I hope that helps at least a little

Just a random

Just some thoughts.

As for their mindset...hmmm...I'll say this. The thing to remember is you're talking about religion - faith. For some that can be very "factual" - point to the passage in their holy writings and say "that proves what I mean". For others it can be very emotional, personal, saying that the writings give guidance, but I "know" things because they are in my heart, not because they can be proven.

Or something like that. Maybe this will give you some food for thought.

Figure out something the followers want to believe about themselves (e.g. they want to be superior, immortal, popular with chicks, whatever). Have the hideous leader tell them that following him will give them exactly what they want. You might even slip into the POV of one of the followers briefly, showing how seductive the beliefs are to him/her.

This is not the only way such fanaticism has worked in the real world, but it is a good way to build a story.

Charlie is a con man, and like most con men, he knows just who to target. His specialty, when he was out and running around, was to target young women who were not particularly attractive and/or who were estranged from their family and shower them with compliments and affection. Basically, he flattered them into trusting him. This worked really well with adolescent and post-adolescent girls who were starved for male attention but didn't have much of it because they weren't "pretty" enough. He also used drugs, once he got them to trust him, and a semi-religious rap about how he was both God and the Devil.

quote:

---

Not being an excessively religious or radical person, I find it difficult to relate and understand the driving force of a radical or a fanatic.

---

This is exactly the attitude that drives fanaticism. They think that they are normal, that they could never be completely out of touch with reality.

You are human, and that means that you are capable of terrible evil. The fact that you do not know that is an indicator that you are quite vulnerable. When we imagine that we are not capable of doing something truly evil, at that moment we are probably involved in or at least condoning atrocities.

[edited]

The points raised by the other posters all hit right on elements - justification of their actions, being told things they want to hear, praying on the weak. Keep in mind they are all possible pieces, possible approaches to creating your fanatics. You could take one angle, or all of them.

There is also the element of faith - believing without proof. Believing in your heart while not really knowing in your mind. Or knowing something in your heart even when it doesn't make sense in your mind, because of your faith in something higher, more important, more mysterious than you.

Fehrion, try thinking about unconditional faith in other ways than religious. For example, my faith in my wife. I have no doubt she is faithful to me, and my love is unconditional. But she's human, so she could cheat on me, right? My brain says so, my intellect says it's possible, but my heart, my faith says it'll never happen. Not exactly the same, as I don't go around praising my wife to the world and doing unspeakable acts on her behalf as the fanatics you are talking about might; but it's an example of unquestioned faith that might trigger other ideas for you to help you understand a bit about the fanaticism you're trying to create and write about.

I think the blind faith element is key in any of it - somehow the people in your story believe without question something that might not intellectually make sense to them (or us, hence why we call them fanatics).

Does that help at all?

JP

I don't know Fahrion from Adam, but the driving force behind fanticism is the inability to percieve one's own fanaticism. If a person is able to step back and realize that they are a fanatic, then they are able to evaluate their "unquestioned" assumptions.

We all have beliefs that we accept as unquestioned assumptions (at least, I assume that I have such assumptions as well, and I know that all normal humans have them). I would point to all the other posts to show that the point is common, but of course I feel that my presentation is punchier

How can any belief deny the value of logic?

Oh, now I get it. You must've dated the same girl I dated many years ago.

I'd say all beliefs transcend logic. Belief implies a conclusion beyond available evidence. A conclusion within available evidence is mere information. If beliefs were nothing more than information, we wouldn't need the word "belief."

Taken to its logical conclusions, moral relativism indeed does deny the value of logic. As a matter of fact, many cultural relativists already embrace this point, particularly with regards to rigorous mathmatical and scientific logic.

Nihilism also denies the value of logic...but does so in the only logically consistent manner it is possible to deny the value of logic--that is, as an a priori postulate

The belief in logic can be said to transcend logic, since it has to be accepted without logical proof (besides, what would be the point of a logical proof of something if you didn't yet accept the value of logic?). To an extent, so can belief in a lot of things connected with the idea of logic...but not all beliefs can be said to transend logic, just as most reasonable beliefs cannot be said to "transcend" evidence. Usually if a belief has to be held in the face of a contrary body of evidence and logic, then we call it unreasonable (as long as it is someone else's belief, that is).

