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.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Science? or the sciences?
The first science was epistemology, and it's still the foundation of all the sciences. The fact that we have scientists (plural) means, necessarily, that we have sciences (plural). Only if there were but one scientist on earth could there be such a thing as science (singular).
Quotes and comments;
1. 'The main goal of modern science is to have the knowledge required for prediction, planning and control.' [1.]
- Is there some monolith called science? Is there only one model of science? Should we refer to science or to the sciences? These are some of the questions I want to look at in this post.
Modern science is heavily financed by the State because the political elite want to find out how to achieve total control over the populace. They want to know how best to implement their plans. They want to know how to predict how the masses will respond to any new program. They want to be able to control any negative response by the public to what the elite do. They want scientists to tell them how they can achieve a complete mastery over the rabble; how they can micro-manage every aspect of their lives.
Given all this does anyone wonder why the average person might fear science. (It's not science he should fear, but scientists; and the knowledge scientists pass on to the elite.) There's a steady drumbeat in the press about an irrational fear of science, and its noteworthy that this is the way any opposition to particular programs is described.
e.g. we read something like ''people have no reason to fear science,'' never something like ''People have no reason to fear scientists." The first is hard to refute, while the second is easy to refute; all you have to do is give some examples. Science is presented as infallible; when we know scientists are not. Science is presented as wholly good; while we know scientists are not. Science is presented as harmless, while we know scientists are not.
The talk is always of science, and rarely ever of scientists. Science can then be idealized, glamorized, celebrated, defended, etc. - while this is so much harder to do with real human beings. (e.g. the ones who devote themselves to creating weapons and surveillance techniques, etc.)
The public is told in daily editorials that 'science' can answer all questions. The fact is the average scientist can't even tell you if he loves his wife or his kids. We all know scientists can't answer all questions; anyone whose talked to a few of them knows that. Science is built up into a god-like figure who transcends mere mortals. (Clearly a god made in man's own image.)
This pomposity reminds me of Genesis, and the claim that if Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, "ye shall be as gods....'' I think that what the Serpent meant by this cryptic statement was that ''ye shall be able to answer all questions for yourself."
The myth of science is that there is only one answer to every question, and that this answer must be naturalistic, explaining things solely in terms of matter in motion. i.e. there is no other way of looking at things; if an answer does not conform to Materialist orthodoxy it is simply, undeniably false.
e.g. you aren't allowed (if you want to wear the noble name of science) to say something like, ''well, in terms of the creationist model...." or ''in terms of the theistic model'' or ''in terms of the Buddhist model,'' this kind of qualification is ruled out. One doesn't even talk in terms of the materialist model, one just assumes that the materialist model is correct. e.g. one doesn't say ''in terms of the materialist model x is correct'' but instead one says ''x is correct''.
One isn't even supposed to say something like, ''as far as we know x is correct'' or ''provisionally speaking x is correct'' or ''until proven false we believe x is correct''. This kind of context and qualification is considered giving in to the creationists. The scientist is presented as someone who possesses certain knowledge; absolute knowledge. If you come to his office he can open a drawer and take out a fact to present you with.... and only he can do this. In this glorified model of science the scientist deals in objective truth, while everyone else does not.
Part of the plan to control men is to get them to accept this idealized (idolized?) model of science, to accept the vision of science as an infallible god. This god will then be presented as the source of everything the elite want the public to believe. When editorialists scold the public, and tell them they must accept what all government approved scientists say, they're in effect saying the public must accept what the elite say. As long as the elite hold the purse strings, the scientists will do their bidding, and act as their mouthpiece.
One way for people to protect themselves from this agenda is to speak in terms of sciences, not science; to speak of scientists and not science; to speak of science as a verb and not an noun, and to speak of theories instead of facts. It may not seem much, but it's better than nothing, and might be more effective than people think.
Notes;
1. The mythology of science - R.J. Rushdoony p.6
- the book can be read online at Chalcedon.edu (The book was originally published in the 1960s as I remember, but is still valuable.
2. You notice that it makes little sense to refer to a fear of the sciences. (I don't recall ever seeing the phrase.) This tells me that sciences is preferable to science.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'The main goal of modern science is to have the knowledge required for prediction, planning and control.' [1.]
- Is there some monolith called science? Is there only one model of science? Should we refer to science or to the sciences? These are some of the questions I want to look at in this post.
Modern science is heavily financed by the State because the political elite want to find out how to achieve total control over the populace. They want to know how best to implement their plans. They want to know how to predict how the masses will respond to any new program. They want to be able to control any negative response by the public to what the elite do. They want scientists to tell them how they can achieve a complete mastery over the rabble; how they can micro-manage every aspect of their lives.
