Religiou Fundamentalism

In the following essay we will be looking into what is meant by religious fundamentalism by looking into four fundamental notions that came from an era that had been interested in the investigation and exploration of modernity and a free way of thinking for the individual. These four fundamental notions are identified as rationalization (intellectualization), the idea of disenchantment, enlightenment and secularization. The essay will closely link these to Weber who was a socialist and was interested in these concepts in defining religious fundamentalism. Weber believed rationalization was the freedom given to an individual, to explore their own thoughts; his ideas of rationalization from the pre modern era when the ability to reason and autonomy was left aside for the exclusive and the elite that were pointed out by God (Weber; 1987, 126). Reason is how man could be civil and make choices with justification yet in a very responsible manner. According to Gellner, individuals are tidy and orderly in thought to think out for themselves what would be the best way to act in a given situation and make a choice that would be reasonable (1992; 38). Disenchantment being also a way of freeing one’s strains from obligation was described by Weber as an idea that pushed aside monotheistic religion as something that was irrational; therefore delegitimizing religion was a unifying worldview in the modern secular world (Weber; 1987, 100). All these concepts will be made clear in the following paragraphs of this essay, included will be the above two that haven’t been defined, secularization and enlightenment as these will link our essay to modernity.

Secularization was linked and played a huge role in aiding and insuring the cultural shift in societies. This follows rationalization and development of science as it became ideal to individuals than religion. This according to Weber is what disenchantment is. “Modern science has relentlessly deconstructed other value-creating activities” (Weber; 1987, 121). This was a move from a religious and anti-racial society to a more intellectual one that grew mostly in the western world and other interested parts of society all over. There was intellect and realization that had gradually moved from traditional norms that suggested that intellect and knowledge/ reason were the full responsibility of kings and priests of society. They were the ones with that duty and privilege. This however was now questioned by many that believed that knowledge was there for everybody to have access to and embrace as it belonged to everybody. Weber and other sociologists were determined to break old norms and myths of knowledge; they wanted to introduce science to enhance human thoughts and reason. They wanted knowledge to be given to everybody, not only to the elite.
However, Weber also believed that with such great entitlement and freedom individuals experiencing the shift to modernity had a huge responsibility in how they used their individual agencies and making the right choices to better both themselves and society. He believed that this would be possible in a civil society. According to Weber, “a modern individual tends to act only on one’s own aesthetic impulse” (Weber; 1918, 117). This shows that many people weren’t thinking of the bettering of society but for their selfish reasons. This is how modernity is today; people have used their individual agencies to better themselves as there are no more God given scriptures that delegate roles for every man. “Whether the problem of modernity is accounted for in terms of permeation of objective, instrumental rationality or of a purposeless agitation of subjective values, Weber viewed these two images as constituting a single problem insofar as they contributed to the inertia of modern individuals who fail to take principled moral action. Entailed a highly rational and radically methodical attitude towards one’s inner self and the outer, objective world” (Weber; 1918, 119).

After the description of modernity/ rationality according to Weber, we can now draw on literature that would best explain religious fundamentalism. In its most basic form it can be described as this God given scripture that is spoken of in modernity, the essay will now break down the word in an attempt to define it. The Oxford English Dictionary says the term, fundamental, pertains to “the basis or groundwork, going to the root of the matter” ( OED; 1989). But the word fundamentalism has a particularly religious connotation which, according to the dictionary is “The strict maintenance of traditional orthodox religious beliefs or doctrines especially belief in the inerrancy of Scripture and literal acceptance of the creeds as fundamentals of Protestant Christianity”. The BBC English Dictionary is more to the point and aids our understanding with a notion that, “Fundamentalism is belief in the original form of a religion, without accepting any later ideas”. Religion on the other hand would be best described as a collection of cultural and belief systems with worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values (Clifford; 1973). Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.
This would ultimately mean, Religious fundamentalism was a system of belief that the scripture was above any human interpretation and had to be accepted as it was. With many branches to religious fundamentalism we will look at some of its characteristics and how it was opposed to the above four mentioned notions. Religious fundamentalism is an all-round counter modernity institution which was “generally assertive, clamorous, and often violent” (Pataki; 2007, 27 ). This was believed to be the main reason behind the Hindu destruction of the Babri mosque in 1992 and its consequent bloodshed. They have a sense of responsibility where, as the chosen ones have to deliver messages of a high power. This in turn puts them on a pedestal allowing them to take positions of power in society. Their belief in on true religion and its scripture to take law on land comes with their number one notion of Anti-secularism.

“The real clash of this age is not that between civilization, but the culture war between secularism and fundamentalism, between the ‘transcendence negating’ and the ‘transcendence affirming’ movements within each civilization” (Zeidan; 2003, 52). In this essay we learn that secularism is seen as going against the writings of the one true God with people appointing themselves as the chosen one to rule instead of going according to accurate interpretations of scripture. In understanding what is meant by religious fundamentalism we learn notions of anti-secularism and how it maintains morality, ethics, religious laws and the ideal environment for society. And in its maintaining the state and religion cannot be separated. The state had to be made in the image of Christ and allowing secularism was a promotion of anti-Christ which bothers these fundamentalists. Showing how this goes against modernity and its principles of rationalization (intellectualization), the idea of disenchantment, enlightenment and secularization. In conclusion this essay defines religious fundamentalism as a traditional belief in the original form of a religion, maintaining God given scriptures trough biased interpretations to mend human nature and the society.

Bibliography
Clifford,
Gellner, E. (1992) Reason and Culture: New Perspectives on the Past. Oxford, Blackwell
Giddens, H. (1989) The Consequence of Modernity. Cambridge: Policy
Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pataki, T. (2007) Against Religion
The BBC English Dictionary. 1993
Weber, M. (1987) Rationality and Modernity. London: Allen and Uwin
Weber, M. (1970) ‘Religious Rejection of the world and their Directions’ in Routledge & (Eds) From Max Weber. London: Gerth and Mills
Zeidan, D. (2003) A Comparative Study of Selected Themes in Christian and Islamic Fundamentalist Discourses, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Carfax

Bibliography: Clifford, Gellner, E. (1992) Reason and Culture: New Perspectives on the Past. Oxford, Blackwell Giddens, H. (1989) The Consequence of Modernity. Cambridge: Policy Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pataki, T. (2007) Against Religion The BBC English Dictionary. 1993 Weber, M. (1987) Rationality and Modernity. London: Allen and Uwin Weber, M. (1970) ‘Religious Rejection of the world and their Directions’ in Routledge & (Eds) From Max Weber. London: Gerth and Mills Zeidan, D. (2003) A Comparative Study of Selected Themes in Christian and Islamic Fundamentalist Discourses, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Carfax