Fundamentalism in Single-God Religions
Literalism, Intolerance and Sectarianism

1. What is Fundamentalism?
2. Why Question Beliefs
3. Fundamentalist's Approach to Their Chosen Text
   1. Criteria of Selection
   2. Translation of Scripture
   3. All Scripture is Interpreted Subjectively
   4. Liberals Take Scripture More Seriously Than Fundamentalists
   5. Hylics and Simpletons
4. The Causes of Western Fundamentalism
   1. The Decentralisation and Individualism of the Reformation
   2. Multiculturalism
5. Growing Fundamentalism Within Liberal and Mainstream Christian Churches such as the Church of England
   1. Growing Fundamentalism
   2. Evangelical Finances and the Church of England
6. Sectarianism, Intolerance and Violence
7. Shielding Society from Fundamentalism

1. What is Fundamentalism?

In the context of monotheism fundamentalism is the type of religious behaviour that takes a central religious text and places in such a holy, sacred place that it becomes considered infallible and from God rather than from man - in Islam, Muhammad didn't write the Qu'ran, he merely recited the copy of it that Allah created in Heaven. Fundamentalists take the tenets of their religion so seriously that Earthly evidence will not dissuade them from their religious views, and morality itself pales in comparison to what they think God's will is. Fundamentalism is often seen as violent, intolerant, stubbornly backwards, sometimes inhuman, godly and sectarian. These traits arise because the 'fundamentals' of a religion are held to be those morals, behaviours and beliefs held by the earliest followers, hence, fundamentalist ideas tend to clash with modern society and modern morality.

Earlier, in the 1970s, 'fundamentalist' referred only to those groups that also engaged in political or militant behaviour. Before that in 1920, Curtis Lee Laws 'coined the term in 1920' to create distance from the negative connotations of the word 'conservative', but since then fundamentalism soon became a very extreme form of conservatism. Talk of a return to the 'fundamentals' of religion had been around for some preceding decades, although of course throughout all time, there have been groups and peoples who have been fundamentalist in the modern use of the world.₁

2. Why Question Beliefs

“There is a constant need for us to question our own beliefs, and the beliefs of those around us. It creates a healthy atmosphere of skepticism and intelligence, and prevents people from coming to unreasonable conclusions. The way our brains work mean that we frequently misinterpret events and data, and in particular, we always think there is more rationality and evidence for our beliefs that there really is. This all matters because when beliefs become unquestioned, a community can become increasingly divorced from reality. This is especially true when individual leaders or belief-based authorities claim to be acting in accord with a divine principle, such as God's will. It is how religious cults are formed. In extreme cases this leads to complete social rejection and the possibility of suicide cults, as has been seen many times in history for example with Charles Manson's followers and the 900 who died when the People's Temple suicided. These groups always start out with borderline, but common, beliefs and slowly become more delusional over time. In all cases followers lacked an instinct to ask questions about the beliefs. It is religion that gains most when people cease asking deep questions about beliefs, and it is truth that suffers most. In the name of truth and common sense, do not let even trivial-seeming beliefs take hold without double-checking them, because once beliefs are trivialised, a slippery slope can take you down into madness!”

"Why Question Beliefs?: 4. Conclusions" by Vexen Crabtree (2009)

3. Fundamentalist's Approach to Their Chosen Text

This section is about fundamentalists who consider their religious text of choice to be completely free of error, human invention or fantasy (i.e., inerrant). In particular I have in mind Christian fundamentalists who consider the Bible to be inerrant, and Muslims who consider the Koran to be inerrant. How do such people arrive at the decision that their text is infallible, and what logical problems does this incur? Do they take the text more or less seriously than liberals?

3.1. Criteria of Selection

Fundamentalists largely hold that their scripture is the only authority we have as regards to the truth: It is an absolute truth. However, in order to select which text they consider inerrant there must first be non-scriptural basis for this selection. Before a person considers a text inerrant, they are in a position where their cultural and class position in the world dictate their knowledge of religious texts and their approach to them. These secular and coincidental factors determine whether a person comes to decide that a text is inerrant.

