Apologetics Virtues

Wolves in Lab Coats AKA Scientism is not Science

The world is a very large place. When I say, “The world,” I don’t mean Earth alone. I mean galaxies, planets, black holes, and suns that could fit a million of ours inside of them. Like I said, it’s a large place. And, by some accounts, it’s getting larger all the time, eternally expanding into… something. Or what some have speculated is “nothing” (but not real nothing, more like a something-nothing). As big as it is, it’s a wonder how people- small, squishy, can’t decide which shoes to put on in the morning, little people- can still find space inside of their smallness for endless pride.

For those who have not yet asked for God’s great revelation, I am not surprised when they doubt His existence. If one is not driven to ask why we are here, then they never investigate or engage their own reason to try to answer the question. Fair enough. But, for these people, I cannot understand why some desire to make the leap to “there is no God” when they’ve never really thought about Him. Worse yet are the scientists, those brilliant people so gifted with empirical data, who often are very un-gifted in art, poetry, literature, theology, philosophy and other, who, while exploring a dark cave exclaim, “Light does not exist!”

The modern worship of self, science and substance is creating Wendigos, exsanguinating mankind through a form of philosophical auto cannibalism. Scientism is growing, with their own canon law, their own dogma, and apostles aggressively mounting their inquisition against heretics. Unfortunately, for those who don’t just swallow the pill and shuffle along, their inquisition shall not be as lenient as a Christian inquisition: because, as a rule, in a Materialist world, individual people are as worthless as dust, and life is arbitrary. They would love to tell popular media otherwise, claiming all kinds of biological processes that account for morality, or weave some other kind of fairytale, but they would not have the stable, intelligent, and yes, moral, world they live in today without Christian moral norms.

Indeed, the Materialists of today are not at all unique in human history, being descendants from the Pagans of old. Pagan house-gods, the gods behind the moving of the sun, the blowing of the wind, or the falling of the rain, determined the course of Pagan life and society. While modern Materialists argue that Christianity follows this pattern, they would be ignoring history. The Pagan people, unable yet to look through a telescope used their own observations to create narratives behind the functions of their world. These they labeled Zeus, Thor, Jupiter, Neptune or whoever. A focus on pure empirical observation, due to our limited perspectives as humans, was how the Pagan belief systems arose. The fact that they limited themselves to gods that were no less human in their temperaments than they were made it impossible for these early people to push into what was beyond, for fear of spiteful retribution. Today we see a similar practice, where one contingent thing tries to explain another contingent thing by referencing the contingencies around it, which would never have amounted to anything without our transcendent, non-contingent God. This process came to be called the Scientific Method, which has revolutionized how we humans interact with the world.

The Pagans, limited to only empirical observation, created societies based entirely on the exercise of one will over the other, and objectified men and women, making them no more than the sum of their usefulness. And why not? Man was no more than the things around him, often he was less: less than the sun, less than the mountains, less than the mighty ocean. Thus, a person thought useless, such as a weak person, a slave, or prisoner of war, could easily be put to death; and, in some societies, even children could be killed if they were not without flaw or were inconvenient. This should sound familiar, and it isn’t coming from the orthodox Christian camp. So, too, are the narratives familiar. The idea of teaching a kid that the world was created, not just randomly assembled by the household-god called Natural Selection (deliberately confusing term) is considered by some to be child abuse. God forbid that we apply our personal power of observation, thereby exercising our own freedom, to conclude that, since a wristwatch has purpose and was created, and man is more complex and purposeful than a wristwatch, therefore man is created. This would, after all, fly in the face of Scientism’s pagan narrative. Now, one doesn’t have to believe that man was created, but they can’t claim that is a conclusion born from a lack of observation. If a Materialist would rather believe that complex human societies stem from a genetic evolution from the lobster, okay, but I think it’s a stretch. Not that it’s without merit, but it isn’t something that can be proven conclusively, and has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.

This brings me to ask, “Why the Christian God and Christian moral norms?” Because the Christian God is a noncompetitive God. He is not a being among beings, rather, the essence of what it is to be. This noncompetitive stance has allowed mankind to study the world to its heart’s content, without fear of retribution, paving the way for unprecedented growth in science, art, literature, political and social philosophy, and so on. Plus, Christian moral norms work! They create the best societies the world has ever seen. I admit, the current line of argument is not good enough on its own to explain why God exists, that He isn’t a construct man hasn’t just “outgrown”, because that’s an argument for another post involving history, logic and revelation; but, I think that it is clear why the modern pagan Scientism/Materialist/Atheist thought is always toxic and never leads to a flourishing society. Man cannot thrive on empirical observation alone, for such collected data is not, by itself, truth. I’m not against a person observing the world and concluding that they don’t think God exists. Okay. I just recommend staying clear of theological waters when you don’t know how to swim. Honestly, it’s fine to just say, “I don’t know,” and move on, without raising a pseudo-intellectual lynch mob against the instinctive human practice of religion. Admitting that you don’t know would avoid the vice of Pride and put one on a very humble path.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *