Despite talking of the need for separation of church and state, materialists have long had as their goal the control of all things. They've managed their conquest by using science and scientists to oust all comers. They have achieved a near total control over the seats of power; political, social, academic, educational and all else.
Quotes and comments;
1. Summarizing the atheist or materialist view, Rushdoony says;
'... because God is a myth, the evolutionary and empirical approach to man's problems must be scientific; i.e. experimental, and man is thus the prime laboratory test animal.' [1.]
- A worldview has three basic components; metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Materialists (in the name of science) now have control over all three. By banning creation and doubts about Darwin from the classroom they've taken over metaphysics. By claiming that real knowledge only comes from science, and by getting judges to define terms, they've taken over epistemology. By enforcing the politically correct agenda they've taken over, and are taking over, ethics.
I'll remind you that when the State takes over ethics it enforces its 'ideas' with all the power at its command. (So much for the humble interests of science.) A scientific ethic is an enforced ethic.
According to materialists this worldview conquest was necessary because once men discovered that there was no God, a firm foundation for philosophy (and society) had to be found. Thankfully 'science' was ready to rush in and fill the void.
It didn't start this way of course; in its early days science was a humble affair not at all interested in global conquest. It's been quite a ride.
The first thing scientists did was to call themselves scientists. The philosophers could keep the wisdom niche, what they were interested in was knowledge; and as Bacon had said, knowledge is power.
They spurned supposed wisdom for practical power; and sought the knowledge that could be turned into power. (Power that could be used to get the elite what they wanted.)
The early scientists allayed fears by the clergy that they were going to intrude into their realm, by telling them they had no interest in questions of value; that all they were interested in was the phenomenal realm; they weren't interested in metaphysics, epistemology or ethics.... if they wanted, the clergy could have these to themselves, or share them with the philosophers.
Such were the early days of science. It didn't last long however, and science (like the British empire) began to expand its borders, taking on more and more of the world's intellectual work. In the end there was nothing they didn't claim to own; from metaphysics to ethics and all else besides.
The conquest has been illegitimate; as scientists are simply not competent to judge in these realms. Having a lab coat doesn't mean you have any special insight into philosophy. Having a brood of rats under your control doesn't mean you have special access to moral knowledge.
Of special concern is the latest foray taken by scientists, and that is its invasion of the realm of ethics. We hear more and more about science being able to determine a moral code, and even moral absolutes. (e.g. S. Harris)
The fact you can't go from what is to what ought to be, doesn't bother these people as they're not interested in truth, but in imposing their own moral code on the populace. Oh they'll pretend their ideas are objective, the discoveries of science, but they'll be nothing of the kind.
The great danger with handing ethics over to the lab coats is that when they hand in their supposed findings, they will demand the government implement them. If the politicians are hesitant to do so they will be branded as anti-science.
Watching the behavior of a rat tells you no more about human ethics than the color of its coat does.
A 'scientific' ethics is about as meaningful as scientific economics, scientific poetry, or scientific art. It's based on the reductionism that says matter is all there is.
Under the influence of materialism, science has become totalitarian, and this has led to the creation of a totalitarian state. There is nothing scientists don't want to take over, and there is nothing the state doesn't want to take over. The two go hand in hand. Each time a bureaucrat wants to defend a gov. policy they use scientists as their authorities; and scientists are more than happy to help out. "It's all based on good science,'' they chirp.
Science is now seen as control; not a search for truth but a search for power. Scientists are almost always control freaks; why else would they conduct experiments that demand complete power on the behalf of the scientist, and utter helplessness of the entities being experimented on? (Are there exceptions? Sure; but they have no power within the science community.)
Scientists have betrayed the humble beginnings of science, and its focus on the physical world, and the realm of the phenomenal. Charles Darwin was one of the major factors in leading science away from an empirical stance, and toward rampant speculation and intellectual megalomania. (Compare him to a Michael Faraday or a James Clerk-Maxwell if you want to get an idea of what happened.)
Darwin was happy to pontificate on any subject under the sun, most of it from under the safety of his sun bonnet. He replaced observation with story; he replaced measurement with speculation and spin. He turned science from empiricism to interpretation; and once that was achieved world conquest was under way.
"It's not hard to imagine...'' was the flavor of the new science, and has been ever since. (e.g. "It's quite likely there are an infinite number of universes...")
What we see in the imperialist science of today are stories taking the place of observation and measurement. There's no real evidence to back up the 'research' that supposedly led to the politically correct ethic of today; it's just a collection of stories and interpretation. (Yes folks; it's the new science of deconstruction; where anything goes, the more extreme the better.)
The idea all that exists is matter isn't an observation of science, but a claim of materialists. It's not science, it's philosophy. Here as elsewhere the materialist claims he's doing science, when his actions are just a smokescreen to hide the smuggling in of philosophical views.
The idea that the only real (true) knowledge comes from science isn't scientific but philosophical. (It also happens to be false)
The claim refutes itself. e.g. if there is no truth in language, the claim science is the only road to knowledge isn't true. As usual the materialist conflates two entirely different realms; the knowledge of the physical realm is not like knowledge in the human realm (psychological, ethical,etc.) at all, and the idea you can use the same method in both is unsupported by anything but bias.
So here we sit and stew; the materialists have won, and it will do no good to deny it. They've managed to persuade the powers that be that matter is all there is, that science is the only road to knowledge, and that only scientists can determine moral truth.
The great irony is that materialism gives no foundation for any of this. If all was merely matter in motion nothing could be known and there would be no one to know it.
The victory is nearly complete, and the scientists will soon hand the baton to the State bureaucrats. It's all a ruse, but how we'll stop the wheel from spinning, and from grinding us all under, I don't know.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. The Mythology of science - R.J. Rushdoony p.28
- available online at the Chalcedon website.
Many of Rushdoony's books are available for reading online. (He was/is one of my favorite writers.)
- I would like to be a postmillenialist, but I'm afraid I don't have it in me.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
