Historically, secular humanism has been in conflict with religious thought in the academic and social spheres. This article supports the thesis that in modern times pseudosciences and pseudoscientific thinking are a threat to the humanist project, comparable to religious fundamentalism. To prove it, the concept of Secular Humanism and how it is threatened by religious fundamentalism is explained. This is followed by the definition of what pseudosciences are and what pseudoscientific thinking is. Subsequently, the way how pseudosciences threaten the secular humanist project is described. The conclusion states that pseudoscientific thought and religious fundamentalism are equally dangerous for social coexistence.

Los arqueólogos y antropólogos han recogido manifestaciones religiosas desde la existencia del hombre. Las primeras sociedades utilizaban la privación sensorial y los alucinógenos para distorsionar la percepción y facilitar el proceso imaginativo. Idearon todo tipo de historias en torno a entes incorpóreos que explicaron el origen y destino del universo, eliminando el malestar que genera la incertidumbre. Los más intuitivos relacionaron la posición de los astros con el cambio de clima, determinaron con relativa precisión cuándo cazar y recolectar. Así se formaron las primeras sociedades teocráticas, donde unos pocos ilustrados dominaban a la mayoría haciéndoles creer que tenían poderes divinos o que por lo menos mantenían una línea exclusiva de comunicación con algún dios que sabía cuándo sembrar y cosechar. Sin embargo, muchos de los primeros sacerdotes acabaron con...

The objective of this research was to design and validate a pseudoscientific thinking scale. The study is of an instrumental type, whose sample consisted of 686 Peruvian adult participants (42% women). Regarding construct validity, an exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analysis were performed; and for reliability evidence, McDonald’s omega coefficient was used. The results of the EFA showed a unidimensional model of 8 items. The CFA presented an adequate fit, c2(20) = 35.5, CFI = .995, RMSEA = .047, SRMR = .026, TLI = .994 thus confirming the one-dimensional structure with factor loadings between the values of l = .68 and l = .86 (w = .92). Finally, the academic and social implications of this new psychometric instrument are discussed.