Follow the Science? An Essay Pillaging the Claims of Scientism

“Science itself, which so superciliously scorns metaphysics, assumes a metaphysic in its every thought. It happens that the metaphysic which it assumes is the metaphysic of Spinoza.”

Will Durant
The Story of Philosophy; The Lives and Opinions of the Great Philosophers – p. 187 

Durant informs us here what every eyes wide-open human being knows and that is that Science can only properly be called “science” when it descends from a metaphysic (and what else is metaphysics except theology?) that is accurate. One’s science is only as good as one’s theology. Show me bad science (and there is plenty around to be shown) and I will show you bad metaphysics.If Durant is correct, and it is certain that he is, then the whole notion of casually invoking science by saying, “I’m just following the science,” is seen as fatuous as it always really has been. A wise man reaches for his revolver every time he hears someone say “I’m just following the science.” Really? Who’s science? Which metaphysic accounts for the “science you’re just following?” What if your metaphysics sucks? Do you then understand that means that the science you’re following also sucks?

Still, the pied pipers of Scientism continue playing their tune and the rubes keep singing along. Though written 100 years ago, the reverential attitude towards science that is contained in this Cushman quote continues apace today,

“Science alone must be the new foundation — a science of facts. The age of the freedom of conscience will cease when indubitable science rules man in his ethics, psychology, and government as it now rules in the natural sciences.”

Herbert E. Cushman

A Beginners History of Philosophy — pg. 384

How do I know this is a mantra that continues to be chanted? Well, just ask yourself how often you’ve heard people like Greta Thunberg  say things like her?

“I think this pandemic has shone a light on how … we are depending on science and that we cannot make it without science. But of course, we are only listening to one type of scientist or some types of scientist, and, for example, we are not listening to climate scientists, we’re not listening to scientists who work on biodiversity and that, of course, needs to change.”

How often have we had to listen to Dr. Fauci say that on the ChiCom Virus they are just following the science as if science was this independent reality that was not dependent upon having a proper theology (metaphysic) to be based upon?

“I’ll tell you what I have lived by. You follow the science. You stick with the science. You make decisions, policies and recommendations based purely on the science.”

Dr. Fauci

But again, the question is whose science? Science based on which metaphysic? Which God is driving Fauci’s science?

Almost 60 years ago Thomas Kuhn published “Structures in Scientific Revolutions.”  In that book, Kuhn detailed how it is that the original Durant quote above is accurate. Science is metaphysic dependent and different metaphysics yield different science.  As such screaming and screeching that “we need to follow the science,” is juvenile since science is not an independent neutral lode star where you pop a quarter in and you get an answer. It should be clear to anybody following the whole ChiCom virus “scamdemic” that whatever science people like Fauci and Gates and the Great Reset group are using their science sucks.

Men like Fauci, Gates, and the Great Reset groupies have turned Science into a religion.

“Science is a religion, science alone will henceforth make the creeds, science alone can solve for men the eternal problems, the solution of which his nature imperatively demands.

Ernst Renan

The Future of Science — pg. 90-91

But their science as well as their religion is all based on a false metaphysic. These “scientists” own materialism (naturalism) as their metaphysic and in owning materialism as their metaphysic their science is going to be errant. (Never mind the whole politicization of science which demands certain politically correct outcomes before the scientific tests are even under way.)

“Naturalism is the view that the only way to understand our universe is through the scientific method. Materialism is the idea that the only reality is the physical matter of the universe, and that everything else, including thoughts, will, and emotions come from physical laws acting on that matter. The message of evolution and all of science is one of naturalistic materialism.”

Jerry A. Coyne

Why Evolution is True — p. 224

Because Fauci, Gates, and the Great Reset keystone cops are all naturalists their science should not be trusted. Their science also should not be trusted because it has been demonstrably shown to be so consistently wrong. Only by playing with the statistics have they been able to keep this “pandemic” narrative alive.

What we are living through right now might be called a Materialistic Scientific positivism. In Positivism — a social theory popularized by Auguste Comte but descending from Kant’s insistence that man can only deal with the phenomenon and must realize that the noumena can never be arrived at — what is measurable and observable (science) is the singular mechanism for knowing reality. Values and experiences must be legitimized through empirical means.

However, the problem here is that there is nothing that is measurable and observable in the statement, “values and experiences must be legitimized through empirical means.” That values statement of Positivism can not be legitimized through empirical means. Show me the test that demonstrates that “values and experiences must be legitimized through empirical means.” You can’t and so by Kant’s and Comte’s own standard this statement fails as a means of knowing reality.

Of course, Comte was sneaking in his theology through the back door of his Positivism and Scientism. That theology was that man would be the one who would provide the ontological parameters for what would and would not be allowed as “true.” This is classical humanism.

Understand that in what has been simply stated above Scientism and Positivism has been absolutely demolished. Scientism and Positivism invoking pseudo neutrality (the Scientific method so called) introduced a false objective standard (only that which is empirical and observable is true) and so ruled out the God of the Bible and Biblical Christianity.

Because this is true, I will continue to laugh at the scientific pronouncements as they come down from on high from the Great Reset Keystone cops. These people are not dealing in science and what they have done in the name of science in fearmongering the whole planet so they can pursue their Great Reset ought to find them charged with capital crimes resulting in their capital punishment.

Don’t follow the current science. It will only get you enslaved or killed.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

2 thoughts on “Follow the Science? An Essay Pillaging the Claims of Scientism”

  1. Pastor, I normally like what you write, and I know that you will probably just mock me for this. But the title is inappropriate. I think you know that, and I think you purposefully chose it to raise the hackles of readers like me. 🙁


    1. Abby,

      As I don’t know you I don’t know why you would think I am trying to raise your hackles.

      I titled the essay because I want people to see that Scientism should be violently raped because its claims are not true. Just because I use the word “rape” doesn’t mean I sanction the rape of women. If that is what someone would think I would insist that is an odd connection. However, in order to demonstrate what an affable and amenable guy I am I am going to change the title so as to be nice.

Leave a Reply

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