Hi Yuyutsu,

Whenever speaking of "danger", one should state what the danger is to, who or what might suffer" Yuyutsu.

This was in the opening post from me;

"Not only does fundamentalism promote delusional thinking, it also discourages followers from exposing themselves to any different ideas, which acts to protect the delusions that are essential to the ideology."

The above is self explanatory. delusional thinking can have destructive consequences both on a personal level, for example self harm, family break ups etc, and in extreme cases for the wider community, I gave the example of what delusional thinking did in Japan.

Dear Paul,

«This was in the opening post from me;»

But the words were of Bobby Azarian, not yours.

Had I been able to discuss this matter directly with Bobby Azarian, then I would start by asking him to define what exactly he meant by "fundamentalism" and "delusional thinking": these terms are not self-explanatory.

Your definitions could obviously vary somewhat from his, so I wouldn't like to be playing Chinese whispers here, I rather relate to your own words alone:

«delusional thinking can have destructive consequences»

Delusional thinking HAS destructive consequences.

In the words of the Bhagavad-Gita:

"While contemplating on the objects of the senses, one develops attachment to them. Attachment leads to desire, and from desire arises anger.
Anger leads to clouding of judgment, which results in bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, the intellect gets destroyed; and when the intellect is destroyed, one is ruined." [BG 2:62-63]

In other words, delusional thinking (=clouding of judgement) is one link in a chain that leads to destruction.

What we still need to establish is the link (if any) between fundamentalism (in general, not just Christian fundamentalism) and delusional thinking.

The OED provides two definitions for fundamentalism:
1) a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.
2) strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.

- I like the second definition but find several issues with the first, including the blind supposition that Islam and Christianity are religions and that their books are pure scripture: and even if they were, true scripture should be studied carefully with a competent teacher, rather than read as literal prose.

So would you mind using the second definition (otherwise, please state your own definition)?
If so, do you see a relation between adherence to basic principles and delusional thinking?

P.S. those crazies in your Japanese example were neither religious nor strict followers of basic principles - but angry people there were, which led to their clouding of judgement!

Paul,
Far more people read their horiscope and believe it today than read their Bible and follow it. Are they delusional and dangerous?

The run of the mill every day morons listen to what Daniel J. Flynn describes as "intellectual morons" who are so self-obsessed and too 'smart' to worship a God, so they worship themselves- man - and human ideas that will supposedly bring us salvation.

The morons, everyday and the intellectual kind, use phrases like "fundamentalist Christians ", but it is all Christians and Christianity that they hate and fear.

If you are a Greens communist extremist your father is a great ape, and you have evolved into the supreme being. If you are a Christian, you believe the human spirit is descended from God, the supreme being, and we have failed to live as sons of God, in need of confession and forgiveness. If we are merely mortal bodies, we are no more than evolved animals and morality is a human construct.

Hey Josephus,
Believers (by way of the fact that they 'believe')
- Think that only 2 categories of human beings exist.

People like themselves who do believe,
and everyone else who is categorised as athiest or non-believer.

There's actually 3 categories, believers, agnostic, athiest.
3 NOT 2.

From the agnostic point of view, (someone who admits they don't know) both believers and non-believers might both be in the same category.
- Somehow they SOMEHOW BOTH KNOW what the agnostics think is IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW.
From the agnostic point of view, those who claim to know, have a 50/50 chance of having mental problems relating to their belief in supernatural beings
- Than actually knowing what they claim to know.

Point in question there are multiple religions.
They can't all be right at the same time.

Even if one religion just happens to be correct;
That would mean the other religions are wrong.

So there's a solid basis for at least some of the people who are religious to have gotten it wrong
(and being in that mentally challenged category)
Which means that more religious people are likely following a false religion than those who follow the 'true religion' and have it right.

As for me, if I said 'I believed'
- Then that would be 'bearing false witness'
I don't know, and I don't claim to.