Such beliefs cannot be said to "transcend" logic and evidence, because logic and evidence can dissuade reasonable people (that is, those that believe in using logic and evidence already) from holding them.

I would say that most beliefs fall into this catagory. I believe that I am sitting in front of a computer. I base this on information such as my sense data, my memory of sitting down in front of a computer, my knowledge about what a computer is and so on and so forth.

A Zen Buddhist holds certain religious beliefs, despite any "evidence" you might show to "disprove them". This doesn't make him a fanatic. Now, if he has some distorted view that makes him slip mickeys into everyone's drink to "put them in the supreme meditative state to reach enlightenment" then we might think he's a fanatic.

Another thing to think about, Fahrion, is that fanatics are likely to be a minority. If the majority of your world acts like fanatics (because you veiw what they do as bizarre, fanatical, from your perspective), it probably holds that THEY view the minority in the story as the fanatics, the people that aren't conforming. You'll need to keep the perspective of your world in mind when writing about them.

Perhaps thinking about perspective, what the majority believes and why, how it differs from the minority, what the fanatics do that make others in your story describe them as fanatical (it's not just their belifes, but their action on those beliefs) - maybe that will help you get into the motivations of the fanatic. The 'why they do what they do' of it all.

If your story is going to be based around religion, maybe you might go to different religious services and observe what works. If you were to go to a catholic mass then you will see ritual symbolism everywhere. When they walk through the door the use of holy water, and the word/phrase responses. Watch the people as well as the priest. Whether you believe what is said or not isn't as important as what the other people believe. Some churches tend to be more energetic with thier message, and others are out right scarry to me.

What I'm trying to say is that if you can see the somewhat normal people in their religious environment that will give you a brief glimps at where religious fanatasim tends to start. If someone is a fanatic based on God, they will be looking for followers that already have part of the belief system they are using.

But it seems that your position is that any information contained in a human brain is a "belief." By that definition, belief that the ocean contains water is not really different from beilef that God loves you or belief that the Tower of London is haunted by the ghost of Anne Boleyn.

If this really is your point, then I strongly disagree that this position is common to all people, whether they are fanatics or not.

"The sky is blue" for instance:
The sky is absolutely, undenyably, incontrovertably blue. God make the sky blue, and blue it will always stay.

People who say that sometimes the sky isn't blue, for instance, when the sky is overcast or it's nighttime, are hypocrites and liars. Can't they see that even then the blueness of the sky is merely hidden? What is with these people? Can't they see the inherent dangers in multi-colorism? What if they come up with a way to obfuscate the colors of traffic signals? "The light isn't red when it's overcast." That's the kind of thinking that causes a public menace. Color relativism! California stops! Rolling through the intersection instead of stopping. People can get killed that way.

What you need is for that same mentality to apply to people saying things like "red sky at morning, sailor take warning, red sky at night, sailor's delight." And then forbidding scientists from using spetroscopic measurments of the sky, and eventually outlawing astronomy, meteorology, and even just looking at the sky. The sky is blue, and that's that, so why does anyone need to look at it anyway unless they're the sort of heretic that doesn't believe the sky is really blue?

Doc, humans instinctively seek to answer questions they lack the information to draw informed conclusions about. An informed conclusion is one that is supported by "information" (sense data, logic, memory, etc.). But it is not itself raw information. It is a conclusion, and you have to either believe it or not. Uninformed conclusions are also beliefs.

We both agree that uninformed conclusions are "beliefs", but you don't agree that an informed conclusion is a "belief". But if we say that only uninformed conclusions are "beliefs", then we make "belief" a simple pejorative. To say you "believe" anything is simply to admit that you are completely uninformed about it.

I believe that the sky (right at this moment) is black with white bits, or really dark grey. I base that on the fact that looking out the window, it is dark outside, and my experience that when it is dark outside the sky is usually either black with white bits or really dark grey. It is an informed conclusion, but still only a belief. I don't have current sense data telling me the actual color I will see if I look at the sky, and I don't have any proof that it would be impossible for the sky to be...say, pink right now.

