The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism

Guno צְבִי

Am Yisrael Chai
The need to sustain complex connections at the level of thought (not fact) through the evolution of mental abilities that are necessarily connected with developing all the metaphoric resources of language. The literal in contrast puts an end to thought. It offers the mind a way to shut down, to reify itself. It thereby exorcises the greatest fear: interpretation and its inevitable result, the conflict of interpretations and with it the terror of being forever bereft of dogmatic certitudes. A metaphor is the lighting flash of an intelligence that sees, as Aristotle asserts, connections that can only be sustained by a thought that thereby liberates itself from the immediate.

Literalism is the attempt to arrest all of this before it takes hold. It’s innermost necessity is the resistance to metaphor. For with metaphor one enters a world that has the power to unravel the literal mind. Let me offer one example. “There is no God and Mary is his mother.” In this great aphorism Santayana asserts an ontological impossibility and a psychological necessity. I once tried it out on some fundamentalist friends. They were at first puzzled by the unintelligibility of the statement then amazed that Santayana and I were so dumb we couldn’t see the contradiction. Finally the light went on, almost in chorus, the literalist deconstruction of the statement: “If he wasn’t a God how could she be a mother?” All attempts to suggest that the statement wasn’t meant to be taken literally only produced further confusion then frustration then anger. Santayana’s statement made no sense precisely because it was a koan, a paradox intended to produce reflection, even introspection. It was there I suggested that one would find the key to its meaning; not in the assertion that its meaningless constituted evidence that Santayana was perverse or mentally unbalanced. We were, of course, talking at irretrievable cross-purposes with no way to bridge the gulf between us. Which was, of course, the point of the exercise.

Literalism is the first line of defense of a mind that wants to put itself to sleep. A sensibility that like Nietzsche’s last man can only blink in blank incomprehension at anything that can’t be immediately understood. It is the great protection against a world teeming with complexities.



https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/01/08/the-psychology-of-christian-fundamentalism/
 
guno ("Goyim want a pork treat").
I'm not sure YOU are the person to lecture anybody on this.
 
You are kidding, right?

You got such as "metaphoric resources of language," "this great aphorism," "forever bereft of dogmatic certitudes," plus Santayana all in one post and are expecting a relevant exchange on this forum?

I got no beef with the Fundamentalist as long as they are Fundamentalist, actually do follow the "literalism" discussed in your quote, however, what I found is that it is a cafeteria "literalism," they pick and choose what religious dogma they want to apply to life, quick example, how could they follow a leader who probably has easily broken four of the ten commandments

Personally, I'm more Platonic, you either believe or you don't, you can not find a rational explanation for what one has faith in
 
I don't care what religion (or no religion) someone is, or really why they believe that, as long as 1) they keep it to themselves and don't try to convert others, and 2) don't try to insert it into the government and the laws of this country.
 
I don't care what religion (or no religion) someone is, or really why they believe that, as long as 1) they keep it to themselves and don't try to convert others, and 2) don't try to insert it into the government and the laws of this country.

Exactly, especially the second part, but it is not often accepted, they might criticize it, but a lot of religious people expect the Federal Gov't to enforce their religious beliefs.
 
Exactly, especially the second part, but it is not often accepted, they might criticize it, but a lot of religious people expect the Federal Gov't to enforce their religious beliefs.

And if not, then they cry "Persecution!" Because not being allowed to put a nativity scene on the City Hall lawn or not being allowed to have Intelligent Design taught in high school biology class is exactly the same as being thrown into the Coliseum and torn apart by wild beasts.
 
The need to sustain complex connections at the level of thought (not fact) through the evolution of mental abilities that are necessarily connected with developing all the metaphoric resources of language. The literal in contrast puts an end to thought. It offers the mind a way to shut down, to reify itself. It thereby exorcises the greatest fear: interpretation and its inevitable result, the conflict of interpretations and with it the terror of being forever bereft of dogmatic certitudes. A metaphor is the lighting flash of an intelligence that sees, as Aristotle asserts, connections that can only be sustained by a thought that thereby liberates itself from the immediate.

