Societies that are premised on a rejection of God, metaphysics, and a transcendental grounding for morality will necessarily resort to such a situation in which deity is attributed to created things. Ours is a culture of absolutism to the utmost extent. Not in the sense of the absolute monarchia of The Father, but one in the absolute monarchia of the passions. One in which we have located the foundation of man in that of pleasure and utilitarianism.
His idealist idol is located in a Mcdonald’s or Walmart. The car lot which contains his future hope in satiating his lust for vacuous materialism so also contains his future grave. His god, since he has killed the God who has created him, may become anything. The Mcdonald’s happy meal manufactured by social engineers for his own degeneration may perhaps take on divine properties.
What has taken on the most extreme form of idolatry is that of the grand narrative of “science” or what is more aptly called scientism.
Neal Postman defines scientism as:
Three interrelated ideas that, taken together, stand as one of the pillars of Technopoly… [1] the methods of the natural sciences can be applied to the study of human behavior… [2] social science generates specific principles which can be used to organize society on a rational and humane basis. This implies that technical means-mostly “invisible technologies” supervised by experts–can be designed to control human behavior and set it on the proper course… [3] faith in science can serve as a comprehensive belief system that gives meaning to life, as well as a sense of well-being, mortality, and even immortality.1
St. Paul locates the principle of idolatry in ascribing to created things the divine nature and worshipping them as such.2 What can quite promptly be catergorized in this manner is the religion of scientism.
The origin of idolatry can be found in the principle of pluralism. To be plural by nature means to be separate from God. Mans will is, in a Christian paradigm, ideally focused on God and a participation in his uncreated glory. His will is not in bondage, but able to be perfectly synergized with that of God’s, just as Christs was in the incarnation. Science, both pre and post enlightenment, seeks the death of the divine will and to achieve godhood merely on his own via technology and “innovation.” A secular Pelagianism, so to speak. One can come to the conclusion that since his will is not being synergized with that of the one absolutely divine will, it is therefore to be synergized with all manner of desirous multiplicities.
If it were possible that modern man, in his secular state, were to be freed from the bondage of his will ( enslaved via the scientific establishment ), I do not think he would choose it. Such a choice would be detrimental to his carefully constructed reality. He would not have anything left in his pluralistic hands, and could not strive forward on his own without the scientific “expert” dictating his reality to him.
Science is an inherently pluralistic discipline. New models are always being put forth for all manner of scientific theories. What was dogma 50 years ago is now regarded as an outdated and barbaric model with no basis in “reality” whatsoever. Such will be the same of the scientific theories of today in 10 or 20 years. You can believe in the earth is 10 billion years old, that it’s 13 billion years old, and that it’s 20 billion years old, but you cannot believe it is 8000 years lest you be mocked. All these theories concerning billions of years were “settled science” at the time, yet now they are seen as getting in the way of “progress.”
In such a conception, what was once “life saving” and miraculous, such as “racial hygeine”, is now looked on as being atrocious in mainstream society. Even though Julian Huxley and his fellow globalists rebranded Eugenics as biometrics, and his ideas are still the ultimate end goal of scientism, Bernays and Lippmann came in handy with their methods of mass mind control via the media — ensuring man never can connect any dots. Man is caught in the daily news cycle, never with the capacity to question or notice patterns. Because of this, eugenics is now thought of as a theory of a bygone age even though it is just as if not moreso alive then ever, just with a different pretense.
The alien mythology, fostered from on high as a replacement religion, will soon come to supplant the existing evolutionary model with that of panspermia. What’s more “logical” and “empirical” then the idea that aliens came here long ago and planted the evolutionary seed that would eventually grow into scientific man — who was foreordained to rediscover his alien origins? Sounds a lot like 2001: A Space Odyssey, doesn’t it? Yet this view has been promoted by the World Economic Forum and the high priests of scientism as being “likely”. One may laugh out loud at this idea, yet give it a few years. We already have as our current dogma the idea of Darwinism, which is just as absurd and unlikely as the alien mythos, yet people cling to it religiously. Nothing into something — the pillar of Darwinism — an alchemical belief of Flamel — is what children are taught in schools and what the populace believes almost entirely. It is not so crazy of an idea that “evidence” may be found and propagated in favour of such an idea, and even less crazy is that if it is coming from the scientific establishment, they will believe it.
Although Darwin and the ethos of the Royal Society were the founders of what later inspired the greatest archetype of evil in modernity, Adolf Hitler, to adopt his occultic and theosophical racialism ( alongside Blavatsky — who herself was a Fabian Socialist and probable British Spy ), Darwin is still considered to be the secular Athanasius. Just as St. Athanasius defended Orthodoxy from the heresy of Arius, “saint” Darwin has defended the west from the heresy of a world created by a loving God and a human person created in His image.