It is an illogical situation that once a fundamentalist has chosen a text, they then deny that they have no other source of authority: If there is no source of authority other than the text they've chosen, then their reason for selecting the text has become invalid. Beyond this point of self-contradiction it can be seen that the reasons are complex psychological ones.

Fundamentalists have been unable to arrive at a logical criteria for how a secular living person should select, from all the religious texts available that have adherents who claim it is inerrant, which one is true.

1. Through Prophecy? All claim that correct prophecies validate their text, and all claim that all the other texts don't really have correct prophecies. It is impossible to investigate all such claims yourself, in one lifetime, so it appears that a logical intellectual choice based on prophecy is impossible. Or it is ignorant: A choice can't be made without ignorance until a person has actively investigated all claims of prophecy by all religious texts. Until the individual has done this, they're merely guessing which one can be judged, by criteria of its prophecies, to be "more" divine than other texts.

   Sensible possibility: That God has inspired multiple correct prophecies in multiple religious texts or that magic operates as part of the natural laws of the universe, and supernatural prophecy making is possible whether or not God has a part in it. Of all the prophecies that have not come true (such as the thousands made about the end of the world, etc), you could very sensibly infer that any true prophecies are only true by coincidence and luck, not by supernatural means. In all cases, it can be seen that judging religious texts by their prophecies is a poor method.

2. Through Faith? Decisions by "faith" are determined in 99% of cases by cultural and societal factors, by psychology, and not by virtue of which text is true. Faith is a cultural and psychological phenomenon. Or, of course there is the chance that a God does actually support multiple (even contradictory) religions, and therefore that it doesn't really matter which one you pick.

3. Through Morals? It is circular logic to claim that a text is an absolute authority on morals, and then to claim that you can judge a text by the morals contained in it, before knowing which text is true. If you assume particular morals, then look at religious texts, you will end up selecting the text that most matches your own morals. If you select a text then claim that its morals are absolutely correct, you could have drawn exactly the same conclusion no matter which religious text you'd selected. The factors which determine which one you select in the first place are therefore purely cultural and psychological - not moral. We have no rational basis for claims of what morals God considers best. Selection by morals is a fundamentally flawed selection criteria, requiring either genuine stupidity, ignorance or doublethink.

4. By Popularity? If you judged by popularity you would conclude that at the moment the Christian text is 'absolute' and correct. But, in previous centuries, Roman paganism was absolute and correct, and before that, the animist worship of multiple simple spirits was the correct set of beliefs. It makes no sense that to say that now, at the moment, a particular religion is true merely because it is popular. Especially given that within a religion such as Christianity, there are many varied beliefs. To base claims on popularity is to undermine the idea that one particular religion has correct beliefs.

3.2. Translation of Scripture

We have very little of the original texts of our major religions. We know that from very early on numerous mistranslations have been introduced [Ehrman (2003) p49.], such as the mistaken usage of the word "virgin" to describe the prophecy of Jesus' birth since the major Septuagint translation (which was the version used for nearly all modern Bibles until academics have discovered older (and some original) Biblical text).

Thankfully, one thing that fundamentalists do get right is their determined and enviable attempts to read scripture in its original language. Obviously this is much easier for Muslim Arabs who still speak the same language the Koran was written in. By learning and reading it in the original language, or in very early translations, we minimize the translation errors (and assumptions) that slowly crept into later version.

However, we only have portions of the original texts and mostly we do rely on translations. Also, we can only possibly read the text from within our own cultural framework. We read text literally, chronologically and philosophically, where both The Koran and much of The Bible was written in prose, in poetry, was not written literally but written with many symbolic aspects, word games, shifts in time and place and many cultural references that we cannot possibly understand now. All these add up to create fearsome troubles with translating these texts and understanding them across hundreds of years of cultural difference. The longer the time difference between when something was written and when it is read, the less of the original meaning is preserved.

