Non-Religious Fantaticism

[Received]

*Fanaticism

I'm using "fanatic" as hyperbole. Clearly, religion is the prize of fanaticism. But how do we explain fanaticism in general, divorced from a religious context? More of an ideological fanaticism, where people hold to ideas rigidly, and are blind to any limitations to their own presuppositions or starting-points.

I'm talking even more particularly about what prevents a person from "opening up" to the criticisms another person might have about his beliefs (religion, scientism, empiricism, rationalism, etc. -ism) and investigating them further, potentially to the point where he could question and give up the belief in question.

And what would the opposite of this type of person look like? I can't help but wonder that an extreme form of flexibility and willingness to question one's own position (a type of skepticism?) would make a person incapable of taking any practical steps that grow out of whatever belief he has.

 

[Paradoxum]

I suppose identifying too strongly with a ideology could lead to close-mindedness. If that ideology is part of you, then you have more to lose if you are wrong. Criticism of the ideology might be felt as an attack on the individual, and so lead to self-defensive reactions.

Another problem might be that criticism might not be directed at the more fundamental beliefs. For example, one might criticise hell or Biblical genocide as evil, but if the more fundamental belief is that God is good, or that the Bible is infallible, then the person in question might think there are still more reasons for holding infallibility than reject it. They must therefore rationalize genocide.

Put another way, there may be lots of pillars holding up the ideology, so knocking down one wont do the job. If the building still stands strong, then there's no need to seriously question the whole thing.

There may also be emotional attachments to the belief. They may have believed it for a long time (connected to self-identity); all their friends and family might believe it, so there is social pressure (perhaps unconscious) not to question. An ideology might make people feel better and give them hope, or lessen uncertainty. If there are emotional reasons to believe, then reason must also overcome this.

Just a few thoughts.

[Mmmmm, Fantaticism...

]

 

[essentialsaltes]

"I'm talking even more particularly about what prevents a person from "opening up" to the criticisms another person might have about his beliefs"

If someone identifies with a particular belief-set, then attacks on the beliefs can be experiences as attacks on the self.

But mostly, I wanted to toss in the probably irrelevant etymological detail that 'fan' (e.g. sports fan) is short for fanatic.