The polio vaccine was an instrument of murderous inhumanity upon first release. Now Jonas Salk, despite his genocidal ramblings in Survival of the Wisest, has been canonized a secular saint alongside Darwin in the hallowed halls of modernity. There exists, owing to the scientific domain, physical evidence of such canonization. Darwin, occultist Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein have statues erected in their name featured in the Rockefeller created, ecumenist Riverside Church in New York. When I speak of the the theology of scientism, it is not mere abstract speculation, it is based on theory and praxis. The words and actions of the scientific high priests speak for themselves.
The great cloud of scientific witnesses looks on applauding while their goal of mass depopulation lives on in the World Economic Forum and the United Nations. Scientific succession began with Francis Bacon and the Royal Society — their stated goal being the “total scientivization of all society”3, and continues on in Epstein comrade Bill Gates and his ilk at all the “top” universities and think tanks — still with essentially the same goal although since the technology has become more advanced, their expression of it has taken on many manifestation which had never before been thought possible.
Just as was the case with polio, there are millions of supposed “studies” ( mostly fake according to The Lancet ) which all come to contradictory conculsions but are all equally valid in the realm of scientific inquiry.
While such pluralism is so evident to the thinking man, science has, in a different modal conception, become absolutized. Science must be bowed down to, despite there not actually being a single unified dogma that is “science.” While in some sense there is the “Scientific Outlook” or technocracy, the useful idiot on the ground has no conception of this, and absolutizes mere studies or experts as being indicative of the narrow arbitration of “pure factuality.”
What we may glean from the discipline of philosophy, however, is that there exists no “fact” independent of ones own paradigm and ones own presuppositions. “Physical evidence”, in a non-theory laden sense, does not exist.
No, There is No Such Thing as “Scientific Facts”
For modern science has its starting-point in a revolution in consciousness, or revolt against heaven, that has resulted in the reason first ignoring, then denying, and finally closing itself to the source of knowledge which is above it; and this has meant that it has been forced to turn for its knowledge exclusively to that which is below it—to the “external” world of sense-data and sense-impression.4
—Phillip Sherrard
When you encounter a proponent of the modern scientific establishment — one who will defend it tooth and nail despite however tyranizing or false it may be, you see a pathological religious apprehension set forth in conversation. The insults come flying forth from their mouth concerning how beneath them you are for not bowing down and serving the Malthusian high priests and their supposed “consensus” of “studies” in support of the dumbing down and extermination of man.
You see in their behavior the most extreme manifestation of idolatry. It is actually idolatry in a twofold manner. Idolatry of their own narrow world view in which whatever is dictated to them from on high via “studies” ( as if post-empiricism that actually means anything at all ) is equivalent to a papal ex cathedra statement and must be, since they are so “educated” and intelligent, absolutely true without any dissension. So also an idolatry of the scientific dictator, who in reality, has no care for you, and seeks only to serve Malthus and Galton Darwin at the behest of the Rockefellers and the World Health Organization.
All similar dogmas are premised on peculiar idea in epistemology in relation to scientific knowledge. That being the dogma of factuality.
We see in science a problem in the ability to determine casuality. Everyone is familiar with the dictum “correlation doesn’t equal causation” as it has made its way into popular discourse. For philosophers like David Hume, an empiricist himself, causation and what’s called induction or the assumption of the uniformity of nature cannot itself be found in empirical sense data.
Since science and scientific theory are premised on inductive reasoning ( deriving theory and factuality from natural observation ), which presupposes the uniformity of nature, the belief in scientific fact as determined by observation is operating on unjustified grounds — making any possible line of inquiry necessarily circular and begging the question ( how do you justify the principle of induction and on what basis should we accept your supposed fact since it is not itself found in nature?).
Moreover, in considering causation in light of Hume’s problem of induction, as we now know that the scientific method and “laws of science” cannot themselves be observed empirically, we so also can apply this principle to causation. Since science and the scientific method relegate knowledge to only that which is directly observable, how exactly would you determine casual relations with exact specificity? In proposing two different theories as to the reality of causation in a specific study, with both appealing to “direct observation” and empirical sense data, how are we to determine which theory is authentic? As to my knowledge, there is no way to determine simply based on the “facts” which theory is correct, since both are of the same operating presuppositions. They cannot both be correct, given they are competing theories as per the law of non-contradiction. So how is one to procede in determining which is true?
The answer lies in the transcendental argument — that is a comparison of world views ( systems analysis ). If one goes about determining truth through a piling up of more “studies” to be interpreted by the individual scientist, this will resort to the same problem of circularity, once again begging the same question unto an infinite regress ( a fallacy ).
Science is not some neutral process by which our presuppositions and world views are somehow discarded. This is how it is portrayed, not the actual reality. Science and scientific theory are always preceded by our paradigms and assumptions about the world.
