Fundamentalism; Nature or Nurture?

[Pcm979]

A discussion/argument I've been having with a friend recently. She argues that religious fundamentalists (Referring specifically to the London bombers) have to be wrong in the head to go so far. I argued that anyone, if brought up in a fundamentalist comunity, could end up a Fundie.

Discuss.

[sparrowtm]

Her logic is le bullshit. While natural intelligence will help you to resist indoctrination, I very much doubt many people would be able to withstand it if being raised with fundamental ideas from their earliest life on. Since most fundamentalist communities are overly careful as to what information sources they let their kids and community members access, this makes it even harder NOT to become a fundie if raised to be one.

Of course this does not only count for fundamentalism. Take Germany in the year 1933. Either half of the population was born with a serious brain damage back then - or it is really possible for almost everyone to convert to an extremist view of things if it is done right.

[Nephtys]

It's hardly natural nature to desire wrapping yourself in a plastique jacket. It takes a hellova lot of reason-killing indoctrination to even contemplate doing that.

[Pcm979]

She argues that you have to be wrong in the head for it to be possible for you to be convinced to do it in the first place.

[The Guid]

She is suggesting that by coincidence every single suicide bomber, Nazi, arguably every member of certain faiths and anything else that flies in the face of reason is genetically at fault? I just don't think there's enough malformed DNA. Gotta be nurture predominantly though I don't quite a divide you do.

[Darth Wong]

She argues that you have to be wrong in the head for it to be possible for you to be convinced to do it in the first place.

There is something to be said for the idea that some people are more susceptible to fundamentalism by nature than others. People who tend to think in a more rational way will be more resistant to blindly accepting self-contradictory dogmas. And there is considerable evidence that some people are naturally more inclined to rational (as opposed to emotional) thought.

After all, the entirety of Europe was once basically fundamentalist, yet there were those who resisted. And the conclusion (that substantial portions of the population may suffer from this problem) seems absurd on first glance but is also not entirely reasonable. What if only 1/4 of the population has the innate tendency toward rationalism which would tend to counteract fundamentalist programming?

[Darth Wong]

She is suggesting that by coincidence every single suicide bomber, Nazi, arguably every member of certain faiths and anything else that flies in the face of reason is genetically at fault?

Why not? Do you have some disproof of this idea other than your personal incredulity at it?

I just don't think there's enough malformed DNA.

Don't be an idiot. We're not talking about "malformed DNA"; we're talking about different inherited traits which may be more or less amenable to fundamentalist programming.

[The Guid]

I meant to say that I accept some elements of nature within it in terms of resistence to such things but I really do not see any evidence of nature playing a greater role than nurture. You stick anyone through my priveleged background and you won't get a suicide bomber/fundamentalist but stick me or perhaps others in a restrictive environment where information is more controlled and I can see myself being quite the little wanker.

I think you also assume that a cool rational person in any environment can not be a fundamentalist. You control the information going to a brain and it'll come to the conclusions you want it to.

[Darth Wong]

I meant to say that I accept some elements of nature within it in terms of resistence to such things but I really do not see any evidence of nature playing a greater role than nurture. You stick anyone through my priveleged background and you won't get a suicide bomber/fundamentalist but stick me or perhaps others in a restrictive environment where information is more controlled and I can see myself being quite the little wanker.

So to prove your case, you simply appeal to completely unverifiable personal what-if scenarios.

I think you also assume that a cool rational person in any environment can not be a fundamentalist. You control the information going to a brain and it'll come to the conclusions you want it to.

I never said that, moron. I said that certain traits make one more resistant. "Rational" is not an on/off condition in peoples' personalities. There are people who are raised fundamentalist and figure things out as they get older, whereas there are others who are given the same indoctrination and keep it till the day they die, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is thrown into their faces. Explain that.

[The Guid]

Alright, I used a bit of a cheeky debating technique, I'll try not to do it again. As I want to make clear, I am not saying that nature and nurture are an "either or" situation - I think both have an influence. All that I am arguing is that nurture has the greater influence. Yes, there are those who reject their fundamentalist upbringing and indeed some who are raised well but are drawn to a cult of some kind. The more important point though would be this: More fundamentalists had fundamentalist parents. This is something I can not prove right now, and I hope not to have to, I would hope you accept that as the truth. Same with all ideology, people vote with their parents and statistically more people by the same newspaper as they had in their parent's household.

[Darth Wong]

Alright, I used a bit of a cheeky debating technique, I'll try not to do it again. As I want to make clear, I am not saying that nature and nurture are an "either or" situation - I think both have an influence. All that I am arguing is that nurture has the greater influence.

Then you are arguing a red-herring. The argument in question is that the indoctrination only works on people of lesser rationality. The ratio of the population which falls into this group is irrelevant; it could be 80% and the argument would still hold. The fact that this would not happen without this indoctrination is a tautology and is also irrelevant. The question of whether the indoctrination is therefore more important than the inherited traits is even more irrelevant.

[Pcm979]

Argh, the poll was supposed to be about which was the most important factor, not an on/off question. Sorry for not clarifying.

[Darth Wong]

Argh, the poll was supposed to be about which was the most important factor, not an on/off question. Sorry for not clarifying.