It is an informed conclusion, but not knowledge, nor information, but only belief.

I believe that the ocean contains water because experience and science tell me that water flows downslope and will end up in the ocean. Also, whenever I've gone to an ocean (having gone to several), I experienced that it was full of water. And of course, logically, if it didn't have water, it wouldn't make much sense to call it an ocean. I believe that God loves me because logically, the only alternative it that He doesn't love me, and that leads irrefutably to nihilism, which would mean that the ocean doesn't exist either. I also have experiences and so forth that support the idea that God loves me (though I will not share them here). I do not believe that the Tower of London is haunted by the ghost of Anne Boleyn, nor do I disbelieve it, I simply do not have enough information on the subject to know. Where I to believe it without having at least some evidence that it is probable, it would indeed be a different kind of belief, but it would still be a belief, just as my other two beliefs are.

Is there a difference between belief and faith? Do we believe something because we have some sort of evidence to back it up and is faith accepting something wholeheartedly without any shred of proof?

I would tend to believe that dolphins have language at a high enough level. Their language may well be even more advanced than human language. But it is not clear whether their language serves the same symbolic role in consciousness that human language serves. So far, all evidence of complex language native to dolphins has been of a concrete nature, and while dolphins can easily learn to understand simple English, there has been no work with abstract concepts. Their natural language may well be limited entirely to communication of sense data and memory, without referance to abstract concepts at all (what I understand about dolphin psychology would tend to suppor that idea).

Of course, I would say that the difference between belief and faith is that you're willing to act on your beliefs if you have faith. I believe that the ocean is full of salt water, and I believe that drinking salt water will cause death by dehydration. This is merely intellectual belief unless I'm in a situation where the issue of trying to drink seawater comes up...say if I'm at sea on a life raft and have run out of potable water. If I have faith in my belief that seawater will kill me rather than slake my thirst, I will not drink. If I don't have faith in that belief, then I will attempt to slake my thirst despite intellectual belief that doing so will kill me.

Any faith that accepts a belief without any shred of proof is likely to be a short lived faith, if only because the person holding it is in danger of being short lived. But some things have to be accepted on faith, since short of acting on the belief, it cannot be proved. For instance, all mathmatics and logic is an act of faith. You cannot "prove" that logic or mathmatics are true. You simply have to start acting as if they are, and then you get proofs. But you still have to accept those proofs on faith in the system itself, which can never be proven true. The same is true of sense data. You cannot appeal to sense data to demonstrate that sense data is valid, you just have to accept that it is, and then see where that takes you. You get evidences that sense data is real, but there is no ultimate "proof".

I'm aware that this is a specific theological definition of faith rather than the popular idea that faith is a belief for which there is absolutely no adducive evidence. I'm not fond of that definition because it is only used by those that wish to deny any value to faith. I can claim that socialism means people that want to eat babies, but since this is not a definition that would be accepted by anyone that didn't merely want to decry socialism, it isn't very useful. It is more appropriate to define socialism as the idea that a society is more important than an individual, and therefore where there is conflict between the individual and the society, the society's interests should prevail.

In this context, belief remains as I have defined it. Most things that humans believe are suppositions based on no significant evidence whatsoever. That doesn't make those beliefs "faith". Only being willing to act on the basis of belief can be called faith (this is why it is referred to as a "leap of faith").

Most of us try not to stake a great deal on beliefs for which we know we have no evidence. But many times we don't know that our deepest beliefs are held without much in the way of evidence. We have unquestioning faith in those beliefs, because it has never occurred to us that those beliefs can be questioned. I think it was Carl Sagen who said that he would require extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim in referance to the body of evidence that aliens may have visited the Earth. His implicit--and quite untrue--assumption was that aliens visiting Earth was very unlikely. All currently accepted science suggests that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations are almost certain to exist, and that they are likely to have visited Earth.

Faith is a form of belief. It is a belief that has no tangible explanation. We accept the existence of a God on faith. We look at the magnificent world around us as say "This proves there is a God who created us." The next person, who doesn't have that faith, can look at the same world and say "This proves that there is no God...it is all chaos."
Belief is born of experience. Faith is a belief that comes for no experience, it is a choice to believe is something we have not experienced as true.

quote:

---

Belief is born of experience. Faith is a belief that comes for no experience, it is a choice to believe is something we have not experienced as true.

