Fundamentalism; Nature or Nurture?

[Magnetic]

I can only speak for my own personal experience.

I was raised, from as early as I can remember, in the church with all the stories, all the indoctrination and dogmas, and never questioned it. I had a rebellious time as a teen, but that later changed back to the church. I was thankful that I didn't die during that time, since I would have wound up in hell.

Up until just a few months ago (half a year at most), I continued in that belief until I started really looking at things in a logical way, until today where I no longer consider myself a Fundie.

Here's the funny part of this, because of my fundie upbringing, there's still that little nagging part in my brain that tells me that I'm betraying God in what I've come to understand and He isn't happy with me. However, my skepticism is still there, and it seems that nearly everyday new questions arise which challenge what I've always beleived. And when I hear someone state something from the fundie belief structure, I hear my brain saying, "Yeah, . . . . . .okay", in sarcastic tone.

Nurture is what I say. Though when I bring up the subject (in the Christian Forum) of how it is unfair for God to send other cultures to hell, who have never heard the gospel message, they say that "Through nature, man is without excuse because man should understand that God is real just by looking around." But that's another topic for another thread.

[Rogue 9]

Castrate Straha.

Anywho, it's a tough call. Fundamentalism results from being raised on fundamentalist ideas, obviously, but the question of whether genetics makes one more or less resistant to such indoctrination is a tough one. On the whole, though, I'd have to say that certain inherited traits do help resist, with the examples of the various Medieval European philosophers and scientists to go by.

For a more contemporary example, take the instance of the family of Fred Phelps. I submit that one would have a very hard time finding a situation that involves more indoctrination of children from birth onwards.

Phelps has multiple children, and those children are now largely divided into two groups: Those who fanatically follow him and now live in his compound with their own children and practice on them the same kind of upbringing that he inflicted on them, and those who are estranged, live apart, and oppose their father's ideology. I of course do not know whether Phelps practiced favoritism with some of his children at home or not, but we can say with near certainty that they all got the same indoctrination and probably close to the same domestic treatment, i.e. extreme abuse. Now, Mark and Nate Phelps two of his sons, are estranged from and oppose their father, while the remainder live in his Westboro compound and are his most devoted followers.

Why the difference? I seriously doubt that Fred Phelps allowed outside information that dissented against him into his household, and he certainly would not have suggested that he might be wrong himself. What led Nate and Mark to leave their father, then? Having never met them, I don't know if they're particularly smart, less stubborn, or whatnot, but I can't think of a case where outside nurturing influences counter to fundamentalism can be more safely ruled out. Making the (very safe, I think) assumption that they received no counter-fundamentalist education, I think that an inherited resistance to indoctrination of some type is a very strong possibility.