In the context of the OP, it is impossible to say. And the oversimplistic poll really has nothing to do with your friend's argument. Let me try to explain this:

- She says that A won't happen without B.
- Others point out that A won't happen without C either.
- People start arguing whether B is more important than C.
- In the confusion, no one remembers that the relative importance of B and C is totally irrelevant to the question of whether her claim is true.

[Pcm979]

Gotcha. I feel dense today.

[The Guid]

Argh, the poll was supposed to be about which was the most important factor, not an on/off question. Sorry for not clarifying.

In the context of the OP, it is impossible to say. And the oversimplistic poll really has nothing to do with your friend's argument. Let me try to explain this:

- She says that A won't happen without B.
- Others point out that A won't happen without C either.
- People start arguing whether B is more important than C.
- In the confusion, no one remembers that the relative importance of B and C is totally irrelevant to the question of whether her claim is true.

Agreed. I moved off the origonal point, but stand by everything I said as irrelevant but true. I was arguing the wrong argument.

[bekeleven]

While some people have a naturally inquisitive mind, leading them to have un-answerable questions about the world. There's a reason christianity has a higher drop-out rate than in the middle ages. The people are exposed to more dissenting opinions growing up now. Anyway, there's also always been a very drop-in rate, supporting nurture.

[Surlethe]

Religious fundamentalists may be more amenable, perhaps, to fundamentalism, but not 'wrong in the head'. Mostly nurture. with possible traits enhancing stubbornness and irrationality.

[LadyTevar]

I say that it is nuture because all religions, no matter what culture, are taught by the elders of that culture. This is a learned experience, not a inbred instinct. Religion is indoctrination, as I think Wong has stated before.

Fundamentalism comes from the teacher, passed on to the students, who then pass it on in turn to their children. Some children rebel against it as part of their teen years, when rebellion against their parents is common. Some revert to 'the familar' later in life. Others follow blindly throughout their lives, unable to accept any other ideas. It's all how they were taught, whether it's religion, racism, or cultural tradition.

[The Guid]

But then again people react to such training differently. Can it all be put down to slightly different experiences or is there something inbred as it were?

[wolveraptor]

If it really is nature, then it could be explained by differing roles in our pack society. Leaders and followers. The followers might be prone to living by whatever those above said. This attitude is congruent with "the flock", no?

[Darth Wong]

Religious fundamentalists may be more amenable, perhaps, to fundamentalism, but not 'wrong in the head'. Mostly nurture. with possible traits enhancing stubbornness and irrationality.

Hey, here's an idea: BACK UP WHAT YOU FUCKING SAY IN THIS FORUM. THIS IS NOT THE GODDAMNED KIDDIE ONE-LINE OPINION FORUM

[Darth Wong]

I say that it is nuture because all religions, no matter what culture, are taught by the elders of that culture. This is a learned experience, not a inbred instinct. Religion is indoctrination, as I think Wong has stated before.

Fundamentalism comes from the teacher, passed on to the students, who then pass it on in turn to their children. Some children rebel against it as part of their teen years, when rebellion against their parents is common. Some revert to 'the familar' later in life. Others follow blindly throughout their lives, unable to accept any other ideas. It's all how they were taught, whether it's religion, racism, or cultural tradition.

It's true that the mindset comes from indoctrination. However, some people are more or less resistant to this indoctrination, and that is verifiable through skeptical writings dating back throughout the ages. So where does this difference in resistance come from? It seems most likely, given the rarity of unusually high intelligence, that it comes from innate traits.

[Surlethe]

Religious fundamentalists may be more amenable, perhaps, to fundamentalism, but not 'wrong in the head'. Mostly nurture. with possible traits enhancing stubbornness and irrationality.

Hey, here's an idea: BACK UP WHAT YOU FUCKING SAY IN THIS FORUM. THIS IS NOT THE GODDAMNED KIDDIE ONE-LINE OPINION FORUM

I understand, sir. Point retracted.

[NPComplete]

However, some people are more or less resistant to this indoctrination, and ... [it] seems most likely, given the rarity of unusually high intelligence, that it comes from innate traits.

I don't think that that necessarily follows. Tendancy towards skeptism could easily be the result of experience and upbringing rather than genetics. You're assuming that all indoctrination is of equal quality.

What if religous skeptics occur more often in parishes with poorly spoken, or drunkard, or abusive priests? Or with better secular education? Or with a less religous leader (king, president, what have you). Or even with just better access to materials written by other skeptics.

I think that there is certainly a correlation between intelligence and independance of thought, and I don't doubt that both things (nature and nuture) play a factor, but I'm not sure one can be given much more weight than the other, especially because of the overlap between the two. Parents who are intelligent and free-thinking are more likely to have intelligent children who are encouraged to be free thinkers. However, even their stupid children will on average more independant, and the intelligent children of fanatics will be more blinkered.

[Darth Wong]

However, some people are more or less resistant to this indoctrination, and ... [it] seems most likely, given the rarity of unusually high intelligence, that it comes from innate traits.

I don't think that that necessarily follows. Tendancy towards skeptism could easily be the result of experience and upbringing rather than genetics. You're assuming that all indoctrination is of equal quality.

I once felt that way, but there is a pretty substantial body of evidence indicating that generalized traits (skepticism, a preference for artistic vs empirical pursuits, etc) are inherited rather than trained (studies involving identical twins choosing similar or identical vocations despite being raised separately come to mind).