trying to grasp the facts clearly, and then seeking to abstract by comparing various examples, one apparently begins from the abstraction and then attempts to overlay the abstraction onto the phenomena, in the hopes that the phenomena can thereby be explained. This, to me, seems "ass-backwards"