---

Why shouldn't your dog believe that next time she whines, you'll be sick and tired of letting her out? The explaination for the countervailing belief is just as plausible as the explaination for the belief.

I don't think that this is the standard definition of belief, but I suppose for the purposes of developing Fahrion's ficticious religion it's good enough. If you look up the word belief, you're likely to see phrases like "without proof" or "without personal experience" etc. In typical conversation, there is a difference between and axiom, a fact, and a belief.

quote:

---

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

---

quote:

---

\Be*lief"\, n. [OE. bileafe, bileve; cf. AS. gele['a]fa. See Believe.] 1. Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.

---

I use the word believe all the time, usually in the context of a personal opinion. For example I believe Characters and Viewpoint is an excellent book for writers, and I believe the new Nissan 350Z is an attractive sportscar. I use the word believe because the quality of the book and beauty of the car are not facts, they are opinions.

I suppose I could use the word in reference to any information held in my brain. I might say I believe that I live in Cleveland or I believe I teach engineering. These statements would not be false, they would simply be silly. It would be unnecessarily confusing. My belief or disbelief of facts has no impact on their truth.

Although this could be a pretty cool idea to put in a story. Imagine an alien culture that expressed all information in terms of beliefs. Why would they do that? How would they view the Universe? I think this could lead to something . . .

You only say that you know you live in Cleveland and you know you teach engineering because you regard it as silly to question those beliefs. This doesn't change the fact that you, a human, don't have an internal "GPS" sense that feeds your brain direct information (right or wrong) about your exact location on the Earth. You infer that you live in Cleveland because of information that you infer implies a location in Cleveland. You can't think of any logical alternative explanation for the data set other than your life being in a location called "Cleveland". The same is true for your "knowledge" that you teach engineering.

I believe in the value of sense data, because the preponderance of the evidence suggests to me that sense data is generally consistent and coherent. But I cannot prove it. I know that sense data comes into my consciousness, there is no need for belief there, but I don't know where it comes from, the theory that it comes from a physical body in a physical world that exists whether or not I percieve it is only one possible explaination (and not even the most likely...just the only one I think matters).

Of course, granting my acceptance of sense data, I say things like "the sky is blue (or not, as the case may be)" because I accept sense data as being a source of knowledge. Likewise, accepting the logical validity of math as a given, I say that I know 2+2=4 and so forth. Knowledge of this fact is dependent on belief in something I cannot prove.

An axiom is only an assertion on which you will base other assertions. If you require that the axiom be accepted on "faith" then it is an axiom, if you say it results from other accepted assertions, then it is a theorem. A fact is a statement about the physical world that cannot be successfully refuted or contradicted. A belief covers the entire range of things that people do, in point of fact, believe.

Anything that could--even in theory--be refuted by later evidence is a belief. Sense data is irrefutable. It might not be reliable, but if you saw something, then seeing that what you saw never happened doesn't change the fact that you saw it. But your assumption that sense data has any validity could easily be challenged if, for instance, you awoke after being "killed" in a VR sensory manipulation tank and were told that your entire life was just a video game. The same is true of logic. We simply feel that some things are logical and some are not. But we cannot prove that logic is valid. I'm not easily able to imagine a scenario where I encountered "proof" that logic is meaningless, just because that would fly in the face of logic itself, and would seem illogical to all of us. But that doesn't mean that it isn't possible.

quote:

---

Human philosophers have long understood that almost all the truths we cling to are merely beliefs, based on other beliefs, in the end depending on the two great beliefs that logic and sense data are valid.

---

I very much doubt that all human philosophers agree on this point, but no matter.

If you believe your statement above, do you also believe that Schroedinger's cat is neither alive nor dead until the box is opened and the cat is observed? If the human race became extinct tomorrow, would all data in the Universe (e.g. the number of hydrogen atoms in a water molecule, the mass of the sun) cease to be factual?

Back to the original point—what causes religious fanaticism?

I think there are two things we need to consider.

