 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 fundamentalism? And if not, is it maybe a worldview, 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, one should be careful to describe a particular view as a 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 the one hand and scientism on the other hand. And I'm going to focus on the unrestricted kinds of scientism. So the varieties of scientism that say science, only science provides knowledge about anything whatsoever. 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 on fundamentalism there is usually only one source of knowledge about ultimate reality. Usually for instance in the case of religious fundamentalism that sources 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. So that's an important similarity between the two. Second one is scientism can be interpreted as a stand. 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 believes, attitudes, certain approaches. So if scientism is a stand 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 what one could call the dogmatic dismissal of conflicting evidence. So you will find this with certain adherents 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 a 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 and 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. The British biologist and well-known author. Here's what he says, we no longer have to resort to superstition when faced with the 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 D.G. 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 be 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 colour our entire world view. 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 is 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 believing 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 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 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 are 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, oh look, science is based on introspection, hands introspection also count as science and it's based on memory and it's based on metaphysical intuition. So yes, that's also science. Then it becomes, scientism becomes, well it becomes meaningless, it becomes or either meaningless or uncontroversial because then anybody will say, oh well if that's what scientism means then I embrace scientism too. So then there's no longer a debate about scientism. Now 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 worldviews on the other hand. So 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 tells you for instance, such as Alex Rosenberg for instance claims, it tells you that only the physical exists. 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, I mean we can make a value but it doesn't really exist. There is no free world, 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. If we consult the natural sciences then we get knowledge about the ultimate facts about reality. It is also a worldview in that it is 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 is no supernatural realm. There are no gods or your demons or angels. So it is like many religions and like many worldviews 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 god exists and scientism doesn't claim that this god exists. And in fact denies that this 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 idea of what reality is like. Finally the final thing I would like to say is that many kinds of scientism will count as a worldview maybe not as a religion because the word religion suggests that there is believed 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. And that as such is not a worldview, 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. To the restricted versions they are often way too restricted to count as worldviews or to count as religions. So then in the end the answer to that question is it all depends.