Under the Microscope/Prof William Reville: Fundamentalism is defined as strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs.
The term is commonly associated with certain brands of Christianity or Islam and, in politics, with extreme right-wing movements.
However, as the definition sets out, fundamentalism can be practised in many different areas, including science and left-wing politics. In my opinion it is equally unattractive wherever it is found.
Certainty and intolerance are the hallmarks of fundamentalism. Positions that differ from the fundamentalist position are condemned as false, in many cases, evil, and are to be opposed and, if possible, defeated. Dialogue, mutual understanding and compromise are not seen as viable options.
Of course, we are all entitled to interpret the world according to our lights and to argue for widespread adoption of the conclusions we reach. And, we will hold some of these conclusions with great conviction - eg, which of us will not passionately believe that it is wrong to deliberately harm children? To a greater or lesser extent, most of us can live with a situation where others reach conclusions that we do not agree with.
One well-known fundamentalist stereotype is the fundamentalist Christian who believes that every word of the Bible is literally true. But, it doesn't seem to be widely appreciated that fundamentalism also exists in brands of scientific, secular and left-wing ideology. Secularism, the attitude that religion should have no part in civil affairs, is strongly in the ascendant in Europe. Some prominent spokespersons for secularism speak with the certainty and intolerance of the fundamentalist.
The treatment of the Italian Rocco Buttiglioni, a committed Catholic and candidate to be a European Commissioner in 2004 is a case in point. Buttiglioni's attitudes to abortion, family, and sexual practices are predictable, but he agreed to leave his private convictions outside the door on entering the Commissioner's office. Nevertheless, left-wing European MEPs forced him to withdraw, thereby highlighting a worrying trend. Even though it claims to greatly value "tolerance", the cutting edge of the liberal left is quite prepared to adopt aggressive intolerant measures in pursuing its agenda.
Progressive liberals have traditionally championed the idea that the personal and the political can coexist even when at odds with each other. Now it seems our personal opinions are monitored by the "thought-police" and rejected if they conflict with the politically correct norms of the day.
Secularists would totally frown on evangelical religion, but they are enthusiastic about evangelical Darwinism. The high priest of evangelical Darwinism is Richard Dawkins, the well-known zoologist and author. Dawkins believes that Darwinian evolution fully explains the biological world and that science will eventually explain everything about a world in which the only ultimate realities are matter and energy. In particular, Dawkins and his followers hold that all forms of religious belief are symptomatic of mental backwardness. In a 2003 article in the Guardian, the author Martin Amis succinctly summarised this way of thinking. "We are obliged to accept the fact that Bush is more religious than Saddam: of the two presidents, he is, in this respect, the more psychologically primitive." Using this reasoning we could also conclude that Mother Theresa was more psychologically primitive than Hitler.
I fully accept the fact of evolution and the mechanism of natural selection, but I don't believe that science can explain absolutely everything about humanity. Science is entitled to propound its findings and to expect them to be respected as valid descriptions of the natural world. But it is not entitled to declare that the scientific sphere is the only sphere of reality and it is not entitled to denounce thoughtful religious thinking as backward nonsense.
Over the course of the 20th century, the Western European political left had little to say about abuses of human rights in Russia and its satellites but never missed an opportunity to criticise the smallest perceived flaw in the liberal free-market West. Many European intellectuals visited Stalinist Russia, eg George Bernard Shaw and JD Bernal, and blinded themselves to what they saw there. Indeed I remember once hearing that icon of the Irish left, Dr Noel Brown, being pressed in a radio interview to give his opinion on atrocities perpetrated by Joseph Stalin, and his reply was: "You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs."
The fundamentalist left has come to command great influence in the media and powerfully moulds public opinion. Paradoxically this "liberal" media influence seems to exert a tighter grip on public opinion that the old-style thundering Catholic bishops ever did. Where the old-style clergy had to actively patrol the "flock" to ensure compliance, the middle classes now obligingly police themselves to ensure that they conform to the latest canons of political correctness announced via newspaper columns, radio and television talk shows.
We should be wary of all fundamentalists and remember the words of Bertrand Russell: "The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cock sure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at UCC - http://understandingscience.ucc.ie.