3.3. All Scripture is Interpreted Subjectively

This is a major problem with all divine text. When we read things, our brain takes in the text and interprets the information. Such interpretation is subjective. There is no "clear" meaning except what our brains give to what we take in through our sense. All people read different nuances and subtexts into text, and read the very text differently, according to their own experience of life and reality.

“Subjectivism describes the fact that we cannot know everything, or even know anything for sure. Because everyone's mind is wired different everyone experiences events differently. This is epistemology 101, as debated by the most ancient philosophers thousands of years ago₃.

Our brain is an imperfect organic machine, not a mystical repository of truth. Our senses are imperfect, our point of view limited, and the reality we experience is never the total picture. Human thought is infused with systematic thinking errors. We can logically deduce that any given experience may be untrue, and any particular thought could be a mistake. The result is that our total take on reality is a mix of guesses and patchwork. No two people ever experience the same event or thing in the same way, because the complexities and depths of their errors and assumptions are different for every person: every event is experienced slightly differently. No-one has precisely the same point of view on any event.”

"Subjectivism and Phenomenology: Is Objective Truth Obtainable?" by Vexen Crabtree (2000)

This subjectivism applies especially to written text. The longer ago something was written, the less the context is clear to us today, and this opens the way for much subjective opinion. The legal profession has much experience with determining the accurate meaning of texts, and one author warns us:

“Law is not merely an attempt to subject human conduct to the governance of rules; it is an attempt to guide the future through the use of rules. [...] It is an attempt through the use of language to devise rules. The problem which this presents is that language has an open-textured quality; language, we might say, has a limited grip over reality. There is an inherent vagueness in the ordinary use of language and, because of this, rules - even if we accept that they have a core of settled meaning - are often surrounded by a penumbra of uncertainty. [...] Words do not always have simple, literal meanings: they often acquire meaning within particular contexts.”

"Sword and Scales: An Examination of the Relationship Between Law and Politics" by Martin Loughlin (2000)₄

Robert G Ingersol wrote of how the problem of subjectivism applies to Christianity:

“It is probably safe to say that not one-third of the inhabitants of this world ever heard of the Bible, and not one- tenth ever read it. It is also safe to say that no two persons who ever read it agreed as to its meaning, and it is not likely that even one person has ever understood it. Nothing is more needed at the present time than an inspired translator. Then we shall need an inspired commentator, and the translation and the commentary should be written in an inspired universal language, incapable of change, and then the whole world should be inspired to understand this language precisely the same. Until these things are accomplished, all written revelations from God will fill the world with contending sects, contradictory creeds and opinions.

All persons who know anything of constitutions and laws know how impossible it is to use words that will convey the same ideas to all. The best statesmen, the profoundest lawyers, differ as widely about the real meaning of treaties and statutes as do theologians about the Bible. When the differences of lawyers are left to courts, and the courts give written decisions, the lawyers will again differ as to the real meaning of the opinions. Probably no two lawyers in the United States understand our Constitution alike. To allow a few men to tell what the Constitution means, and to hang for treason all who refuse to accept the opinions of these few men, would accomplish in politics what most churches have asked for in religion.”

"Complete Lectures of Col. R. G. Ingersol (1900)" by Robert. G. Ingersol (1900)₅

Combined with the problems of translation that we opened this text with, it is surprising that anyone thinks a god would attempt to communicate with us in any particular language, let alone ancient ones. If I was god, I would transmit my message directly into everyone's brain. That way problems with translation and subjectivism would be removed and people could make informed decisions and moral choices based on the full facts, rather than miscommunicated ideals.

