The new priesthood of junk science
Fighting the Growth of a Theocracy in America
Pascal first sent a link to this post to me many days ago, and I have been looking forward to seeing him post it. Tired of waiting, let me cut to the chase on this.
In Crichton’s “State of fear” he posits that the left endeavors to keep the nation in a state of fear so it is easier to subjugate it to their will. The left have learned a new lesson: People will believe in something. Painfully, they choose to believe in things that do not serve the purpose of the left. The real thorn in the side of the powers that be, is that people of faith do not believe what they have been instructed to believe. Actual faith trumps belief every day, because as I’ve often repeated, belief is something we choose, where faith chooses us.
So to combat this the left has turned it’s state of fear into a new religion, and it’s not just global warming, but the supremacy of manufactured “Science” over legitimate theology. Except that “Science” is not what they envision it to be.
The new religion (Which Pascal calls “Scientism”) is structured thus, this a direct quote from Pascal’s piece:
Scientism: Belief that only science can establish truth. And because beliefs are human attributes, they are corruptible. Because this risk is so prevalent, reason and suppressed facts inevitably must be rescued from beliefs driven deliberately off course.
Under scientism, when those seeking power (or looking to keep it) deem a theory as useful, they then build and fund a consensus to rubber-stamp it in the face of any and all contradictory evidence.
In truth, this is not science but opinions anointed with the label of science. Under these auspices, here is how the game is run.
•An alleged theory fills the role of political dogma, and is then treated as if sacred.
•No debate over it is allowed a hearing.
•Any who disagree are marginalized.
•Then should they persist, they are dealt with more severely. Stripped of their scientific duties and offices, and even earned credentials, and cast out.
The bottomline: The left is using every tool at their disposal to destroy legitimate theology and they have a ready made belief system that they will use to replace it, if necessary by force. You will be able to easily find evidence that this is the truth. Do so. Make yourself aware of this because it may be the most important battle we will ever fight as a species.
20 comments Og | Uncategorized
The Soviets tried. After 70 years of brutal repression, the Russian Orthodox church is alive and well.
Indeed! That’s the whole point; people of faith whose faith is strong, will easily recognize the bullshit and stick to their faith.
Pitiably, this nation is full to the gills with the weak willed and weak minded.
“Belief that only science can establish truth.”
I’d say they’re beginning with a false premise, therefore logically they can prove anything they want.
I’ve made this argument a few times, science (more precisely the scientific method) is a tool, good for some things, less so for others.
Science deals with what can be measured and repeated. Every experiment has a system, dividing that which is relevant to the experiment from that which isn’t (and that dividing line is where interesting things happen, Newton would’ve laughed if you told him mass was dependent on the speed of light).
So let’s set out to measure (one of the features of science) the acceleration of gravity. We decide to climb up on the roof and drop a lead ball, measuring how long it takes to hit the ground. Starting from velocity=0, figuring out g is junior-high-school algebra. So we perform the experiment 100 times (repeatable, another feature), and we get a figure, within the precision of our measurement instrument, of 9.8 m/s/s.
The color of the ball, or whether the roof is tar-paper or shingle are irrelevant. They’re not part of the system we’re measuring within.
On the 101st attempt a seagull sees the falling lead ball, swoops down and grabs it, flies a quarter mile and drops it. Do we average that time in? We do not, because something outside the system (seagull) acted on the ball, we would not have been measuring the acceleration of gravity. We throw that result out (quite correctly).
Now, here’s the important part, we could perform this experiment a million, a billion, or a googleplex times, and if in none of those attempts did a seagull grab the lead ball, that does NOT disprove the existence of seagulls.
Science, as it currently is practiced, deals with what’s in the universe, that’s its system. God, having created the universe, is outside that universe, and is therefore outside the scientific system, so science has nothing to say one way or the other about God.
And that’s all I have to say about THAT.
Nice. I don’t know the exact quote, but I once heard atheism described as a man examining a painting denying the existence of the painter. Seems like you are thinking in a similar direction.
Yup, except I look at it from my math/science background. When they handed out artistic ability I thought they put an F on the front of it…..
Thanks Og. This is is a nicely done summary of my concerns.
I need to point out that I’d add to your conclusion that it’s not just theology the Left is out to destroy. Legitimate science itself as also necessarily needing destruction lest it be used to expose the fraud.
