Hostility to other points of view
Fundamentalists can't tolerate the fact that other belief systems even exist, let alone consider them rationally. When a fundamentalist is faced with a different point of view, he or she reacts by feeling threatened and deeply offended. Fundamentalists can't argue reasonably. They immediately resort to ridicule, verbal abuse, name-calling, derision, and logical fallacies by the truckload (the straw man argument is a common tactic).
Since they're convinced that they're the only ones who are right, and everyone else is not only wrong, but pernicious, dangerous, and a virulent threat to tender young minds, any means of discrediting their opponent is defensible, no matter how underhanded.
Defense of the belief system at all costs
Fundamentalists will never compromise, "agree to disagree," or put another human being's welfare ahead of their belief system. Anyone who disagrees with the belief system threatens it, and anyone who threatens it deserves whatever consequences they suffer.
Execution, exorcism, homelessness, or unemployment - they asked for it when they challenged the fundamentalist's belief system, and the fundamentalist feels no remorse and no sympathy. As far as the fundamentalist is concerned, the entire order of society and the universe is at risk when people don't conform to the "right way."
Pseudoscience and Satanism, secular humanism and creationism, rich white men and welfare queens - it's a wonder civilization survives at all, we're so infested with enemies ruthlessly trying to destroy it. "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom" could be the mantra of every fundamentalist.
Non-religious people are fond of pointing out the similarities between Islamic extremists and fundamentalist Christians, saying that each group demonizes the other without realizing how alike they really are, but non-religious fundamentalists are just as similar to religious ones. They also don't recognize their own mirror images because the belief system itself blinds them.
There are scientistic fundamentalists, and they think and behave exactly like religious extremists. They're just as irrationally attached to their point of view, just as absolutist, just as unable to consider opposing views calmly and reasonably, and just as sure that civilization and the planet can't survive unless their version of reality is the prevailing one.
Article comments
1 - Damien
Thanks for writing and publishing this. I have to say that I am a Christian but not a fundamentalist. I respect the study of science and it complements my world-view. I have run across vehement fundamental scientists (usually professed atheists) and they have less ground in fact than most cults who knock on my doors.
Thanks again for the article.
2 - duane
Good writeup, Inanna. Interesting case.
From what you've included here, I think the issue boils down to Hahn's statement:
"You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work..."
Assuming that is an accurate statement...
If a scientist refuses to publish research and discuss it in the context of a theory upon which research at the institute is conducted, that is grounds for dismissal. That part of the story is cut and dried.
Take an analogous example: Fred is a car salesman for Ford. He is also an environmentalist. He persuades customers to go shop at Honda, instead of pushing Fords. He would be fired. It would be disingenuous of Fred to claim that he was fired for his philosophical beliefs.
It does come down to funding at WHOI. It's a publish or perish world, and if Abraham won't publish in a manner that highlights the full relevance of the work to modern scientific theories, he can be replaced. The religious philosophy is not the reason for the dismissal, it's the refusal to follow through.
Whether or not he was ridiculed or cajoled or shunned by his peers and supervisors gets into different (and uglier) issues. That's all workplace relations and politics. Everyone suffers in one way or another. Womanizers, bigots, drinkers, Republicans, Mormons, nerds, sluts, bad dressers, Democrats, atheists, slobs, fashion plates, the overweight, the vain, illiterates, snobs, the overly sensitive, the brash --- all the crap by which people are judged --- lives in the workplace, everywhere, all the time.
Being disliked and/or marginalized at the personal level is not grounds for being fired, but that seems not to be the case here.
3 - Inanna/Vyrdolak
Damien--thanks for your comment. I'm not a Christian, or a trained scientist (although I have some scientific training, which isn't the same thing). But I find irrational hyperbole and rigid thinking distressing in any context. There are Neo-Pagan fundamentalists and libertarian fundamentalists and feminist fundamentalists...you name it. But the two groups who seem to have the largest, and most harmful, influence at the moment are the Christian and the scientistic fundamentalists. Unfortunately, many people seem to feel they have to defend the causes of whichever group they sympathize with, and that's how wars get started.
Duane: Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree: the lawsuit does boil down to Mark Hahn's statements in the termination letter. If Hahn's statement is true, then Abraham's termination is defensible. But Abraham claims he did not refuse to do any work asked of him. It's one man's word against the other's, which is usually what leads to a lawsuit.
Your analogy is only apt if Abraham refused to conform to expectations. If that car salesman sincerely believed that Hondas are superior and more ethical cars to drive, yet sold Fords to customers to the best of his ability, he should not be fired for holding an opinion. He should be fired for underperforming, or sabotaging his employer, no matter what his motive, but his opinion is his right. To give a non-hypothetical example: I worked for ten years for a domestic violence shelter. I held, and openly expressed, many strong opinions about domestic violence that were at sharp variance with the "party line." Nevertheless, I was considered a valuable employee (albeit a gadfly) because despite my views, I followed policies and procedures and served the clients to the best of my ability.
Unfortunately, confidentiality issues probably prevent Mark Hahn and WHOI from discussing the situation in more detail. I know there is a whole other side to the story that we're not hearing.
4 - Tim
Get the facts straight Inanna!
The job posting states: "Results will be interpreted within the context of the evolutionary relationships among the genes and species under study."
The "subject under research" is developmental biology -- which is inextricably linked to evolutionary biology these days.
I am sick to death of ignorant pundits throwing around "fundamentalists" whenever REAL scientists demand that REAL science go on in science labs. I would suggest you stick to vampires and other ephemera, as you clearly know bugger-all about science.De
5 - Inanna/Vyrdolak
Thanks for sharing, Tim! You've demonstrated my point admirably.
6 - Christopher Rose
Inanna, your response to Tim shows that it is in fact you that is the fundamentalist and that you clearly have an agenda in writing this article in the first place. Apart from the first half of his last sentence, his comment was entirely accurate and factual.
7 - Inanna/Vyrdolak
"An agenda?" Not at all. I'm very careful not to take either side, and I say repeatedly that no outside party can possibly know what really happened based on how little information is available. I'm just discussing the social/psychological issues that relate to the lawsuit, as I see them. I thought it was an interesting story that might get readers thinking, it was timely, and I needed a topic for this week's article because I haven't finished a review book yet. So much for my agenda.
Characterizing and attacking the speaker while ignoring the matter being discussed is the informal logical fallacy, Ad Hominem, and typically the first response of any type of fundamentalist to something he or she doesn't like hearing. Of course, non-fundamentalists tend to use it, too. Reasonable thought about charged issues is not a common phenomenon. You just need to read blog comments to infer that conclusion!