Doubt and Fanaticism

[Received]

Let me quote a nice psychotherapy existentialist fellow I admire:

A curious paradox characteristic of every kind of courage here confronts us. It is the seeming contradiction that we must be fully committed, but we must also be aware at the same time that we might possibly be wrong. This dialectic relationship between conviction and doubt is characteristics of the highest types of courage, and gives the lie to the simplistic definitions that identify courage with mere growth.

People who claim to absolutely convinced that their stand is the only right one are dangerous. Such conviction is the essence not only of dogmatism, but of its more destructive cousin, fanaticism. It blocks off the user from learning new truth, and it is a dead giveaway of unconscious doubt. The person then has to double his or her protests in order to quiet not only the opposition but his or her own unconscious doubt as well. -- Rollo May, The Courage to Create (emphasis mine)​

Reading this was a breakthrough for me. I have always slightly struggled with the stubbornness of others in holding their own views and their inability to consider other perspectives. I always labeled it as a defense mechanism, but never quite grasped the real mediating factor responsible for the defense.

It's a hidden doubt of one's own belief that drives the urge to defend. It goes deeper than what May said, in my view, to not simply a doubt, but a fear of what doubt implies, namely the possibility that one may be wrong. Fanaticism, understood literally or well on its way there, is an anchor in a world of water in which we're meant to swim, not sink. The swimming may be gentle, even a floating on one's back, or a vigorous kick and scream for progress; we're either adapting our current beliefs bit by bit or changing them entirely in certain areas.

Beware the anchors!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I like the theory that fanaticiam is a response to supressed unconscious doubt, but how could it be tested? If one "brings doubt to the surface" then that fanaticism would go away right, so the theory probably goes (I am not quite sure). But if so, it must be in theory possible - if we are to falsify that prior claim that conscious doubt would eradicate fanaticism - for a fanatic to doubt his faith, yet remain fanatical. Because if that happened we would have a doubting fanatic, and thus prove the OP wrong.

But is it possible, even in theory, for a fanatic to doubt his faith?

 

[Received]

I like the theory that fanaticiam is a response to supressed unconscious doubt, but how could it be tested? If one "brings doubt to the surface" then that fanaticism would go away right, so the theory probably goes (I am not quite sure). But if so, it must be in theory possible - if we are to falsify that prior claim that conscious doubt would eradicate fanaticism - for a fanatic to doubt his faith, yet remain fanatical. Because if that happened we would have a doubting fanatic, and thus prove the OP wrong. Actually, a person who ignores the possibility of doubting sounds like a good working definition for the fanatic.

But is it possible, even in theory, for a fanatic to doubt his faith?

I think so. Maybe it's better to say that the doubt is in seedling form, not fully engaged as doubt, perhaps even understood in the sense that the fanatic fears certain thoughts that would lead him to doubt beliefs he holds dear. So it's not doubt, per se, but the fear that he would doubt if he engaged with certain thoughts. He's not doubting, but ignoring the possibility of doubting, because he fears that if he did doubt, he wouldn't know what to do with himself.

However, I don't see a problem with the idea that a fanatic doubts his faith, so long as it's in a very small, whispering, seedlike way. Regardless, I think it could be tested: just look at the stories of fanatic-like believers who changed their views when they gave into that small bit of doubt and read all the "bad guys" whose arguments led to their deconversion. Dan Barker is a poster child for this view, and made exactly this point.

 

[bricklayer]

There is a first-principle called exclusion. Put simply, for example, it is good to be certain that 2+2=4. It is, however, much better to be certain that 2+2 exclusively =4.
As contingent beings, we approach ontological certainty by the process of exclusion, or as the bible calls it "testing".
Intellectually we could say that nothing is really ever proven; it's just that all the other ideas we've considered have been des-proven. What remains is what we are LEFT TO BELIEVE.