Literalism is the attempt to arrest all of this before it takes hold. It’s innermost necessity is the resistance to metaphor. For with metaphor one enters a world that has the power to unravel the literal mind. Let me offer one example. “There is no God and Mary is his mother.” In this great aphorism Santayana asserts an ontological impossibility and a psychological necessity. I once tried it out on some fundamentalist friends. They were at first puzzled by the unintelligibility of the statement then amazed that Santayana and I were so dumb we couldn’t see the contradiction. Finally the light went on, almost in chorus, the literalist deconstruction of the statement: “If he wasn’t a God how could she be a mother?” All attempts to suggest that the statement wasn’t meant to be taken literally only produced further confusion then frustration then anger. Santayana’s statement made no sense precisely because it was a koan, a paradox intended to produce reflection, even introspection. It was there I suggested that one would find the key to its meaning; not in the assertion that its meaningless constituted evidence that Santayana was perverse or mentally unbalanced. We were, of course, talking at irretrievable cross-purposes with no way to bridge the gulf between us. Which was, of course, the point of the exercise.

Literalism is the first line of defense of a mind that wants to put itself to sleep. A sensibility that like Nietzsche’s last man can only blink in blank incomprehension at anything that can’t be immediately understood. It is the great protection against a world teeming with complexities.



https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/01/08/the-psychology-of-christian-fundamentalism/
gosh, I wonder what would happen if two conservative Christians thought differently than each other......
 
I got no beef with the Fundamentalist as long as they are Fundamentalist, actually do follow the "literalism" discussed in your quote, however, what I found is that it is a cafeteria "literalism," they pick and choose what religious dogma they want to apply to life, quick example, how could they follow a leader who probably has easily broken four of the ten commandments
no one is a total literalist.....there's a bible verse that says "the cattle on a thousand hills sing the praises of the Lord"........ask someone who claims to be a literalist what the cattle on hill #1001 sing......
 
Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
I don't care what religion (or no religion) someone is, or really why they believe that, as long as 1) they keep it to themselves and don't try to convert others, and 2) don't try to insert it into the government and the laws of this country.
.

I know, right?.....Christians are real assholes for starting threads like this one......
 
I don't care what religion (or no religion) someone is, or really why they believe that, as long as 1) they keep it to themselves and don't try to convert others, and 2) don't try to insert it into the government and the laws of this country.

Should we abolish the First Amendment so your delicate sensibilities aren't offended?
 
Should we abolish the First Amendment so your delicate sensibilities aren't offended?

I think you're the only one offended here. The First Amendment has nothing to do with this; it has to do with a state-established and/or approved religion. *No* religious beliefs should not be part of public (i.e. government i.e. taxpayer-supported) functions. Not yours, not mine, not that Satanist guy over there, or that Muslim lady down that way. Understanding that this is what was intended by the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with being offended, which I am not.
 
And if not, then they cry "Persecution!" Because not being allowed to put a nativity scene on the City Hall lawn or not being allowed to have Intelligent Design taught in high school biology class is exactly the same as being thrown into the Coliseum and torn apart by wild beasts.

Lol, I think libs just can't stand a little competition in the victimhood status Arena.
 
I think you're the only one offended here. The First Amendment has nothing to do with this; it has to do with a state-established and/or approved religion. *No* religious beliefs should not be part of public (i.e. government i.e. taxpayer-supported) functions. Not yours, not mine, not that Satanist guy over there, or that Muslim lady down that way. Understanding that this is what was intended by the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with being offended, which I am not.

The first amendment has everything to do with this. You said you don't want people trying to convert others etc etc. I can only conclude that you are against religious freedom.
 
The first amendment has everything to do with this. You said you don't want people trying to convert others etc etc. I can only conclude that you are against religious freedom.

So talk to yourself.. Others don't want to hear about world wide floods and Jonah living inside a fish for 3 days.
 
So talk to yourself.. Others don't want to hear about world wide floods and Jonah living inside a fish for 3 days.

And others don't have to listen. But you cannot stop people from practicing their religion. Much to your chagrin, I'm sure.
 
And others don't have to listen. But you cannot stop people from practicing their religion. Much to your chagrin, I'm sure.

Practice your religion, but don't show up on my porch. I'll have you arrested for trespass and solicitation.
 
The first amendment has everything to do with this. You said you don't want people trying to convert others etc etc. I can only conclude that you are against religious freedom.

I don't want them trying to convert *me*. Most ppl feel the same. Religious freedom doesn't give you the right to knock on ppl's doors, invade their privacy, tell them they're going to hell if they don't follow your religion, or otherwise harass them. It merely gives them the right to worship as they please. Worship and evangelizing are not synonymous.
 
Back
Top