Me: “Is there a broader sense [of the term fundamentalism] in which a scientist could be considered sort of a fundamentalist, in the sense that a scientist might have a worldview that is untestable (e.g. scientific materialism) and therefore arguably unscientific, and yet they might assume with unshakable confidence that their worldview is “obviously true” to the highly educated scientist?”

Grok surprised me:

“Yes, there is a well-recognized broader, metaphorical (or “secular”) sense in which some scientists—or more accurately, advocates of scientism wedded to scientific materialism (also called metaphysical/ontological naturalism)—can be considered a kind of fundamentalist. This analogy focuses precisely on what you described: an untestable worldview held with absolute, unshakable confidence as “obviously true” among the highly educated, despite (or because of) its philosophical rather than purely scientific status.

“It is not the same as religious fundamentalism (no infallible holy book, no call for theocracy), but philosophers argue it shares enough “family-resemblance” traits—dogmatism, absolutism, totalizing claims, and reactive rejection of alternatives—to qualify as a boundary case of secular fundamentalism.

“Core Concepts and the Untestable Worldview

• Scientific materialism / metaphysical naturalism: The philosophical claim that only the physical/natural world exists—matter, energy, laws of physics; no supernatural, no independent consciousness, no purpose or meaning beyond what science can describe. Consciousness, free will, morality, and meaning are “nothing but” brain chemistry or evolutionary byproducts.
  • This is untestable by science itself. You cannot empirically prove “there is nothing beyond the physical” (absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence in metaphysics). It is a prior commitment, not a conclusion from evidence.
• Scientism: The stronger view that science (especially natural sciences) is the only or best source of all genuine knowledge, including in philosophy, ethics, and meaning. “Weak” scientism says science is superior where it applies; “strong” scientism says it covers everything and other ways of knowing are invalid.

“Many practicing scientists use methodological naturalism (a practical tool: assume natural causes when investigating the world—this keeps science testable and neutral on metaphysics). The “fundamentalist” slippage happens when this tool hardens into an ontological dogma [Ontology is the philosophical study of being and everything that’s real]: “Therefore, nothing non-natural exists—and anyone suggesting otherwise is irrational or unscientific.”

“Why the “Fundamentalist” Label Fits (Scholarly Arguments)

“Philosopher Rik Peels (2023) explicitly argues in a detailed analysis that scientism is a variety of fundamentalism—specifically “secular fundamentalism” or a “boundary case.” Using family-resemblance criteria (no single definition of fundamentalism requires every trait), it matches key stereotypical properties:

• Reactive/reactionary: It pushes back against perceived threats like religion, Intelligent Design, or any non-scientific knowledge (e.g., philosophy, humanities, or “folk” intuitions about consciousness/meaning).
• Modern and certainty-seeking: In an uncertain world, it elevates science as the infallible guide to truth and control, using modern tools (books, debates, social media) to spread the message.
• Grand Manichean narrative: A dualistic story of enlightenment vs. darkness—humanity was in superstition until science revealed the “real” mechanistic, purposeless universe. Science = good/reason; alternatives = evil/stupidity/tradition. tandfonline.com

“Examples of the “unshakable confidence” you mentioned:

• Biologist William Provine: Science implies “no gods… no purposive principles… free will simply does not exist… when we die, we die.”
• Philosopher Alex Rosenberg: “Science provides all the significant truths about reality.”
• Geneticist Richard Lewontin (famous admission): Scientists have “a prior commitment to materialism… we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door,” so materialism comes first, and science follows.

“Thomas Nagel (atheist philosopher, Mind and Cosmos, 2012) leveled a powerful internal critique: The materialist neo-Darwinian consensus is “almost certainly false” because it fails to explain consciousness, intentionality, or value. Yet many scientists treat it as obvious dogma, not open hypothesis. Nagel calls out the overreach: science cannot reduce mind to matter without philosophical sleight-of-hand. Critics [of scientism] (including Mary Midgley, John Gray, and others) note this mirrors religious fundamentalism in:

• Absolutism and inerrancy of the “text” (peer-reviewed science or the materialist paradigm).
• Totalizing scope (science answers everything—even ethics and meaning).
• Dismissal of alternatives without fair engagement (e.g., labeling dualism, idealism, or theism “unscientific” rather than philosophically debatable).
• Self-refuting problem: Scientism’s claim (“only science gives truth”) cannot itself be proven scientifically—it’s a philosophical assertion.

