"Some people seem to gravitate from one fundamentalism to another, from some kind of secular fundamentalism into a religious fundamentalism or the other way around, which is not very helpful"

Peter L. Berger's quote highlights the psychological and ideological propensity of individuals to shift in between different types of fundamentalism, whether nonreligious or religious. Fundamentalism, in this context, describes a stringent adherence to a set of beliefs or doctrines, often with a resistance to questioning or reinterpretation. Berger recommends a worrying pattern in which individuals who leave one doctrinaire system may readily adopt another, maintaining a stiff worldview in spite of the modification in content.

This propensity can stem from a comfort with certainty and clear limits, which fundamentalism uses. In both nonreligious and religious contexts, fundamentalism supplies followers with a framework that understands the world, using security amidst mayhem. Berger's observation suggests that people may be more attracted to the structure and certainty of fundamentalism rather than the specific tenets themselves.

From one angle, this pattern may be "not extremely handy" since it typically dissuades crucial thinking, open discussion, and interbelief understanding. The shift from one fundamentalism to another might not result in true intellectual or spiritual development if the underlying method to belief remains the same. Instead of exploring the nuances and intricacies of a brand-new worldview, individuals might just change one set of dogmas with another, keeping a black-and-white perspective rather than accepting a more nuanced or pluralistic view.

Furthermore, this pattern may perpetuate dispute and department. Whether nonreligious or spiritual, fundamentalism typically involves a strong us-versus-them mindset, which can exacerbate polarization and inhibit cooperation in increasingly diverse societies.

Eventually, Berger's quote invites reflection on the nature of belief and the value of flexibility, receptivity, and crucial inquiry. It suggests a requirement for approaches that enable intricacy and discussion, encouraging a journey towards comprehending that isn't specified by stiff borders but is open to continuous exploration and change.