There would be none of this "inspired" scripture, no culturally-bound religious founders, no revelation to random roaming mystics in the middle East, but instead it would impart such knowledge to everyone. This would end all translation problems, all transmission problems and be somewhat more instantaneous than the historically hap-hazard and slow spread of religious text. The conservatives are severely limiting God's power by saying that it itself is bound by a book of text, they are saying that God itself is short-sighted, inefficient and somewhat haphazard in its methods.

3.4. Liberals Take Scripture More Seriously Than Fundamentalists

I regard "fantasy" as being less serious than reality. For example, wishful-thinking about a woman and her character is to take her less seriously as a person than to honestly look at the reality of the woman. To give her more respect and to take her more seriously you'd have to accept her as she is, plainly, and without personal fantasy corrupting your approach to her.

The conservatives do not take scripture seriously, nor give it as much respect, as liberals. They allow personal fantasies to distort its reality and therefore corrupt it with their own wishful thinking rather than approaching it realistically. They must, subconsciously and partially-consciously, know that their wishful thinking is overriding a realistic respect for scripture.

To respect scripture should be to view it realistically, as-it-is, and not as you want it to be. A persons' want for an authoritive text (so they don't have to make their own choices or justify their own beliefs) is not an honest or respectful bias to take to a religious text: Such an approach corrupts the text and produces a caricature and distortion of truth. To understand the cultural differences between its composition and your understanding, between the symbolism and poetry of the original and the context-removed dry atmosphere in which we place religious texts, is to be more aware of both the beauty and truth of the text.

3.5. Hylics and Simpletons

The Roman Empire's early Christians equated textual literalism to be the modus operandi of the hylics, the least spiritual class of Christians. Fundamentalism is in opposition to early Christianity on a number of counts, including scriptural admonitions of legalism. St Paul's "the letter kills, while the spirit gives life" (2 Corin. 3:4-6) is the most famous verse against fundamentalism.

“The Gnostics called those who identified with their body 'Hylics', because they were so utterly dead to spiritual things that they were like unconscious matter, or hyle. Those who identified with their personality, or psyche, were known as 'Psychics'. Those who identified with their Spirit were known as 'Pneumatics', which means 'Spirituals'. Those who completely ceased to identify with any level of their separate identity [...] and realized their true identity [...] transformed the initiate into a true 'Gnostic', or 'Knower'”

"The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999) [Book Review]₆

In Islam, it is also the case that more those with deeper spiritual connections to their faith consider the literalist to have only understood the first 7 layers of interpretation (which were equivalent to understanding the Koran in seven local dialects, each with slightly different possible meanings for some words).

“Uberweb points out that, according to the mystic, every text of the Koran had 7 or 70 or 700 layers of interpretation, the literal meaning being only for the ignorant vulgar. [...] In the Muhammaden world, however, the ignorant seem to have objected to all learning that went beyond a [surface] knowledge of the Holy Book; it was dangerous, even if no specific heresy could be demonstrated. The view of the mystics, that the populace should take the Koran literally but wise people need not do so, was hardly likely to win wide popular acceptance.”

"History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell (1946)₇

Christianity and Islam have mystical orders. Mainstream Christianity is quite mystical in its liberalism, whereas Sufi Islam is widely held to be the closest equivalent. In both, however, the fundamentalist literalists have a strong presence (overwhelmingly so in Islam). These simple masses, the vulgar and the hylic, surely represent the biggest threat to true religious understanding. To be a literalist is to destroy the majority of depth and emotion of any written religion. The only advantage of the fundamentalist attitude to scripture is that it caters for the simplistic minded.

4. The Causes of Western Fundamentalism

4.1. The Decentralisation and Individualism of the Reformation

Steve Bruce holds that one of the side-effects of the Reformation was the new possibility of fundamentalist sects:

“The legacy of the religious innovations of Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers strengthened and hastened a variety of social changes which we can understand under the general heading of individualism and which we can see in changes to styles of worship and religious music. Local languages replaced Latin. [...] Power shifted from religious professionals to the laity. [...] Believing in the right things came to be more important than making the right ritual actions.”

"Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults" by Steve Bruce (1996) [Book Review]₈

De-centralisation, counter-intuitively, has allowed fundamentalism. The emphasis of evangelical groups on local church autonomy was not possible previously, de-centralisation goes with individualism, and the de-centralisation of belief from central authorities to individual believers has caused an explosion in schismatic fundamentalist groups who break apart frequently over variant interpretations of their beliefs.

4.2. Multiculturalism

In a complicated and globalized world where migration and multiculturalism have become the norm, religion has become a private affair. Often, individuals find themselves presented with many others of foreign religions, and in these circumstances one's own religion can find itself at the forefront of one's own self-definition. In the sociological analysis of why the USA has such high rates of strict religion for a developed country, the concept of "cultural transition and defence" was formulated by Steve Bruce₉. The arrival of others who worship in a different way, or, the movement of a person into an area where the religion is different to the one they were brought up in, can easily result in their 'native' religion becoming an important part of their identity even though they did not engage or believe in it previously.

This coming-together of religions results in much less certainty in religious ideas, as it is especially hard for laypeople to explain the things they supposedly believe in. Because of these challenges, belief has massively declined but those who remain who more committed than ever to their religious identities.

“The very fact of being challenged means that those who do choose to believe will often do so with an intensity and enthusiasm which would have surprised those of early periods who simply took their faith for granted. As we see in the efforts of the Methodists or the Scottish Free Church evangelicals, the challenge to evangelize can inspire a powerful movement, but what is gained in individual intensity is lost in background affirmation. Becoming religious is attended by more dramatic behaviour consequences, but fewer people do it. There are now more zealots but fewer believers.”

"Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults" by Steve Bruce (1996) [Book Review]₁₀

5. Growing Fundamentalism Within Liberal and Mainstream Christian Churches such as the Church of England

5.1. Growing Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is rising to power within otherwise moderate or liberal Christian communities. It has been happening since the very beginnings of second century Christian literalism. Many Christian groups do oppose this growing fundamentalism, but their resistance is too slow, too little and too polite... too liberal, too pacifist. If the Church of England, especially its upper management, was to oppose this fundamentalism, the Church would split and the liberals would be financially bankrupt. To guard against this eventuality, Western democracies governments should limit faith schools, and enforce the separation of Church and State so as the fundamentalists gain more power they are powerless to harm society in general.

This topic has been given more interest recently, and three respectable books that touch on this are (The voluminous book 'Social Trends in Britain since 1900' can be used to view the raw data that some of these books have also partially used)

• "The Phenomenon Of Religion: A Thematic Approach" by Moojan Momen (1999) [Book Review] notes the rise of fundamentalism as part of universal trends throughout the history of religion. Extreme fundie groups are led by charismatic leaders, then gradually over time their fundamentalism decreases, and a new wave of more extreme groups rise.

• "Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults" by Steve Bruce (1996) [Book Review] notes the same trend in Christianity in the last century, noting that existing fundie groups have become more liberal, gradually, but that new more-extreme fundamentalist groups are the only growing part of Christianity.

• "The C of E: The State It's In" by Monica Furlong (2000) [Book Review] makes the same notes on growing fundamentalist groups although the book is primarily concerned with the decline of the Church of England rather than the proportionally increasing sections within it.

“A large number of studies agree that the growth of conservative Protestantism owes little to the recruitment of people who were previously atheists or even liberal Christians. The real difference lies in the retention of children. [...] A survey [...] showed that 72 percent of those who joined in a four-year period were moving from other evangelical churches. Only 28 percent were 'converts' and almost three-quarters of these were the children of evangelists. This suggests that the explanation for the different fate of the denominational and sectarian versions of Protestantism has more to do with the ability to retain children rather than attractiveness to outsiders.”

"Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults" by Steve Bruce (1996) [Book Review]₁₁

Unless the liberals within religion perform a never-before-seen coup, these trends will continue in the West. The evangelicals and fundamentalists tend to be intensely organized and motivated, whereas the liberals and mainstream adherents are more laid back, living more peacefully. "One embittered liberal rector of a London parish said yesterday: 'The trouble is that the evangelicals are so much better organised than we are. We need to get our act together' "₁₂.

5.2. Evangelical Finances and the Church of England

Anglican Mainstream (despite the title, this is a fundamentalist group) and other evangelical groups are funded by rich American evangelical churches that are largely business orientated and middle-class populated. This organisation and more worldly outlook is opposed to moderate Christianity which does not generally pursue business interests, and sometimes actively shuns commercialism. Of course this has, unfortunately for the Anglicans, resulted in a history of financial mismanagement.

Sociologists and insiders writings on the Church of England, such as Monica Furlong and Rowan Williams himself, have commented that there is a possible fragmentation of the Anglican Church into Evangelical (and other) groups₁₃. The remaining liberal core, what is traditionally considered to be the center of the C of E, will be bankrupted. It is only the evangelical branches that can financially hold their own. After a series of serious financial scandals ten years ago, after which it reformed its financial management and even lent some of this management to secular businessmen, the Church of England has not been financially comfortable. It is selling churches and property, reducing paraphernalia, and increasingly sharing its staff across multiple sites.₁₃

6. Sectarianism, Intolerance and Violence

“Typically, fundamentalists aim to cleanse 'false believers' from their midst, or to separate themselves from them. This is why fundamentalism sometimes leads to violence and usually leads to schism.”

Harriet A. Harris (2004)₁

Steve Bruce takes up the theme of schism in his discussion of the Reformation:

“The religion created by the Reformation was extremely vulnerable to fragmentation because it removed the institution of the Church as a source of authority between God and man. If, by reading the Scriptures, we are all able to discern God's will, then how do we settle disputes between the various discernings that are produced? [...] The consequence of the Reformation was not a Christian church strengthened because it had been purified but a large number of competing perspectives and institutions.”

"Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults" by Steve Bruce (1996) [Book Review]₁₄

The result is a wide diversity of Christian groups, each of which stick firmly to their own interpretation of their religion.

7. Shielding Society from Fundamentalism

7.1. Anti-Extremism

“In an internet video in September 2007 Abu Yahya al-Libi, a prominent al-Qaeda leader, mockingly gave the West six tips to wage ideological warfare: highlight the views of jihadists who renounce violence; publicise stories about jihadist atrocities against Muslims; enlist Muslim religious leaders to denounce jihadists as heretics; back Islamic movements that emphasize politics over jihad; discredit and neutralize jihadist ideologues; and play up personal or doctrinal disputes among jihadists. These would indeed be good starting-points.”

The Economist (2008)₁₅

7.2. Good Governance

Good governance has the potential to promote social cohesion and tolerance, and therefore limit the spread of religious fundamentalism. Good practices should include:

• The promotion of human rights
• The closing of Faith Schools
• Removing religion-specific legal rights
• Education, particularly in science
• Raising awareness of the threat of fundamentalism growing from within the Anglican communion
• Support of gay tolerance (to show up the immorality of fundamentalists)
• Removal of religious pathways of power, i.e., Bishops in the House of Lords

Joining groups such as the National Secular Society allow you to take a more active and useful interest in secular politics, and so does bringing to our attention various local events.

Trend: Fundie groups become more liberal over time:

“This suggests a very general pattern. Conservative sects grow and gradually become more liberal and more mainstream. Some conservatives resist this direction and break away to form new purified conservative sects. The new mainstream becomes more liberal and declines further. The new sects grow until they too become increasingly denominational and mainstream, and so on.”

"Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults" by Steve Bruce (1996) [Book Review]₁₆