Finally, let me get back to the topic with which we started, namely the question is scientism the new scientific fundamentalism? So is it a kind of a fundamentalism? And if not, is it maybe a word view, is it a kind of religion or maybe even something different? How should we think of scientism? Well I think we should note that the word fundamentalism is used quite often nowadays for different sorts of things. So there's secular fundamentalism. There's market fundamentalism. There's atheistic fundamentalism. So one can be if that's true, one can be a fundamentalist without embracing anything religious or supernatural. Still it's often used as a pejorative term. So if you're a fundamentalist that's usually not meant as something positive. So yeah why don't you be careful to describe a particular view as fundamentalist. Now, is scientism a kind of fundamentalism? I would like to start by pointing to a few similarities between fundamentalism, say standard religious fundamentalism, on one hand, and scientism of the other hand. And I'm going to focus on the unrestricted kinds of scientism. So the varieties of scientism that say only science provides knowledge about anything what so ever. And we'll see that things are slightly different for the restricted versions of scientism. All right, here's one important similarity between fundamentalism and scientism. So in fundamentalism there is usually only one source of knowledge about ultimate reality. And usually, for instance in the case of religious fundamentalism, that source is some kind of revelation, such as a holy scripture. And the same thing is true for the unrestricted kinds of scientism. They say only natural science provides us with knowledge, all the other sources of belief should be discarded. That's an important similarity between the two. The second one is scientism can be interpreted as a stance. So then it's not a claim or a statement, but a whole, a much larger thing, a much broader and deeper thing that includes statements, but also beliefs, attitudes, certain approaches. So if scientism is a stance, then a rational debate about it is going to be much more difficult. And that's another similarity with fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is usually not merely one or two beliefs or claims, it's a whole set of beliefs and attitudes an approach towards reality. And the unrestricted versions of scientism do the same. Finally, one important similarity that one might want to point out is the one could call the dogmatic dismissal of conflicting evidence. So you will find this with certain adherence of scientism. So they will just discard any evidence that conflicts with their scientism. But I would be careful to say on that basis that scientism is kind of fundamentalism because that's going to be true anywhere for any belief that you can find or for any statement, you will find adherents that dogmatically dismiss any kind of evidence to the contrary. That will also be true for any religious belief system or moral belief system. And when you look at scientism, you will find many adherents of scientism that actually critically reflect on the arguments for an against scientism. So I wouldn't be willing to describe scientism as fundamentalism on that particular basis. Even if there are people out there who embrace scientism and just discard any evidence to the contrary. Okay, so those are some important similarities. And you will find this if you look at particular examples. So here's one example, a quote from Richard Dawkins. Well, I don't think he needs much by way of introduction, a British biologist and well known author. Here's what he says, “We no longer have to resort to superstition when faced with deep problems, is there a meaning to life? What are we for? What is man? After posing the last of these questions, the eminent zoologist GG Simpson put it thus: The point I want to make is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859”, so that's the year in which the Origin of Species was published, “are worthless and that we will better off if we ignore them completely”. So here the idea is that Darwin's evolutionary theory was and is so important, that it should color our entire worldview. So all questions about the meaning of life, about the nature of humankind, the nature of humans, should be discarded if they are not based on what we have found in biology. So here biology becomes a lens, so-to-say, for interpreting reality. And that's an important trait, I would say, of fundamentalism. That you treat reality as if there's only one source of knowledge. There are also some important differences with fundamentalism. Let me point out some of them. As I said earlier, many versions of scientism are not unrestricted, but fairly restricted. So one can be a scientismist, so to say, an adherent of scientism about free will. Or about metaphysics, or about acting for reasons, or about morality, or about belief in God, or one could combine one or two of those. But it doesn't mean that one needs to be an adherent of scientism across the board. So one can be fairly restricted and say there are lots of sources of knowledge and science is only one of them, but when it comes to this particular issue, we cannot rely on common sense we do need science. Here's a second important difference, scientism can and often is based on arguments even the unrestricted ones. So if you look at