Fundamental Mistakes

Andrew Sullivan quoted Peter Berger from a Pew Forum discussion on Fundamentalism and Relativism. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life is a branch of the Pew Charitable Trusts in his blog. The text of the full discussion is here.

Relativism is a concept reviled by the Religious Right. They don't want to look at other cultures or religions as having anything of worth or value. Mr. Berger argues that Relativism and Fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin.

It is a stretch in my opinion, as neither shares a common methodology. One sees all points of view as equally valid. The other sees all opposing points of view as equally invalid. Neither values consensus unless it corresponds to their own rigid view of how things ought to be. There the similarities end.

What is interesting is that Mr. Berger has an interesting insight into religious and political fundamentalism.

Under modern conditions, where almost everyone lives in communities in which diversity has taken the place of consensus, certainty is much more difficult to come by.

Relativism can be described as a world view that not only acknowledges but celebrates the absence of consensus. So-called post-modernist theorists like to speak of narratives and, in principle, every narrative is as valued as any other. The moral end result of this world view can be captured by imagining a television interview with a cannibal. “You believe that people should be cooked and eaten. I certainly don’t want to be judgmental, but the audience will be interested. Tell us more.” (Laughter.) This is not all that fictitious.

Fundamentalists respond to the same situation of certainty-scarcity by seeking to regain absolute certainty about every aspect of their world view. No doubt is permitted. Whoever disagrees is an enemy to be converted, shunned or, in the extreme case, removed.

(Emphasis added.)

Is the desire to have certainty in an uncertain world what drives religious fundamentalists in their world view? Be they Christian, Muslim or Atheist, fundamentalism seems to breed fanaticism. There is only one correct view and it is theirs, as they see it.

They resort to the religion, throwing out the deity for the safety of absolute rules and punishment. In throwing out the deity along with the meaning of the religion, they fall victim to tyranny.

Although they purport to have faith, they don't know the meaning of the concept in practice. Faith requires accepting the inevitable uncertainty of life, which is a premise that fundamentalists are not willing to take. To practice faith, one has to give up trying to be God and accept that we can't fathom everything. Reason only takes us so far then we must trust God.

In the quest for certainty in life the fundamentalists' theology becomes general. They adopt a perverted form of relativism to form coalitions. Groups with whom they disagree theologically become friends in a common cause. It is no longer a god that they worship, but "moral certainty" or "Judeo-Christian principles".

In the vein of the Religious Right, they seek to return the nation to their brand of moral certainty. All others are damned anyway, so why should they enjoy the benefits of human compassion?

It becomes easy to stereotype a group who don't fit the pattern. Those with moral certainty suddenly find it quite easy to scapegoat the other group for all the uncertainty in life that their moral compasses cannot guide them through.

It is that fanaticism of rules and punishment that drives them to their own inevitable conclusion - they sacrifice the very morals that they purport to be supreme in order to quell those who disagree.

I recall reading at the start of the Information Age that at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution people who were displaced by the economic changes fled toward the safety of religion. It was believed that Christ would come any day and they sought refuge in religious certainty. Perhaps that is what happened at the end of the 20th Century as economic changes in the developed nations changed for the worse for most people.

When Islamic fundamentalists committed terrorist acts, it drove people further toward religious and political certainty. They craved certainty in an uncertain world. Unfortunately, religious certainty without a god or politics without compassion leads to the same unsatisfactory end. We end up with the same problems that we sought to flee.

Perhaps that is why death is such an unknown. No matter how much we fool ourselves into believing something is absolute, in the end, we face the unknown, even within the context of our religious beliefs.

If there is no atheist in a foxhole, there is a fathomless pit of uncertainty at the end of life. That is when faith becomes important. Not blind faith, but faith that you don't know what comes next and that such uncertainty is acceptable. Faith in practice is an acceptance that we are not God. Once we stop trying to be God, we become content.

It is sad that the fundamentalists of this world can't see the uncertainty in the world around them and come to terms with the fact that we can't know everything. Unfortunately, rules are guidelines that can't anticipate every circumstance. We have to find a way to live with one another as imperfect beings.

Moral certainty is as dead a god as one can get. Surely it should be called moral cowardice instead.