Given all this does anyone wonder why the average person might fear science. (It's not science he should fear, but scientists; and the knowledge scientists pass on to the elite.) There's a steady drumbeat in the press about an irrational fear of science, and its noteworthy that this is the way any opposition to particular programs is described.
e.g. we read something like ''people have no reason to fear science,'' never something like ''People have no reason to fear scientists." The first is hard to refute, while the second is easy to refute; all you have to do is give some examples. Science is presented as infallible; when we know scientists are not. Science is presented as wholly good; while we know scientists are not. Science is presented as harmless, while we know scientists are not.
The talk is always of science, and rarely ever of scientists. Science can then be idealized, glamorized, celebrated, defended, etc. - while this is so much harder to do with real human beings. (e.g. the ones who devote themselves to creating weapons and surveillance techniques, etc.)
The public is told in daily editorials that 'science' can answer all questions. The fact is the average scientist can't even tell you if he loves his wife or his kids. We all know scientists can't answer all questions; anyone whose talked to a few of them knows that. Science is built up into a god-like figure who transcends mere mortals. (Clearly a god made in man's own image.)
This pomposity reminds me of Genesis, and the claim that if Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, "ye shall be as gods....'' I think that what the Serpent meant by this cryptic statement was that ''ye shall be able to answer all questions for yourself."
The myth of science is that there is only one answer to every question, and that this answer must be naturalistic, explaining things solely in terms of matter in motion. i.e. there is no other way of looking at things; if an answer does not conform to Materialist orthodoxy it is simply, undeniably false.
e.g. you aren't allowed (if you want to wear the noble name of science) to say something like, ''well, in terms of the creationist model...." or ''in terms of the theistic model'' or ''in terms of the Buddhist model,'' this kind of qualification is ruled out. One doesn't even talk in terms of the materialist model, one just assumes that the materialist model is correct. e.g. one doesn't say ''in terms of the materialist model x is correct'' but instead one says ''x is correct''.
One isn't even supposed to say something like, ''as far as we know x is correct'' or ''provisionally speaking x is correct'' or ''until proven false we believe x is correct''. This kind of context and qualification is considered giving in to the creationists. The scientist is presented as someone who possesses certain knowledge; absolute knowledge. If you come to his office he can open a drawer and take out a fact to present you with.... and only he can do this. In this glorified model of science the scientist deals in objective truth, while everyone else does not.
Part of the plan to control men is to get them to accept this idealized (idolized?) model of science, to accept the vision of science as an infallible god. This god will then be presented as the source of everything the elite want the public to believe. When editorialists scold the public, and tell them they must accept what all government approved scientists say, they're in effect saying the public must accept what the elite say. As long as the elite hold the purse strings, the scientists will do their bidding, and act as their mouthpiece.
One way for people to protect themselves from this agenda is to speak in terms of sciences, not science; to speak of scientists and not science; to speak of science as a verb and not an noun, and to speak of theories instead of facts. It may not seem much, but it's better than nothing, and might be more effective than people think.
Notes;
1. The mythology of science - R.J. Rushdoony p.6
- the book can be read online at Chalcedon.edu (The book was originally published in the 1960s as I remember, but is still valuable.
2. You notice that it makes little sense to refer to a fear of the sciences. (I don't recall ever seeing the phrase.) This tells me that sciences is preferable to science.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Science and sin; or, whatever happened to science?
A popular book of years ago asked 'whatever happened to sin?" Now we need to ask; whatever happened to science? Scientists have become the great usurpers; they no longer seem to think in terms of limits. They don't seem to know the difference between rocks and people. Reductionism has become imperialism and given us falsehood and misunderstanding. (Empiricism has turned into reductionism; method has become worldview.) The idea matter is all there is, isn't an empirical observation, it's a philosophical claim. The idea reductionism can explain all things isn't empirical or scientific, but philosophical.
Quotes and comments;
1. '...McMaster University researchers decided they would find “scientific solutions to sin.” Is their solution theological? Are they suggesting moral teachings, or offering psychological counseling? No; their working assumption is that all sin has molecular underpinnings.
"Most people are familiar with the seven deadly sins – pride, envy, gluttony, lust, wrath, greed and sloth – but could there be molecular solutions for this daily struggle between good and evil?" By getting students to think outside the box, the aim was to come up with the best molecule and design for a drug, or remedy, that counteracts sin.' [1.]
- This is more academic game playing and silliness. What's their definition of sin? Does it exist? (some say no) How can we know? How can we know what it is? How can we know we're right? Is sin one thing or many things?
Why are materialists accepting the Catholic church's definition of sin? Seems a tad odd doesn't it?
The pretense behind this project is the idea all problems have technical solutions; that since all is matter in motion, all problems have material solutions. (ie. man as a bag of chemicals.)
