Relativism vs. Fundamentalism: The Plight of Modern Religion (post 4)

In this post I want to look closer at forces inhibiting the formation of communities and relationships.

At the micro level - the level of interpersonal relationships - it has been mentioned that our ability and desire to hurt each other (and our fear of being hurt) is a major obstacle.  And to this we could add our ability to annoy, bore and infuriate each other. I think everyone has experienced the sensation of reaching out to someone, but then - once engaged in a conversation or activity - realizing that they are hurtful/boring/annoying/infuriating.  And, if we limit ourselves to the micro level, we may never fully understand why this is.

At the macro level - the level of sociology - we have briefly discussed the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance - the negation emotions we feel when attempting to assimilate conflicting ideas and beliefs.  It is interactions with other people that is a major cause of cognitive dissonance - and the more people we interact with, the more dissonance we may experience.

We can limit dissonance by limiting the types of conversation we engage in to those such as the weather, sports, or food or by limiting the types of people with interact with to those who already share our core beliefs and values.

This second strategy - interacting mainly with those who share our beliefs and values - has become increasingly difficult.  A few hundred years ago, one might easily live in a town and go one's entire life without ever speaking with someone from a different religion or with radically different tastes or beliefs.  Today, it can be difficult to find others with similar beliefs even within one's immediate family.

Travel, mass media and the internet have made information about other cultures and lifestyles immediately available to anyone with the slightest bit of curiosity.  Ultimately, I believe this is a good thing - but there are some negative consequences.  We often don't know what to do with all these conflicting sets of values and beliefs.  It can become difficult to create and defend our own moral positions.

Often, and perhaps increasingly, people turn to one of two general solutions: relativism or fundamentalism.

In relativism we attempt to say that maybe nothing is truly right or wrong - or maybe everything is kind of right and wrong at the same time - and then we go with whatever feels right at a particular time.  It does not imply hedonism (though that can be a result), but it leads to an eclectic set of values and beliefs haphazardly taken from a variety of cultures and traditions.  This can be beautiful, but it makes it difficult to feel confident and secure in one's values or to instill, defend or enforce moral behavior in others.  This is problematic in child-raising when relativistic parents, insecure about their beliefs, prefer to let their children make their own conclusions about what is right and wrong.  It is problematic because children need rules, they need boundaries, and they need those rules and boundaries to be justified and consistent.  It is also problematic because it becomes difficult to share one's beliefs and values with others, even other relativists, when there is bound to be significant amounts of disagreement.  And while it is great, in theory, to believe that two people can believe in conflicting ideas and both be right - if these people are going to make important decisions that affect large groups of people - conflicting beliefs will come to a head, and relativists will need some way of advocating for their beliefs over others.  In practice this leads many relativists to avoid positions of authority.

In fundamentalism we become so averse to the dissonance of relativism that we latch onto a highly regulated and traditional set of values and beliefs that asserts itself as the only true set of values and beliefs, and decries the near limitless sets of competing beliefs as false.  This solution is problematic because it creates ever increasing amounts of conflict between rival groups, and because it forces its adherents to renounce ideas or facts that they otherwise would accept as true.  Not only is this denial of facts difficult on the psyche, but it inevitably leads to failures when attempting to enact plans dependent on counterfactual ideas.

So how do we navigate through the bombardment of conflicting ideas and beliefs in our modern world without succumbing to the pitfalls of relativism and fundamentalism?  And how do we engage in meaningful relationships and create communities with others who do not necessarily share our values?  How do we construct beliefs that are authentically our own - and advocate for them with confidence and authority?

These are some of the pressing questions that this blog seeks to explore.