3. Isn’t the gbs confusing religion with fundamentalism?

We differentiate very clearly between fundamentalist and enlightened believers. In the same way that soft drinks are now available without sugar, thanks to enlightenment there is now Christianity without hell and the devil. Such a tamed "light version of belief" is certainly attractive; however it is logically inconsistent. ("Jesus’ sacrifice without hell and the devil is as meaningless as a football match with no opposing team!") Without some effective metaphysical threat, religious belief loses its crucial point, with the result that liberal believers are in decline, whilst fundamentalist groups are growing at a similar rate to those who no longer consider themselves religious.

We may regret that "enlightened belief" is increasingly losing its role as arbitrator between thorough enlightenment and religious dogmatism, but we must not ignore this fact. The reason why enlightened belief is losing its significance is clear: never before has the gulf between scientific knowledge and religious belief been so obvious as it is today. For example, to accept the Christian or Muslim god as creator of the earth, one would have to ignore at least part of our modern knowledge of evolution. This undermines the basis for any enlightened belief movement, the effectiveness of which should in any case not be overestimated. It is a time-limited cultural phenomenon, very largely confined to Western Europe, and in no way typical of what, worldwide, is or was understood by the term "religion".

 
4. Does the gbs promote "scientific fundamentalism"? 

The accusation of scientific fundamentalism, frequently raised by defenders of faith, is a contradiction in itself. Science, in contrast to religion, is by definition open-ended. As a methodology of critical analysis, it neither bases itself on "sacrosanct eternal truths" nor tries to find "unshakeable truth". Anyone who were to believe dogmatically in specific results of scientific investigation would, in doing so, betray the basic principles of scientific thinking.

Apart from this, the gbs does not take the view that an alternative to religion can be founded on science alone. It is not without reason that one of the foundation’s central mottos is, "whoever possesses science, philosophy and art does not need religion". It must be clear that many important questions of life cannot be answered by scientific methods. This does not mean, however, that religions are superior in these areas. Philosophical deliberation produces far more convincing results in e.g. ethical questions. And even where the cleverest arguments of philosophy fail, religion is not needed; this is the sovereign territory of art, which is able to capture the "poetic overhang of life" that no scientific or philosophical analysis can.