A good example of this is fossil records. There is nothing in looking at fossil that tells you that it is 3.7 million years old or however many years one might say. You have never directly observed the 3.7 million years empirically with your own eyes. You have a presupposition that the earth is however many billions of years old, and you read into the data your paradigmatic assumptions and extrapolate from there. Thus, interpretation of “evidence” is dependent upon theory.
It stands to reason then that scientific theories may change when one adopts a new paradigm. In fact the history of science, per Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, points out this very fact. As does Quine, who I mentioned in my previous essay on scientism.5
Quine was “able to demonstrate that we are simply unable to derive science, or confirm any scientific theory or paradigm, from sense-experience. He and Duhem, in what is called the Quine-Duhem Theory of the Underdermination of Data thesis, revealed that our data, sense-experience, and observations can all fit and support multiple conflicting scientific theories or paradigms; that is to say, the available evidence at any given time will be insufficient for determining what theory or beliefs we should adopt. Therefore, the science is indeed underdetermined by the evidence/data.”6
The comparing of scientific studies in order to determine what is “true” is, at the end of the day, useless. In a debate or discussion, anyone with an inkling of philosophical knowledge will recognize that the putting forth of a study must and will ultimately devolve into a question of paradigm analysis and a test of coherency. The important question should now be how coherent is one’s paradigm in justifying and making sense of the world, not how some materialist and atheistic scientist conducts and applies a “study.”
With this revelation, we can now come to understand the reality of scientism as being a corruption of the dogma of empiricism. In the scientific outlook, only one paradigm is allowed in the domain of knowledge, the scientific paradigm. In fact, the scientific paradigm has subsumed all other disciplines into itself, including those of the religious.
This grafting of the theological into the body of scientism is where we get the absurd mythologies propagated by “geniuses” like Einstein and Stephen Hawking. These scientists are not in the domain of directly observable reality, but in that of metaphysics.
It would of perhaps done them better had they had some philosophical training. But alas, only an academic could be so delusional as to believe such fantastical stories.
The Delusion of Scientific and Medical “Rights”
A Christian life is not lived merely on sunday morning when you enter into liturgy, it is holistic — encompassing every area of life at every second. It stands directly opposed to the ultimate lie of modernity, that of flux and change.
When man is consuming, he is inherently thrusted into a situation which necessitates pluralism. Should he buy a flat screen TV to watch his gay sportsball? Should he have Jonas Salk inject him with stem cells from aborted children and watch the life drain from his eyes, or should he slowly poison himself via soylent green consumption?
Either way cancer is bound to spread, so pick your poison oh man of modernity.
You hear all constant platitudes about all manner of “rights” which supposedly men and women possess in our modern culture. The “right” to abortion, the “right” to sodomy, the “right” to religious pluralism and so forth. Anyone, upon debating those who profess the supposed “rights”, learns quickly that the basis for these rights is ultimately grounded in either the personal subjective will, or they are given to us by the state.
Since the state is wholly concerned with the idolatrous theology of scientism, religious pluralism is of course just a mere illusion. It is the task of the tyrant to divorce man from that which grounds man theologically and to indoctrinate him into the religious cult of scientism. And just as was the case with Jim Jones and Keith Reniere, there is to be no apostasy. Reputation destruction is soon to follow in this feminine system.
You have, supposedly, the “right” to make your own healthcare decisions ( killing your kids ), but you do not have the right to choose not to vaccinate yourself or your children. The sacrament of innoculation is the secular “medicine of immortality” in the popular conception — necessary for the transhumanist and alchemical trnasformation of man.
All “rights”, since they are not grounded in a transcendent god, are therefore grounded subjectively in whoever holds the monopoly on power i.e. the medical establishment or the state. Since such grounding is just as arbitrary as anything else in a nominalist, pluralist society, they can be taken away whenever dogma is deemed to be violated.
This view is the logical conclusion of idea of rights as spoken of in the history of philosophy.
The theory of “rights” comes out of the enlightenment and is in reference to the doctrine of “natural rights” as articulated by Rousseau and company. According to them, we can seemingly look at “nature” ( this presupposes all sorts of unjustifiable metaphysical assumptions ) and draw from it all these apparent “rights” concering the dignity of man and so forth. Natural rights theory has been expanded today to encompass everything from the medical “rights” we have discussed above to a further expansion of the moral “rights” first articulated at that time.
Now, whenever someone wants anything, however evil or degenerate, they now claim a “right” to it. And unless we question the presuppositions of modernity and “rights”, why not? The appeal to a right for some things such as pedophilia ( today called Minor Attracted Persons or MAPS ) is just as arbritary and as warranted as the supposed natural “right” to any self-evident dignity.
Since morality is subjective and grounded in the personal will, how is one to make universal claims about whether or not sexually abusing kids is wrong — other then mere personal preference? You may not like something and it may disgust you, but on your paradigm the individual perpetuating that act is happy and content in it, and who are we to judge, right?
