Deweyan Critique of Fundamentalism

Author:

Lemanto Eduardus

Abstract

Religious fundamentalism continues to be an enormous concern in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy since the atrocity involved numerous extremist groups, including religious fundamentalist ones. This horrible tragedy has brought in all citizens of the globe mindful of the existential threat of these organizations. Their existence sparks an immense discourse in various fields, including in the academic field that centres around the query of ‘what drives them to act mercilessly and inhumanely.’ Aside from political matters, their extremism is shaped by their method of approach to the doctrines or dogmas, teachings, ideologies, and religious traditions of faith they espouse. The methodology used by fundamentalists in approaching their religious texts and traditions is one of the major issues confronting religious fundamentalism. That methodology refers to the authoritative method, which entails two notable inquiries. Why do fundamentalists consider their religious doctrines or dogmas to be infallible or unquestionable? Why do they presume that all other knowledge and values are subordinate to their religious texts? This philosophical analysis seeks to investigate and evaluate the flaws of the authoritative method within fundamentalism by contrasting it with the Deweyan experimental or scientific method and bridging the two methods with the ‘reflective method’ the author postulates.

Publisher

Peoples' Friendship University of Russia

Subject

Philosophy

Reference14 articles.

1. Lemanto E. Fundamentalism: a Religious Cognitive Bias? A Philosophical Discourse of Religious Fundamentalism. RUDN Journal of Philosophy. 2023;27(1):163-174. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2023-27-1-163-174

2. Wood RW, Hill PC, Williamson WP. The Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism. New York, London: The Guilford Press; 2005.

3. Wittgenstein L. Lectures & Conversation: on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief. Barret C, editor. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press; 1967.

4. Kierkegaard S. Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Crumbs. Hannay A, editor and transl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.

5. Arnswald U, editor. In Search of Meaning: Ludwig Wittgenstein on Ethics, Mysticism and Religion. Karlsruhe: Universitätsverlag Karlsruhe; 2009.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3