Episode 72. John Haught also recognizes a second type of conflation. This occurs when science is conflated with secular belief, and the result is scientism. In Quote 9, Haught writes, "Scientism may be defined as the belief that science is the only reliable guide to truth. Scientism, it must be emphasized, is by no means the same thing as science. For while science is a modest, reliable, and fruitful method of learning some important things about the universe, scientism is the assumption that science is the only appropriate way to arrive at the totality of truth. Scientism is a philosophical belief (strictly speaking an epistemological one) that enshrines science as the only completely trustworthy method of putting the human mind in touch with objective reality." Note the word belief in this passage, Haught is absolutely correct in pointing out that scientism is not science but instead a belief. Haught then offers a few more criticisms of scientism. First, he contends that it is metaphysically blind. In Quote 10, he asserts, "Without usually being aware of it, scientific skeptics have uncritically fused, that is conflated, the scientific method with scientism, a belief system that assumes, without any scientific demonstration, that science is the only appropriate way to look at things." This criticism by Haught is what we termed earlier as scientism's metaphysical blindspot in the notes on page 59. To use some of our categories, scientism is a conflation of methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. Haught is also correct in arguing that there is no scientific experiment to prove that science is the best and only way to understand the world because this would presuppose the effectiveness of science. In other words, this would be a circular argument. The scientific method is wonderful, but it is limited to studying the physical world. It cannot reach into metaphysical reality. Another criticism of scientism by Haught is that he contends it is ironically religious in character. In Quote 11, Haught notes, "Scientism is a kind of faith-commitment not entirely unlike the kind we find in religion. Devotees of scientism place their trust in the scientific method itself, but no more than religious believers can they scientifically demonstrate the truth of this faith. Skeptics trust in science almost as though, like the gods of religion, it were our savior from the original sin of prescientific ignorance." Note all the religious language in this passage. In this way, scientism is like religion and supports the idea of a wide definition of religion. To move beyond these examples of conflation of science with religious belief and science with secular belief, the contrast relationship of science and religion suggests we need to separate science and religion from each other and recognize their fundamental differences. First, with regards to science, it deals with the how questions of nature. In particular, science explores patterns and processes, and looks for natural causes. Science is restricted to the works of nature. The contrast relationship emphasizes that religion explores the large why questions of belief. It deals with meaning and mystery, and ultimate causes. In other words, religion focuses on the foundation of nature: who or what is behind the physical world? In this way, the contrast category claims no conflict is possible between science and religion. This is because science is limited to the physical, while religion deals with the metaphysical. End of episode.