Furthermore, to be more precise, my point was not that Scientism was the primary new religion, but rather a sub-religion, providing a tactical service to the primary new religion that would be used to enslave us all. The supreme importance of preventing world catastrophes by pursuing what they call Sustainability, the new utopian goal.
You are free, on your own, to see Scientism as you have, but its use as a tactic for the bigger threat was what I wished to expose.
And that was a major reason I was unhappy with my first draft, as I took too long introducing Scientism before I got down to the ideas that started writing in the first place.
From this it is clear that a belief system needs no supernatural entity at its center to be understood that it is a religion. And as such, we have a constitution that can aid us to defeat those who would establish such a religion.
My current version cut out much of what Og has presented here. I did that because it became much simpler to be clear. That there are 3 different forces that we normally see separate from each other. Government, Religion and Science. It is the forces that are melding all 3 together which are a threat to us as individuals. In the end, all of the 3 will be illegitimate and would exist only to service rulers of a what could easily become a new Dark Age.
Hello, Og. I was a frequent commenter over at Tam’s. Found your place linked there with the discussion of MIM.
To the topic of this post: I am fond of saying: science is how, faith is why.
Government is their religion. Anything that can be used to destroy any other god or father figure will be used.
Right now on prime time t.v. you will see some of the brain washing at work. Right now they are massacring the white heterosexual man. NPR is insidious as they do it.
The scientific method can only be used to prove an observed event if you can repeat it on demand. If you cannot do it on demand, you cannot repeat it. If it cannot be repeated, you cannot prove it.
Remember KISS sells more stuff that anything else.
You are right Paul. Govt is religion to quite a few.
Someone once said that government was not a persuasive entity but one of cold, hard force.
For that reason more than most it should be clear why it’s connected with Satan as the opponent of the Lord and His gift of free will — if you can keep it.
But it would be tautological to suggest that government itself was illegitimate because it revered itself over all else. It’s the single legitimate force by jint of the social contract.
The govt loving forces apparently want to snare the minds of its subjects as Og has stated above — because people have faith that raw force cannot be the right way (likely because they find themselves on the wrong end of it far too often and pray for Justice come). So they’ve contrived to return to ancient Pagan methods of crisis mongering, but this time on a global scale.
There is an old comedy called “The Gods Must be Crazy” about an African tribe that finds a coke bottle that fell from an airplane.
The movie makes fun of them for their backward ways and descriptions of this miracle that the Gods gave them.
But even the African tribesmen could recognize that this was something that was formed by a creator and did not try to generate an elaborate theory for how a coke bottle formed deep in the Earth over millions of years.
Scientism: Belief that only science can establish truth.
Science: Belief that the scientific method can establish fact.
Given both of the above, recognition that the unscrupulous can distort and lie about both truth and fact might be the basis for the most critical question.
:(
…by
jintdint of the social contract.Those who believe in nothing will believe in anything.
On the subject of ‘destroying what came before’, ran across this the other day on toxic-level ‘feminism’
http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/26414-this-column-is-absolutely-a-must-read-we-should-be-sick-to-our-souls-over-this
MarkD I love your analogy that God is outside science and creation. That makes sense when the Word says He holds creation in the palm of his hand.
Part 2 is up.
“Knowing Neither Morals, Nor What is High Ground”
Part 2a and 2b, providing examples, are up
http://pascalfervor.blogspot.com/2014/09/misanthropic-tactic-number-1.html
http://pascalfervor.blogspot.com/2014/09/heres-your-sus-worshipers-america.html
Here’s a late joiner with our view Og.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/mit-climate-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/
I don’t want to sound cynical (because his critics will pursue this line of course), but it may be because he’s got a new source of funding that he’s willing to come out of the closet now.
Courtesy of Ed Driscoll today.
Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute tells a story about Julian Simon, the late and great economist.He was at some environmental forum, and he said, “How many people here believe that the earth is increasingly polluted and that our natural resources are being exhausted?†Naturally, every hand shot up. He said, “Is there any evidence that could dissuade you?†Nothing. Again: “Is there any evidence I could give you — anything at all — that would lead you to reconsider these assumptions?†Not a stir. Simon then said, “Well, excuse me, I’m not dressed for church.â€
Read more: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2015/02/24/gaia-and-man-at-the-un/#ixzz3SvT7emZE
Well, it’s nice to see that PJ Media has finally caught up with our advanced thinking. :)
More. This time proof from the lips of
Rajendra Pachauri, former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: