Fundamentalist Antihumanist Personality Disorder

I might expound more fully on "Fundamentalist Antihumanist Personality Disorder" in the future. In the meantime, we have all encountered those who make their attitudes our problem.

I stumbled across an old post about The Need for Absurd Belief Among Fundamentalists on the Breaking Spells blog. It discusses, amongst other things, the fact that fundies are desperate to attack segments of scientific knowledge.

I read it with interest because I am fascinated — and dismayed — by what I regard as the Fundamentalist Cognitive Disorder*. This is often linked to the Fundamentalist Antihumanist Personality Disorder.**

The final line of the post reads:

""Eventually, perhaps, the spell of religion will be broken.""

I decided to convert my response into a post.

Let’s hope! Religion continues to support damaging and outright dangerous cognitive and behavioural disorders.

I completely agree that fundies are terrified of knowledge — whether it’s science or the expert conclusions of unbiased biblical scholars. I also agree that this rigid thinking is the result of childhood indoctrination. Why else would IDiots be fighting to insinuate creationism into secondary science curricula?

I think that the motivation is not merely habit — it is highly emotional. It is also deliberately anti-factual, and, most important, illogical. They are trained into illogic and this fallacious thinking is reinforced by Bible quotes.

Successful religions have set up clever reward and punishment systems. Community is the most mundane motivation, but is probably essential for many. An eternal afterlife with a loving SkyDaddy who punishes one’s enemies is an obvious incentive. The flip side is the prison door. They fear what they are instructed to fear.

However, based on long observation of how some fundies think, I conclude that much of the emotional appeal lies in certainty and the assurance that religious-rule-following renders one RIGHT and morally SUPERIOR. (Excuse the caps. They seemed appropriate.)

It always reminds me of prefects in a school playground. Not a highschool playground. Not a primary school playground in North America. No, a school playground for children up to age 11. That’s the moral level at which these authoritarianism-oriented folk function.

Ugh!

* and ** : not official terminology

* and ** Disclaimer: not all fundies, religionists other than fundies, the occasional atheist.

Nice Idea, But .........

Karen Armstrong talks of her journey from and back to religion. Here, receiving her 2008 TED prize, she outlines a nice idea that I consider impractical and overly optimistic.

The Golden Rule is simple – I learned the principle before age 8 – and it does not require the institution of religion. We learn compassion through socialization and experience. Those with a personal inclination towards compassion do not need religious nonsense in order to behave morally. If humans need anything, it is not religion but rather connectedness.

I think that Armstrong's personal inclination towards (good) religiosity has lead to her failing to see that religious edifices are, and will continue to be, a cognitive, social and political problem.

Why? The religious have largely failed to see the message that Armstrong sees as the basic theme of religions, and some individuals will always take advantage of any power structure. Religious institutions are particularly well suited to usurpation by power mongers. Call any stupid idea "a religion" and sheep will be willing to flock and be fleeced.

In my opinion, Armstrong ought to have paid more attention to her own words:

"Like it or not, fundamentalism is not going to disappear soon. In some places it is going from strength to strength, becoming more extreme."

Links: Books by Karen Armstrong.

Religiosity und Moralkrankheit

The Germanic neologism translates as "moral illness". Does the squawking chicken come before the rotten egg, or vice versa?

"It is commonly held that religion makes people more just, compassionate, and moral, but a new study suggests that the data belie that assumption. In fact, at first glance it would seem, religion has the opposite effect. The extensive study, “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies,” published in the Journal of Religion and Society (JRS) examines statistics from eighteen of the most developed democratic nations. It reveals clear correlations between various indicators of social strife and religiosity, showing that whether religion causes social strife or not, it certainly does not prevent it."

"The question is one of causation, and there is no clear answer. Whether religion leads directly to dysfunctionality, or religions merely flourish in dysfunctional societies, neither conclusion from this study flatters religion. The first tells us that religion is a hindrance to the development of moral character, and the second that religion hinders progress by distracting us from our troubles (with imaginary solutions to real problems). This study is complicated enough that I do not think that we can draw definitive negative conclusions about religion. But we can at least conclude, contrary to popular belief in this country, that it is not a given that religious societies are better, healthier, or more moral. What we can be clear about from this study is that highly religious societies can be dysfunctional, whereas by comparison secular societies in which evolution is largely accepted display real social cohesion and societal well-being. "

Religious Belief & Societal Health : New Study Reveals that Religion Does Not Lead to a Healthier Society, by Matthew Provonsha

More: Sexism and Religiosity . Inverse Correlations . Delusion inversely correlated with FLQ .

Instinct vs Morality

Like the rest of the animal kingdom, humans don't need a moral edict to ensure that we will reproduce as a species. Biological evolution could not help but select for those individuals that exhibit a biological imperative toward reproduction. We experience the imperative as a sexual urge. The urge kicks in when we experience a developmental surge in hormone production – years before society has decreed that we are ready for marriage.

Most animal parents do not need a moral edict to ensure that they will provide sufficient aid to their offspring. Any species in which the young must learn surival skills could not have continued if instinct had not guaranteed protection, nurturance, and training – usually by females, sometimes supported by assistance from males. We experience the instinct to nurture as love.

If we are fortunate, we find sexual partners, usually of the opposite sex. If we are particularly fortunate, we continue to love those whom we have chosen. Most of us make families. No need for a moral edict – instinct suffices.

Many animal species experience greater safety when they congregate in groups of varying sizes – we experience this as a social urge to join communities. Many animal species exhibit an instinct toward altruism – ants carry this instinct to an extreme, but ants can afford to do this because the colony members who sacrifice themselves are not the reproductive members. Human societies set up rules to ensure beneficial intracommunal interactions and hierarchies to guarantee leadership. Humans invented morality in an attempt to ensure that others would behave in a manner beneficial to the community – in accord with instinct for some and counter to personal urges for others. Most societies invented religion to ensure cooperation. Some societies value human rights, some violate the rights of weaker members.


Individuals in any animal species survive to reproduce by virtue of instincts that ensure individual survival – taking food, killing prey. We don't eat because of moral edicts – we experience hunger. Some of us attempt to satisfy our hunger for material things by taking what is not ours. Humans invented laws and punishments to deal with selfish acts – any act where we disregard a higher right.

Early human societies, just like modern agrarian economies in the developing world, benefited from reproduction. This explains why the Bible emphasizes reproduction and 'not spilling one's seed on barren ground'. However, by the Middle Ages, children without a supportive father were a drain on the community. This explains the shift toward emphasis on marriage and family; whereas marriage was initially a contract to ensure political alliances.

Unfortunately, fundamentalists and many religionists presume to dictate how all of us should live our lives – even those of us who do not find satisfaction through the church-wedding-before-sex, heterosexual, two child formula. I consider it immoral to selfishly insist that other people sacrifice their happiness to religionists' outmoded, neurotic rules. Fundamentalists want us to behave like emotional ants.





moral psychology, psychology, religion, society,