Playing semantic games won't get fundamentalists off the hook, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Burrowes, presumably doesn't like Christians, so he smears them with the word 'fundamentalist'. I thank him for attempting to define the word. But all it serves is to reveal his own prejudices<<

It takes some dedication to ignore the gist of the article - which is that some aspects of fundamentalist behaviour are decidedly anti-social - and to mount instead what is essentially a flawed attack on the word itself.

You are of course absolutely right when you say that a word "means whatever you want it to mean in a context". Some obvious examples are "conservative", "liberal" etc., the meaning of each of which depends entirely on its context. But surely that means that taking the word out of context and pounding it into the pavement with faux-logic...

>>The article tries to define fundamentalists as those adhering to certain principles or doctrines. But all people do that to a degree.<<

...simply proves the point.

In my view, the piece is remarkably even-handed in its labelling of particular behaviours and actions as evidence of the destructive potential of fundamentalism, going to the effort of highlighting its manifestations in a number of different religious contexts. To pick on the fact that he includes Christianity is unnecessarily defensive, bordering on paranoid.

The two key messages in the article, surely, are i) that the dangerous type of fundamentalism is where "contrary views will usually either be dismissed out-of-hand or resisted with considerable vigour and, often, violence", and ii) that it is the "...intense fear of being wrong that marks out the fundamentalist from the person who is open-minded and/or conscientious."

Paranoia aside for a moment, do you have an issue with either or both of these assertions?

I have an issue with denigration and name calling. Apart from this utility, the word holds little meaning or value. This probably explains why it appeals to you.

That's just being grumpy, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I have an issue with denigration and name calling. Apart from this utility, the word holds little meaning or value. This probably explains why it appeals to you.<<

We all have problems with denigration and name-calling.

But the words "fundamentalist" and "fundamentalism" can only be seen as negative (denigrating etc.) in the context in which they are used, as you yourself kindly point out.

In my view, the author has been extremely careful to avoid using them in a denigrating, name-calling mode. If you choose to offer an alternative reading, please feel free to do so.

Just lashing out - "[t]his probably explains why it appeals to you" - is entirely petty, and not worthy of you, Dan S de Merengue. Surely you can do better than that?

I'll tell you why I'm grumpy.

I come to OLO hoping to read something stimulating, meaningful, or original. Burrowes' article wasn't really any of that. His dislike for violence is well intentioned, but since this is something we'd virtually all prefer, it goes without saying.

I don't come to OLO to see people engage in name calling or denigration. I thought these pages were ideally supposed to promote mutual understanding.

Burrowes struggles to arrive at a meaningful, working definition for "fundamentalism". Yet he lumps together violent extremists with reasonably minded Christians putting arguments against evolution, abortion, and gay marriage. For some reason, to him they're all "fundamentalists". Such false association is little more than a policy or tactic of smearing the name of people with whom you disagree.

I've recently been travelling in Africa, and visited a refugee camp shared by peaceful people of both Muslim and Christian backgrounds, fleeing from violent separatists wanting to impose their version of a strict Islamic state on a corner of Nigeria. These I’d call extremists.

Yet arguments against evolution, abortion, and gay marriage are part of our current social debate. There are highly intelligent, educated and experienced advocates on both sides of each debate. And Christians here often find themselves aligned with secular advocates posing similar arguments, as the issues are quite bare: evolution does have serious problems; abortion as currently practiced is a form of legally sanctioned homicide; and many gays themselves offer reasons for not wanting the definition of marriage changed. To lump together thinking people putting forward intelligent debate under the same banner with violent extremists is a nonsense.

As for your name calling, grumpy I might agree with. But in your last few posts, you've also called me: ‘liar’, ‘child abuser’, ‘motivated by fear’, and ‘paranoid’. If you really believed all that, I don’t why you’re always so keen to engage with me. I’m not so keen (despite the sustenance of Matthew 5:11,12.)

Unless I get some clear and concrete retractions of these statements, you’re welcome to engage in any discussions without me.

Good day to you, Sir.

An elegant retreat, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Good day to you, Sir.<<

As ever, I shall miss you, principally for your apparently sincere efforts to defend the young-earth creationist stance, and turn a blind eye to evolution. That takes a special and rare dedication to an idea.

But I am a little surprised, given the preternaturally thick skin on display in defence of creationism, that you leave the field so quickly. Hurt feelings are not normally sufficient justification for withdrawal - the board would be empty in minutes if that were so.

>>... in your last few posts, you've also called me: ‘liar’, ‘child abuser’, ‘motivated by fear’, and ‘paranoid’.<<

Against such dire accusations, a little defence of my own is in order.

Nowhere have I ever called you a liar. Nor have I ever called you a child abuser - where on earth did that come from?

I did highlight the article's assessment that it is an "intense fear of being wrong that marks out the fundamentalist", which is a view with which I concur. But I did not attribute this to you personally.

The fact that you made this latter assumption does indicate at least a modicum of paranoia, wouldn't you agree?

>>If you really believed all that, I don’t why you’re always so keen to engage with me.<<

Leaving aside the fact that I don't believe "all that", I am keen to engage with you, as you put it, because you are clearly an intelligent and well-read individual. Two facts that I find at odds with your creationist stance, and therefore quite intriguing.

Have a great day.

fun-di/mentalist..deFINE

The term "fundamentalism" is sometimes applied to signify a counter-cultural fidelity to a principle or set of principles, as in the pejorative term "market fundamentalism" applied to an exaggerated religious-like faith in the ability of unfettered laissez-faire or free market economic views or policies to solve economic and social problems.

According to economist John Quiggin, the standard features of "economic fundamentalist rhetoric" are "dogmatic" assertions and the claim that anyone who holds contrary views is not a real economist.

Retired professor in religious studies Roderick Hindery first lists positive qualities attributed to political, economic, or other forms of cultural fundamentalism.[28] They include "vitality, enthusiasm, willingness to back up words with actions, and the avoidance of facile compromise."

Then, negative aspects are analyzed, such as psychological attitudes, occasionally elitist and pessimistic perspectives, and in some cases literalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain cognitive functions and behaviors.

Psychologists explore concepts such as perception, cognition, attention, emotion, phenomenology, motivation, brain functioning, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Psychologists of diverse orientations also consider the unconscious mind.[7]

Psychologists employ empirical methods to infer causal and correlational relationships between psychosocial variables. In addition, or in opposition, to employing empirical and deductive methods, some—especially clinical and counseling psychologists—at times rely upon symbolic interpretation and other inductive techniques.

Psychology has been described as a "hub science",[8] with psychological findings linking to research and perspectives from the social sciences, natural sciences, medicine, and the humanities, such as philosophy.

While psychological knowledge is often applied to the assessment and treatment of mental health problems,

it is also directed towards understanding
and solving problems..in many different spheres of human activity.

but not bloggers apparently.