“Important Differences and Nuances

“This is not true of science as a method. Genuine science is provisional, falsifiable, self-correcting, and open to revision—qualities that oppose fundamentalism. Peer review and evidence can (and do) challenge materialist assumptions (e.g., ongoing debates in consciousness studies or quantum interpretations).The “fundamentalist” label applies mainly to:

• Popularizers or ideologues who conflate method with metaphysics.
• Academic gatekeeping where dissent (e.g., on consciousness or fine-tuning) is socially punished as “anti-science.”
• Not all scientists—many (including religious ones like Francis Collins) explicitly separate methodological naturalism from personal metaphysics.

“Scholars like Peels suggest science itself can learn from mainstream religion: embrace humility about limits, tolerate dissent through dialogue rather than excommunication, and avoid seeking total certainty.

“In short: Yes. Your description captures a real phenomenon that philosophers have named and analyzed. Scientific materialism can function as an untestable, totalizing faith for some—held with fundamentalist-like certainty precisely because it feels “obviously true” within a highly educated, secular echo chamber.

“The analogy highlights the importance of distinguishing evidence-based science from philosophical overreach. True intellectual humility (in religion or science) requires acknowledging what we cannot prove.”

…………………….

It’s amazing. Grok said all of this stuff without any cajoling from me. I was totally stoked.

But here’s the honest thing about my views, despite my strong feelings against violent “religious fundamentalisms” of all varieties and my rejection of the depressing, morality-ending, free-will denying “scientific fundamentalism” of scientism, despite my seeing no inherent conflict between true science and spirituality or religion, and despite my devotion to always striving for an ounce of true objectivity, I have to admit that I’m still a “fundamentalist” in this spiritual sense of the word: I actually know that God is real, loving, trustworthy, and the source of all integrity. This is the only thing that I’m convinced I know for sure. Other things sit on a spectrum of certainty.

I suspect that no religious text is 100% infallible, while almost all of them have infinite value, especially early Christian writings. I feel 95% confident about this, but I could be totally wrong.

I suspect that God is all-knowing… but if you think about this, the implications are enormous. Experiential knowledge is far deeper than observational knowledge. Actually experiential knowledge is a completely different phenomenon from “book” knowledge which is the knowledge gained from looking at something or observing someone else’s experience. So if I’m right about God’s omniscience, he is experiencing every conscious being’s life from within, as if God had all the limitations of knowledge, IQ limitations, environmental limitations, genetic limitations, etc. of that person or being. And each being’s emotional and physical sufferings would be known to God at the experiential level, which means God actually experiences everything any conscious being experiences exactly as that being experiences it, every emotion, every sense of doubt, guilt, joy, frustration, love, physical pain, anxiety, depression, pride, temptation, decision making along with the consequences, etc. I feel 91% confident about all this, but I could be wrong.

I “know” that UFOs/UAPs are real. I feel 99.99999% confident about this but I could be wrong. (They could, for instance, be the product of a technology that can somehow completely control human perception (as well as human instrumentation within a laboratory setting and out in the field).

I suspect that non-human intelligences (NHI) are behind the creation and operation of some UFOs/UAPs. Although I could be wrong, I feel 88-98% confident about this depending on the latest testimony I’ve heard. (As time passes and the memory of the latest testimony fades, my confidence also tends to fade a bit.)

I suspect that the current efforts of congress to “disclose” the existence of an advanced non-human intelligence to the public might possibly be successful. I feel 35 to 55% confident about this, but if they do succeed, I feel 99.99999% confident that many Christians will find the existence of NHI challenging to their current dogmas, and as a result of dogma collapse they may likely stop praying to our personal, loving God. This concerns me because I think Christianity at its core is about the true God who is “all light” with no darkness, and some of the teachings attributed to Jesus in the gospels represent the only hope of our species’ long-term survival, assuming we are left to our own devices, grudges, and WMD: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” – The Nazarene

I suspect we live in a cosmos that is analogous to a “simulation” or a holo-physical replica of Baseline Reality, a situation that would account for things like the fine-tuning of physical constants, the apparent mathematical impossibility of DNA’s unfathomably complex and specific information that is somehow rationally organized (situated for efficiency within the double helix), the dual nature of light, the collapse of the wave function, nonlocality, the flexibility of time (time is bent by gravity and relative velocities), Planck’s constant (energy is literally digital, it comes only in indivisible tiny packets), the apparent “miracles” of free-will, identity, and consciousness, and the existence of God (the creator of our simulation-like cosmos) who works from Baseline Reality (a.k.a. Heaven). I feel 90% confident about this simulation analogy, but 100% sure of our loving God. So of course, I could be wrong about the Christian concept of “Heaven and Earth” suggesting a simulation analogy, because like everyone else, like all “fundamentalists” including atheists who “know” there is no God, agnostics who know for sure than nothing can be known for sure, and like everyone else, even you, I am often wrong about important things. Often wrong, folks. Embrace it.

Because recognizing your own human propensity to get important things wrong is quite likely the beginning of wisdom.