(1) We must make a distinction between a person who is devout or pious and a fanatic, and the distinction does not rest on how strongly they believe in their religion. Take me, for example. I am a Catholic, and in saying that, I believe the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of religious truth. Yes, that seems like a very arrogant statement. But what if I said, “I am a Catholic but I don’t believe the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of religious truth.” Why, then, am I a Catholic? Why not become an searching agnostic? Or if I am a Mormon but don’t believe in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, why do I remain a Mormon? I submit, therefore, that anyone who is devoted to their religion MUST believe that their religion is more correct than all other religions for them to remain intellectually consistent. That is not fanaticism.

So, then, what does cause religious fanaticism or religious fundamentalism? Here’s the difference. Even though I believe the Catholic Church as whole possess the fullness of truth, I don’t believe that I possess the fullness of truth. From the fundamentalists I have spoken to, they believe that they have the only correct world-view and no one can offer them any insight unless, of course, that one belongs to the same inner religious ring as they.

Because I have a firm grip on my own finiteness and limited intellectual powers, I am obliged to listen to and learn for all—Catholic or Protestant or Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, Atheist or Agnostic. Each has something to teach me about life and God and the religious experience. And though I must examine and think about all things in light of the Catholic faith, I do believe each has something to teach me (so long as he or she is an honest and introspective person; superficial religious chatter doesn’t help anyone). And just from reading Pope John Paul II’s CROSSING THE THRESHOLD OF HOPE, I think that the thinks that, too.

Again, the fundamentalists would not, I think, be open to such a magnanimous view of other religions. Hence, that why they usually have one book they hold on to. To have two books means that you might have two points of view you have to deal with, and at least in my experience with fundamentalists, they certainly don’t want to think very hard about God and human existence.

Thus, when you think of a religious fundamentalist, you must think of extreme religious myopia. A religious fanatic is, of course, a fundamentalists, but with a key difference: they are socially oriented and take a cause upon themselves. Thus, pro-life fanatics who murder abortion doctors; Islamic fanatics who desire to rid the world of infidels not through conversion but by flying airplanes into buildings; Southern Baptists fanatics who have made it their goal to convert the Jews; Manson's family who was committed to bringing about the apocalyptic social revolution by teaching the blacks what they were supposed to do; the Nazis who were committed to ridding the world of the Jews.

(2) Most people want life to have meaning, and when they become disenchanted with fame and money and power and sex they turn either to drugs or religion. Fundamentalism then becomes very appealing because it presents itself as the great panacea. And people like that—not just because it is easy and doesn’t require them to think too much, but because it’s a quick fix and that’s what our society is all about. As you write your story, you will need to determine why people are following this leader.

Moreover, if you’re going to write a story with a fanatical religious leader, then you have a serious question to answer—what is his circle of influence. Charles Manson, for example, had a very small circle of influence; thus, he attracted disillusioned youth. Conversely, Hitler had a very, very wide circle of influence. So here’s a question, Could someone like Manson ever achieve Hitler’s status?

Thus, once you determine the kind of fanatical leader you have in your story, you have to determine what his circle of influence is and the kinds of people he attracts. The more well-educated his followers, the more intelligent and charismatic the leader.

I hope this helps.

PS - And no, I don’t plan on answer any questions about my religious views. What has that to do with writing?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not being an excessively religious or radical person, I find it difficult to relate and understand the driving force of a radical or a fanatic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is exactly the attitude that drives fanaticism. They think that they are normal, that they could never be completely out of touch with reality.

You are human, and that means that you are capable of terrible evil. The fact that you do not know that is an indicator that you are quite vulnerable. When we imagine that we are not capable of doing something truly evil, at that moment we are probably involved in or at least condoning atrocities.

Remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is not because there is any lack of bad ones, but because when we imagine that we can do no wrong, we do it without thinking.

---

If you want to know what fanatical people are like inside their own heads, look inside your own head. Perhaps I put it more clearly in another post.

quote:

---

Anyway, as a practical means of examining how fanatics feel, find some religion or culture that you find truly fanatical and evil. Then imagine that they are the dominant culture all of the sudden, and how you would feel about that. Viola! You know what how it feels to be a "fanatic". You think that you are normal, and everyone else is deluded.

