What is behind religious radicalism?
Psychopathy. The answer is psychopathy.
Nobody gets curious about “how not to be evil” unless they think they might be evil.
This goes hand in hand with an extremely low self-esteem and self-confidence. In fact, some of these people who end up becoming extremists don’t have a very good sense of self at all. Upon realising that, and feeling fragile, some of them overcompensate (narcissists), while others decide to lash out at the world (sociopaths). Deep down, however, they’re quite similar.
First of all, let’s set the record straight: religions are supposed to bring us HOPE. Religions don’t bring us MORALS.
This only gets confusing because religions tend to have moral codes; but for some reason, people put this moral code on a pedestal… When in fact it should just be an aside. It just sort of exists. Why be so obsessed with it?
So, why do these moral codes exist? Well… My own theory is they need to exist because when your religion intends on bringing you hope, it must make sure this hope is real. False hope would be no good. And how do you get false hope? By being unfair; relying on your natural advantages alone; making use of others’ fragility for your benefit. It’s very easy to fall into this trap when you’re looking for hope. Hence why you need “a wee helping hand” (aka religious morals) to stay out of it — but it’s WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF FINDING HOPE. It’s not supposed to be a blanket thing that rules over every step and every breath you take in life.
For example: “don’t kill”. This is pretty common, it appears in a lot of religious moral codes. What was originally intended with it? I can’t know, and neither can you, but I’ll speculate the following: maybe the commandment not to kill originally started as a guideline to prevent people from taking the lazy path towards their objectives. It’s difficult, it takes effort to cultivate life and help it flourish; It’s easier and lazier to just be a “taker” all the time, but this has long-term consequences. Kill too many people, and you’re left alone without a community to help you survive; kill too many animals (even if it’s just for food), and you’re left with nothing for the future; no matter how well you preserve this “treasure”, it will eventually become rancid and no good. Kill / harvest too many plants, and you’ll severely affect the ecosystem (a thing the Ancients probably didn’t have a name for, but understood pretty well). The reason why I’m “guessing” that is actually quite simple: Ancient people didn’t take their safety or survival for granted like we do today. They didn’t have the luxury of staying compassionate to all creatures at all times — and neither would you if you went back in time to live with them.
So is the sin in the action itself, or in the exaggeration? Is it the action itself, or just doing it in an impulse ignoring the more long-term consequences? Food for thought.
Maybe some readers are horrified at the above, but there’s no need to be — I’m not advocating for murder. I’m simply telling you “there’s nuance”. Yes, even in something as permanent and ominous as the act of killing, there’s nuance. Throw the first stone if you’ve never seen stories of people killing in legitimate defense, for instance. Are they going to hell? I wouldn’t think so, even if I were Christian. Perhaps a radicalist would disagree, though, but that’s their own problem for being a bit too psychopathic deep down and having a hard time with nuance.
In fact, this is a defining feature of psychopathy: having a hard time with nuance. Poor impulse control. Inability to ponder before acting.
With that in mind, it’s natural to come to the conclusion a psychopath would use religion as a crutch. They don’t lack self-awareness all the time; quite on the contrary. Having lived with a few, and interacted with even more in adulthood, I’m convinced they too have their moments of feeling regretful or inadequate. They want to fit in with the wider community, but are unsure how, because they lack this basic empathy that allows us to consider the ripple effect our actions can have on others.
And what could give a psychopath a better idea of how they’re supposed to act and behave in a community? Religion, of course. Religions go as far as CREATING community. They are a very obvious choice. I’m not just talking about Abrahamism by the way, I’ve seen psychopaths in Buddhist circles too; Hinduism; Candomble; Neopaganism (a lot, in fact…); smaller New Age traditions. No faith is without them. And that is okay, because religions shouldn’t discriminate. Let me repeat: their main purpose is to give us hope. That includes staying hopeful that one day we’ll find a cure for psychopathy.
The problem is these psychopathic people usually become very devout and even achieve prestigious positions in their religion, which gives them more decision-making power (and that’s how we get… [insert outrageously violent event here commanded by so-and-so religion]); much like what happens to them in the corporate world. There must be some correlation between their willingness to take a risk and creating an image of “confidence” (If you know a scientific study about that, feel free to link to it. I’m interested)… But for one reason or another, people end up trusting them and giving them far more power than their maturity (or lack thereof) would allow them to handle.
Is that society’s fault? Your fault? My fault?
The answer is “no”. Aye, to all three of these questions. It would be easier and simpler if we could clearly find someone to blame for the fact we “allow” psychopathic people to achieve positions of high status. Sadly, reality is a lot more complex and less exciting than that: maybe, just maybe, we simply aren’t used to dealing with their modus operandi. We’re used to seeing empathetic people have empathetic reactions to things. We’re not exactly prepared to deal with someone more cold-blooded, so we mistake it for confidence and security.
I could be mistaken, but I speculate that dogma can be a very attractive thing for a psychopath. It’s like an instruction manual, a recipe book. Do X, get this result; do Y, get that result. Straightforward, impersonal, programmable. When you’re used to bypassing and/or ignoring all the complexity of human feelings, perhaps it’s only natural to look for solace in a set of rules that rely on dogma… Because surely if morals don’t make a difference for you, if you’re incapable of feeling for others, I suppose any random code of ethics written on a book and based on someone’s saying-so will do just fine.
This is destructive for both sides: the psychopaths themselves, and their victims alike.
But many a destructive thing is attractive, like the Picts often say. Comfort and poison can go hand in hand, and yet, this hasn’t ever dissuaded anyone from self-destruction.
Life goes on.
