The word “fundamentalism” is confusing because the real point of interest is not a particular religious movement but a basic philosophical issue, whether God is symbol or reality. Is religious language just a way of talking about human ideals and concerns, or does it sometimes mean what it says? Since the former view is presupposed by both the academic study of religion and by “pluralism”, the latter is considered ignorant and dangerous by definition. Still, it seems that liberal tolerance and modern scholarship prejudge too many things. The world doesn’t have to conform to the middle-class expectations that would make it safe, manageable, and just our size. In physics David Schramm got a lot of mileage out of taking ideas like the Big Bang quite literally rather than viewing them as weird theoretical constructs that help us talk about our experience by making the equations come out right. If that approach works in cosmology why not in connection with other fundamental questions? We need some sort of answer to such things. It doesn’t seem likely that the experience and interests of the managerial class, which is what mainstream liberal religion comes down to, would provide a reliable standard. Doesn’t it make more sense to think big?