This is being written before comments (if any) were received on Part I. No synopsis of Part I will be given.
Taking the previous Part "As Given" it becomes possible to state Fundamentalists at the most basic level do not fully grasp Logos because they do not grasp the Mythos of Logos. ;-) They can, and do, attempt to use the techniques, style, or Form of Logos for argumentative and instructive purposes but the weltanschuung eludes them. Thus, when they do deploy Logos it is a superficial gloss over an essentially Mythically derived intellectual position. The absurd "theory" of Intelligent Design is one example. Their assertion Science-is-a-Faith is another.
As they neither value nor 'get' Logos they are neither convinced nor moved by Logos. There is a well-stocked library worth of literature refutating ID to no avail. The same, tired, worthless, justifications for ID are trotted out as if they meant something. Fundamentalists aren't completely bonkers, however. While they argue against Evolution and for an Intelligent Designer (i.e., God) they will accept pi = 3.14159 and not pi = 3, as the Bible says. (See the description of the "brazen sea" that stood in front of Solomon's Temple.) But neither do they accept mathematics as Valid and True argumentative Form:
The good Christian should beware of methematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already [Note: in the 4th Century!] exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell. [Attributed to Augustine, no cite. Mathematics for the Nonmathematician Kline, Morris. pg 1]
And you can toss Logic, both Formal and Informal as well.
Prof. Armstrong puts it succiently:
Fundamentalist faith was [is] rooted in deep fear and and anxiety that could [can] not be assuaged by a purely rational argument. [page 178]
Fundamentalists have, over the decades, managed to successfully reject modern intellectual life and to seal themselves into a sub-society wherein they do not have to interact with Modernism -- in all its varied forms. Fundamentalists have their own schools, media, businesses, social, and political life. They live in a self-reinforcing environment where criticism of deeply held beliefs is highly unlikely and should they, somehow, encounter criticism they react with fear based anger and even violence. An unfortunate corollary of living in this tight environment is the subsidary development of strong cultural normatives to which even a minor threat is treated with fear, anger, and - yes - violence.
It is worth noting not all Fundamentalists are batshit crazy and the violent are a small pecentage within the Fundamentalist movements.
So, what can be done? (I'm an American. I have to be practical -- 'tis writ in my jeans. :-)
Some suggestions:
In particular, I'd agree they have "managed to successfully reject modern intellectual life and to seal themselves into a sub-society wherein they do not have to interact with Modernism", though I'd add that they maintain for themselves a self-comforting image of modernity through economic success and its trappings. Shades of Weber and the Protestant Work Ethic, they know how to interact with capitalism (just as they know the value of pi). So they are particularly strongly convinced that they are not locked into an archaic mindset.
Your suggestions are good too. I'd put the last first. Anyone (however strong) who has anything to do with fundamentalists needs to learn that Kenny Rogers line by heart, and be able to apply it.
Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong, in particular, the so called Islamic Fundamentalism. I respect religious belonging and I am not a racist, but when it comes to violence, I am little bit pessimistic. It is just hard for me to believe that any religion could proclaim violence as an adequate way of demonstrating one's faith.
So, what can be done?
the norms and principles that democratic societies live by. Having in mind that the majority of the world lives by those standards,
Am I sure that the majority of the countries in the world are democratic states? Yes, I am sure. Today most of the states had embraced the principles of democracy with just a few exceptions. And this is a fact that everybody should be aware of.
There is still a debate going in, however, as to how efficient a democratic polity is. In any case, this is the best form of government, historically speaking, that political and social think tanks have come up with. And this is the way it is.