---

I consider Schroedinger's cat to be a brilliant demonstration of why some of the assumptions underlying some current models of quantum indeterminacy are rationally incoherent, not least because they are saying that something magical happens that it is impossible for us to observe happening. This makes them very interesting theories, but it also means that such theories are not science. Quantum physics can do very well sticking to what can actually be observed, thank you very much.

If the human race became extinct tomorrow, then no humans would have beliefs. This should be obvious. The fact that humans have beliefs doesn't mean that their beliefs define reality, and I've never suggested such a thing. I'm rather shocked that you could so profoundly misunderstand me as to suggest that I ever implied such a thing, that I would ever imply such a thing.

To get back on point, if you lived back before Sir Joseph John Thompson demonstrated the existence of electrons, and you believed in them and went around trying to convince everyone else that such thing existed, you would be right...but you would also be a crackpot or a fanatic. Whether or not someone is a fanatic has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are right. It has to do with the relation they stand in with respect to the larger society.

Consider for a moment a small group of people who know that a global thermonuclear war will occur if a certain computer science researcher continues his work. They will do whatever is necessary to stop his research, including killing him and destroying his lab. The fate of the world is at stake. These people are fanatics. The fact that they are able to persuade the scientist to join them in destroying his lab and all his research doesn't change the fact that they are fanatics, it only means that he is now one of them. Whether or not they are right, they are still fanatics.

Anyone that really believes that something can be really true is a potential fanatic if they believe something different from the rest of society and care enough about it to actually act on that belief.

Take fundamentalists again. They believe that their eternal salvation depends on strict adherence to some principle of religion. It might be proselyting to Jews, it might be blowing them to hell. The point is that if everyone else agrees with them, they are not fanatics at all. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong. Back when everyone believed that the Earth was flat (which hasn't been the case for at least three thousand years, but oh well) it wasn't possible to have a fanatical belief in the flatness of the Earth. Today anyone that believes such a thing is clearly a loony.

To use another example, imagine that you lived in Nazi Germany, and you have figured out that the worst rumours about what they are doing to the Jews are true. What do you do? If you're a halfway decent person, you break the law and begin supporting insurgent groups to the limit of your ability. Lots of Germans actually did this (well, a few thousand anyway, which isn't really a lot out of millions of Germans), and a lot of them died for it. They were fanatics...but if you have even a spark of decency you'll at least hope that you would be one of them.

Many people believe that believing in Christ will save a person. But most won't go and kill someone over that belief.

Just about everyone believes that keeping a house clean is important. But a "cleaning fanatic" will keep it spotless to the point that no one can enter.

A sports fanatic...well, we all know.

Consider a more modern example, with relevance to fanaticism. There is an outstanding question of whether or not human activity has a statistically significant effect on the earth's ecology. (If you feal I've phrased the question ambigously, rephrase with proper statistical jargon.) This is a factual question, with an answer of either yes or no, and the opposite answer is wrong. The current dominant belief in American society is no.

Some people believe yes. Some people believe yes so strongly that they (for example) chain themselves to trees. Are they fanatics? They may well be right. If they are right, are they still fanatics?

Before we get too far into definitional matters, I would propose that they see themselves the same way that fanatics see themselves: this is the future of the world... mainstream approaches have failed... there's no time for alternatives....

Of course, the law of reversability holds. See Larry Niven's Fallen Angels for the opposing fanaticism.

There are basically two ways that people believe things. The first way (which we all admit to) is that we believe something, therefore we act to take advantage of a benefit or avoid an injury implied by the thing we believe.

The other way we "believe" things is to desire to do something, then make up a story that will justify what we want to do. Usually, both of these processes are involved. If you ask most children why they stole a cookie there will be the actual belief that cookies are tasty and they could steal one without being caught--which they will not generally admit--and the "belief" that it isn't fair for them not to get a cookie.

But to function as social langauge users, we need to have those beliefs...and we need both kinds if we are to be successful. If we lack "motive" beliefs, then we have no ability to consciously plan our actions...everything would have to be based on raw instinct. Without "nominative" beliefs, we could never explain or justify our actions to the community to which we belong.