Fanaticism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Hanna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
…the scientific community has been known to do this.
Click to expand...
I agree with The Barbarian here, you’ll need to be specific. The “scientific community” is not quite so monolithic or nefarious.
 
The_Barbarian said:
**If my electrician warns me not to touch the black wire because it’s full of electrical current, I should not stop to take into account his religious affiliations.
**

Do you have some specific instance? Far as I can see, no one complained about Theodosius Dobzhansky, Francisco Ayala, and many other Christians who do science.

My favorite definition of “fanatic” is"

“A person who wants to do what he knows God would do, if He had all the facts.”
Click to expand...
the scientific community can be just as ‘fanatical’ as any other, ask any scientist who has questioned evolution, or global warming
 
the scientific community can be just as ‘fanatical’ as any other, ask any scientist who has questioned evolution, or global warming
Click to expand...
Presenting the questioner with a mountain of evidence is not fanaticism. It’s the opposite of fanaticism.

Reason is the enemy of every fanatic. You needn’t make it your enemy.
 
The_Barbarian said:
Presenting the questioner with a mountain of evidence is not fanaticism. It’s the opposite of fanaticism.

Reason is the enemy of every fanatic. You needn’t make it your enemy.
Click to expand...
I agree. And, there are plently of good reasons to not assume all scientists are non theists.
I think there is one scientist up for sainthood…
I need to find his information, I was just reading about him while searching a pro-life topic.
So, yeah. I agree this is a sterotype.
 
notsmart said:
I agree. And, there are plently of good reasons to not assume all scientists are non theists.
I think there is one scientist up for sainthood…
I need to find his information, I was just reading about him while searching a pro-life topic.
So, yeah. I agree this is a sterotype.
Click to expand...
i don’t understand, maybe i missed something.

all i am saying is that they can act unreasonably when given reasonable arguments they disagree with

or maybe a better way to say it is that members of the scientific community can be rabidly 'politically correct?" as any other group

but like i said i may have missed what you 2 are talking about:blush:
 
warpspeedpetey said:
i don’t understand, maybe i missed something.

all i am saying is that they can act unreasonably when given reasonable arguments they disagree with

or maybe a better way to say it is that members of the scientific community can be rabidly 'politically correct?" as any other group

but like i said i may have missed what you 2 are talking about:blush:
Click to expand...
publications.fondationlejeune.org/Cadrearticle.asp?filename=fjl401.xml

His cause for cannonization started in 2007.
I was merely agreeing with you, that piles of evidence are fine.

You posted:
Presenting the questioner with a mountain of evidence is not fanaticism. It’s the opposite of fanaticism.

Reason is the enemy of every fanatic. You needn’t make it your enemy.
 
Physicist J. Willits Lane said:

“I have myself st in class after class in the sciences and humanities in which any idea remotely religious was belittled, attacked, and shouted down in the most unscientific and emotionally cruel way. I have seen young students raised according to fundamentalist doctrine treated like loathsome alley cats, emotionally torn apart, and I never thought that this sort of treatment was any better than the treatment that religious prelates, who held authority, gave Galileo.”
 
Marc_Hanna said:
In my opinion, fanaticism is being passionate about something while also foresaking objectivity. Under this definition, i think atheists tend to be more fanatical than Christians.

What do you guys thinks?
Click to expand...
Since we live in a world of apathetic people, of course they would think of you as a fanatic.

Personality factors in also. Some people are animated and lively. If they are also passionate about their faith, they would be considered fanatics.

I would say millions of attendees of college and pro ball games are fanatics. Only it’s acceptable to be passionate about your favorite sports teams, just not about your faith.
 
FightingFat said:
I wonder if fanaticism begins when you stop caring about other people’s opinions? What I mean is when you think it is OK to steamroller over other people’s beliefs and feelings. Our Father in Heaven gave us free will, after all. There can be no coercion in religion!
Click to expand...
Main Entry:
** fa·nat·ic **
Etymology:
Latin fanaticus inspired by a deity, frenzied, from fanum temple — more at feast
Date:
1550
Click to expand...
: **marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion **<they’re fanatic about politics>
Click to expand...
 
Yes, the faithful are labelled fanatics much more readily than anyone else. And even if a sports enthusiast is labelled a fanatic it is not in the same negative manner.
 
Fanaticism has a negative connotation implying an insane adherence to some belief. Most times that belief is implied to be false or in error.

However IF the beliefs that the fanatic proves to be true and NOT in error then it is a different story. Then the fanatic is not some lunatic, but merely someone who is persistent and following what they believed to be correct.

To Atheists, all Catholics and Christians may be seen as religious fanatics. We fiercely believe in something that they think is in error or unreasonable. There is no amount of argument or proof that they can present to move us from our beliefs.

We do things that appear to be unusual or that most non believers think are irrational. We spend a lot of time and resources praying or helping others. To them it is unreasonable to expect something more from life than what they see.

Of course, some of the greatest saints were the most fanatical of us all. Self mortification as seen by the atheists has to be a symtom of a truly insane mind. Who would want to torture themselves to attone for other people’s sins ? The popular media often portrays Catholics beating themselves as either comical or criminally insane (The DaVinci Code is the latest to scoff at the idea).

Suffering and self mortification are the most misunderstood practices of the Catholic faith. The notion of offering one’s suffering to God is unthinkable and barbaric.

BUT what if the saints are correct (and I believe 100% that they are) and God accepts our suffering as reparations for our sins and the sins of others. The rewards for our fanaticism is eternal life and a place in God’s kingdom. The rewards for our suffering is reparation for our sins or for folks that we offer them up for.

St. Padre Pio says the payment for reparations of sin is always paid in the same coin (in suffering). The saints offered up their suffering in line with Jesus’ for the forgiveness of sins. It’s a notion that other Christians have a hard time seeing. But even Jesus tells us to take up our cross and follow Him. I guess other Christians think there shouldn’t be any pain involved.
 
If you parade in the street declaring “you have a friend in Jesus” and belong to some fundementalist group who believes that the church fell into apostacy shortly after the death of the apostles without any historical evidence, are you hurting anyone? Are you a fanatic?
 
A fanatic is one who has extreme zeal or enthusiasm. This is straight out of my American Heritage dictionary.

This person can be either motivated by good or bad things. For example, Gandhi was a fanatic. The Saints were also fanatics.

Culturally, we have mostly accepted a definition of fanaticism that views it through a negative lens.

All Catholics are called to be fanatics, but like the bumper sticker says, “we need more spiritual fruit and less religious nuts.”
 
christcnection1 said:
A fanatic is one who has extreme zeal or enthusiasm. This is straight out of my American Heritage dictionary.

This person can be either motivated by good or bad things. For example, Gandhi was a fanatic. The Saints were also fanatics.

Culturally, we have mostly accepted a definition of fanaticism that views it through a negative lens.

All Catholics are called to be fanatics, but like the bumper sticker says, “we need more spiritual fruit and less religious nuts.”
Click to expand...
If God is Existence and Unity
Then
Sin is disunity
And
We blind ourselves
From seeing our own chosen disunity
Because
We fear seeing a chosen nonexistence

By this fear
We become enslaved to mediocrity
And if this mediocrity is seen as the norm
Then
Courage is seen as fanatical

(… But is sometimes fascinating
If not also irritating
To the fearful)
 
I think a person becomes fanatical, when their desire for correctness, is overcome by their desire to believe they are correct.

They want truth and they want to understand what is right, but they will not do the legitimate work, of actually learning and admiting they could be wrong for the sake of truth.

Fanatics, are primarily lazy people who have also crossed a line, where they simply cannot accept they could be wrong.

All humans are capable of this. The more you have to lose by being wrong, the more fanatical you become…IF you are in fact a fanatic 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top