2. Definition of sin;
1. 'A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate. [modern]
2. Any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. (Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism.)
- If there is no creator god there can be no sin in the biblical sense. So why do materialists need a remedy for sin, when sin doesn't exist? There can be no sin unless there are moral absolutes. It makes no sense for materialists to speak of sin. Their worldview, if it were to be consistent, would not contain sin.
Sin depends on a certain freedom of will. So does man have free will? The materialist to be consistent must say no. Again, to talk of sin makes no sense. (This would be a big problem if materialists were to take philosophy and consistentcy seriously... but of course they don't.)
If man is just an animal (as the judge in the Dover case insisted) then it makes no sense to speak of sin. Do animals sin? Again, the materialist can't be consistent. He must speak out of all orifices at the same time... with each giving a diffeerent message.
The key question here is who defines what is sin? The PC agenda insists that only our secular professors have the right to define sin. They also have the right to have the State enforce their (finite, fallible, fallen) views on the general populace. Is that a scientific idea? Was it discovered with one of the new powerful microscopes? Was it discovered in a Hadron Collider experiment?
What's at stake here is a view of man. My concern is that the PC crowd will define what a 'proper' person is, and then the scientists will be given the job of producing this person. They might use drugs, or they might use genetic engineering. (PC man is coming to a town near you folks. In fact he might already arrived; e.g. 40 percent of people living in montreal are on anti-depressants... or so I remember reading.)
So what happens to science without a sense of sin? Materialism can't offer anything but an arbitrary definition, and science can't offer any definition at all. Scientific enterprise is thus dependent upon non-scientific sources for its moral and ethical directives and ideals. This means that at bottom science is a moral enterprise; that it must have a moral foundation. If man is just a bucket of chemicals in a meaningless universe, it makes no sense to insist he must behave in a certain way. Ethics and morality aren't scientific, and they never can be.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. The science of sin; Creation/Evolution Headlines
Quotes and comments;
1. '...McMaster University researchers decided they would find “scientific solutions to sin.” Is their solution theological? Are they suggesting moral teachings, or offering psychological counseling? No; their working assumption is that all sin has molecular underpinnings.
"Most people are familiar with the seven deadly sins – pride, envy, gluttony, lust, wrath, greed and sloth – but could there be molecular solutions for this daily struggle between good and evil?" By getting students to think outside the box, the aim was to come up with the best molecule and design for a drug, or remedy, that counteracts sin.' [1.]
- This is more academic game playing and silliness. What's their definition of sin? Does it exist? (some say no) How can we know? How can we know what it is? How can we know we're right? Is sin one thing or many things?
Why are materialists accepting the Catholic church's definition of sin? Seems a tad odd doesn't it?
The pretense behind this project is the idea all problems have technical solutions; that since all is matter in motion, all problems have material solutions. (ie. man as a bag of chemicals.)
2. Definition of sin;
1. 'A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate. [modern]
2. Any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. (Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism.)
- If there is no creator god there can be no sin in the biblical sense. So why do materialists need a remedy for sin, when sin doesn't exist? There can be no sin unless there are moral absolutes. It makes no sense for materialists to speak of sin. Their worldview, if it were to be consistent, would not contain sin.
Sin depends on a certain freedom of will. So does man have free will? The materialist to be consistent must say no. Again, to talk of sin makes no sense. (This would be a big problem if materialists were to take philosophy and consistentcy seriously... but of course they don't.)
If man is just an animal (as the judge in the Dover case insisted) then it makes no sense to speak of sin. Do animals sin? Again, the materialist can't be consistent. He must speak out of all orifices at the same time... with each giving a diffeerent message.
The key question here is who defines what is sin? The PC agenda insists that only our secular professors have the right to define sin. They also have the right to have the State enforce their (finite, fallible, fallen) views on the general populace. Is that a scientific idea? Was it discovered with one of the new powerful microscopes? Was it discovered in a Hadron Collider experiment?
What's at stake here is a view of man. My concern is that the PC crowd will define what a 'proper' person is, and then the scientists will be given the job of producing this person. They might use drugs, or they might use genetic engineering. (PC man is coming to a town near you folks. In fact he might already arrived; e.g. 40 percent of people living in montreal are on anti-depressants... or so I remember reading.)
So what happens to science without a sense of sin? Materialism can't offer anything but an arbitrary definition, and science can't offer any definition at all. Scientific enterprise is thus dependent upon non-scientific sources for its moral and ethical directives and ideals. This means that at bottom science is a moral enterprise; that it must have a moral foundation. If man is just a bucket of chemicals in a meaningless universe, it makes no sense to insist he must behave in a certain way. Ethics and morality aren't scientific, and they never can be.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. The science of sin; Creation/Evolution Headlines
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