the work of Alex Rosenberg, for instance, he actually tries to give arguments for embracing scientism. And he actually struggles with the problems that scientism faces, so how can there be content, for instance, if there is only matter? That's a problem he actually addresses. And so it might be used as an argument against scientism and he tries to meet that argument. So that's an important difference with fundamentalism. Those arguments are up for debate, and they're actually debated nowadays. One final important difference between fundamentalism on the one hand and scientism on the other is that scientism is adjustable, it changes over time. So if you look at the scientism of the logical positivists, for instance, at the outset of the 20th century, and in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, then you see something different from what you find nowadays. And even nowadays, it's changing. So Alex Rosenberg, for instance, adjusts his scientism based on the arguments that he meets. If that were not the case, if it were static, then it would become meaningless. So if, for instance, one were to say, look science is base on introspection, hence introspection also counts as science. And it's based on memory, and it's based on metaphysical intuitions, so yes that's also science then it become, scientism becomes, well it becomes meaningless. It becomes, either meaningless or uncontroversial because then anybody will say, well if that's what scientism means that I embrace scientism too so there is no longer a debate about scientism. So what I've suggested so far means that there are some important similarities and there are some important differences, and many versions of scientism will not count as versions of fundamentalism. I would like to close by drawing attention to the similarities between scientism on the one hand and religion or world views on the other hand. That's something slightly different of course. Okay, I think an important similarity is that like many religions and like many worldviews, scientism gives you a certain picture of reality. So it tell you for instance, such as Alex Rosenberg, for instance, claims, it tells you that only the physical exists, all right? So the whole world, reality as a whole is physical. And it tells you also our place in it. So, Rosenberg, for example, says there is no value, we can make a value, but it doesn't really exist. There is no free will. That's an illusion. We are just material beings. So it tells us something about the place we have in reality as a whole. It is also a certain approach to reality. It tells you how to get knowledge about ultimate things, like many worldviews and like many religions do. So they will tell you, this is a source of knowledge. Science is a source of knowledge. But if you want to get knowledge about ultimate things you will need to consult, say, this holy book or this particular revelation. Well scientism does the same, it tells you how to acquire knowledge about ultimate things, namely we need to consult the natural sciences, only if we consult the natural sciences then we get knowledge about the ultimate effects about reality. It is also a worldview in that its characteristic of most versions of scientism that it tells you that there is no supernatural realm. So there is only the physical, or maybe something that supervenes on the physical, minds. But surely, there's no supernatural realm. There are no gods or demons or angels. So it is like many religions, and like many world views, in that it tells you what exists, what ultimate things exist. And one might reply look, but that's merely negative, right? So many religions claim that this god exists or that that god exists and scientism doesn't claim that this god exists, in fact, it denies that this god or that god exists, or any god. But we should note that any negative claim entails a positive claim. So if you deny that the supernatural exists, then you claim that only the natural exists, only the physical exists. And that is a certain claim in itself, it's a certain commitment. So that gives you a picture of the world. A certain ideal of what reality is like. Finally the final thing I would like to say is that many kinds of scientism will count as a world view. Maybe not as a religion because the word religion suggests that there is belief to be something supernatural. But many restricted kinds of scientism will not count as a worldview. And that is because they're way too restricted for that. So if one believes that metaphysics, for instance, cannot be carried out as it is done by philosophers, but that we need to rely on science when it comes to metaphysics. But one also believes that, say, we know the reasons for which we act, one has certain moral beliefs, and we have knowledge about the moral realm and so on, then that as such is not a world view. It's just way too restricted for that. So my final answer to the question whether scientism is a case of fundamentalism and whether it's a case of religion and worldview is, it all depends. The unrestricted versions sometimes count as fundamentalism, they at least have certain traits of fundamentalism. But there are also some important differences between the two. When it comes to the restricted versions, they are often way too restricted to count as world views, or to count as religions. So in the end, the answer to that question is, it all depends.