They might say in response “do as thou wilt as long as nobody gets hurt.” This is the platitude of the man without conviction. Again presupposing that “harm” is bad and that there is only one type of “harm.” Actions which people think only harm themselves act in reality to harm God and deface his image, such as self-abuse and suicide. They also tend to permeate throughout society and become harmful to the structure of a polity as a whole. They are also ripe to be exploited by social engineers, especially in democratic or libertarian societies, to enslave the people to their passions and easily manipulate them.
To deface himself man is to act as an iconoclast, defacing the good images of God we are created as. And if you deny the reality of God, then you deny the dignity of man, and you are put in the same position either way.
You do not own yourself, as is the enlightenment presupposition, and you do not have only a duty toward your own rational egotism, much to the chagrin of Ayn Rand. These are merely unjustified assertions. While supposedly derived from reason, they are more accurately derived from a world in which reason is philosophically unjustified. Atomized individuals cannot make universal claims about the nature of morality. You are relegated, by your very system, to only your individual choices and opinions. You cannot tell me why I ought to accept the non-agression principle, as that would be, on your paradigm, infringing on my “right” to self determination and ownership.
The neo-Monatanist Charismatics and Pentecostals profess to hold to the secret “private revelation” via the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Scientific man, and so to rationalist man, through his personalism and subjectivism, holds to the secular gifts bestowed upon him by the lie of modernity. His naturalist tendency leads him down such a path.
Looking at “nature” you see predators and prey — hunter and hunted. There is no dignity to be had in the post fall natural relations of the animals. And even if one can manage to muster up an argument in finding some inherent principle of dignity in nature, on what basis are we to imbibe this as humans? Maybe humanity is meant to be in constant animalistic flux, murdering and killing each other without restraint? I mean such was the conclusion of Darwin and the evolutionists. Why ought we do what is “natural”, evolutionists and relativists? The appeal to nature just kicks the can down the curb and leads to more question begging. It is the fallacy of naturalism, the dogma of our age.
We are living in the age of the new man — man unconstrained. He is the “free thinking ape” yet accepts determinism. He is always open to “change” lest it be to any idea that has its roots in history and grounded philosophical morality. His determinant of reality is relegated to fact since he has wholly abandoned truth. He appeals to science and nature for his “rights” out of what is seemingly humility, yet acts as a toddler deprived of his toys when he is told there are boundaries as to what he can do and say — in his world deprived of authority. He will believe anything insofar as it is deemed by the elite as “conducive to progress” — no matter the depravity. His philosophical underpinnings are in fact those of a toddler — as the discipline of atheistic materialism has not progressed past Hume, yet he scoffs with derision at anyone who participates in actual philosophy and theology, as those are things of a “bigoted” age. Voltaire’s dogma of the “dark ages” limits him to only accepting that which is modern. Ever the “open-minded” aspirant, he is always curious to seek out the “new age” or any new faith ( as long as it doesn’t contradict scientism ) because he himself is always in flux — deprived of any true meaning whatsoever. He is willing to accept any religious fad or trend simply because there is nothing in him that has any link to theological foundationalism. There are no real religious convictions within him except those of Michael Aquino.
The rise of humanism saw man as becoming the center of the universe. No longer was divine conceptualism true nor the theology of St. Dionysius nor St. Maximus; reality now is centered around the dictates of man, and is conceived of as being structured around his intellect rather than God’s. This constitute’s the ultimate idolatry, far worse than that Ba’al’s altar or Dagon’s image. Whereas Elijah had mocked Ba’al’s priests on Mount Carmel, so I and others critical of modernity will mock scientism and secular materialism until the day we die.
“The whole idea of progress – that presence is based on the past, that future generations are going to improve our achievements, and that man will be always moving forward – obviously negate the idea of some absolute measure. Everything became relative, just like in Hume’s subjectivism. Man’s current criterion was left for future generations to improve it. After a while, people realized that this is philosophy of continuous change, continuous moving. Then, a soul became upset. It felt there is no peace, there is no safety.”7
—Fr. Seraphim Rose
- Postman, Technopoly, p. 391 ↩︎
- St. Paul, Romans 1:18-24 ( NKJV ) ↩︎
- Bacon, New Atlantis, p. 3 ↩︎
- Sherrard, Modern Science and Dehumanization, p. 8 ↩︎
- Connor From 2ndActuality, Essays Concerning Scientism: Part 2: Scientisms Epistemic Limitations, Dec. 31, 2025 ↩︎
- Ananias, In Whom Do You Put Your Trust? – An Orthodox Analysis of COVID Science, December 25th, 2021 ↩︎
- Fr. Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, p. 34 ↩︎
2ndActuality 
Leave a comment