Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?
This is a long one, so prepare yourself.
For the record, in this post, I am NOT advocating that we ignore science altogether. That would probably be foolish and, in the context of the coronavirus, might get a lot of people killed. What I am pointing out, however, is that many of us seem to be in the process of surrendering all our liberty and decision-making to the scientific team at the White House and the CDC. To me, it looks like things are getting out of control and I don’t want it to get worse. In that light, there are a few things to keep in mind.
First, science doesn’t produce knowledge (except mathematics). I would say it produces well-justified rational belief. Actual knowledge in the sense of certainty is very hard to come by. Yeah, maybe I should just shut up because no one is going to listen to me anyway. Well, not today.
I studied analytical philosophy in college. I remember a comedic story told in one of our classes about Zeno and a lion. Zeno is famous for his four paradoxes of motion, that he claimed proved motion was impossible. One such paradox is as follows: “In order to move from point A to point B, one must first move to the midpoint of AB called point C. Then, in order to move to point B, one must first move to the midpoint of CB called point D. Etc. Etc. It sets up an infinite process such that there is no final point to move to. Hence, one cannot move to point B because there is no last step. It is an infinite process.” Anyway, the story is that Zeno is in town teaching his students and one of his students runs up and says, “Master, master, a lion has entered the village. We have to run away.” Zeno says, “Nonsense. In order for the lion to reach us, he must move halfway here. And then, from there, halfway again. And so on. And so on. The lion will never reach us.” Then, the lion comes racing through the town. The students run away. And Zeno is devoured. That just cracks me up every time I think about that story. It’s silly, but I love it. Anyway, if there is a lesson to be drawn from the story it is that philosophy is a great intellectual exercise to see if we really understand things; but, sometimes, we should be a little cautious before we apply it to everyday life.
With that in mind, I think the framers of the U.S. Constitution had philosophers in mind when they set up the court system and the idea that guilt must be proved beyond a “reasonable” doubt as opposed to a “shadow of a doubt.” Why? Because the shadow of a doubt standard is too rigorous. If one were to argue that Joe couldn’t run Bob over with his car because the car must first travel halfway to Bob, and then halfway again, and so on, and so on, and you accepted that as an argument in a Court of Law, no one would ever be proven guilty of anything. Hence, the term “reasonable.” Science kind of assumes the same standard for knowledge. Or, at least, it did in the beginning. From my limited understanding, there is some weird stuff in some fields of science. Which is fine. But I think it worthwhile to point out that it proceeds from a number of “reasonable” assumptions as opposed to self-evident assumptions (like math); or, to put it another way, its beginnings are established as reasonable instead of beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is no scientific field dealing with knowledge as such, but there is a philosophical one called epistemology.
Is there a point to all this? Well, ya. Enter the notion of “informed consent.” You go to see a doctor and the doctor isn’t the one who decides which treatment you will take. You are. You have to consent to the treatment. The doctor offers his advice on the matter. But you have to decide. Why? Because science is never certain. Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever refused a treatment or gone against a doctor’s wishes, but to date, most of my health issues (except maybe my antichrist stuff) have been minor. Well, according to my cardiologist, I have some heart issues too, but … whatever. Anyway. I may go along with the doctor, relying on his expertise, but I can refuse if I so choose. At least, I think that’s how it was originally envisioned. Nowadays, the science has advanced so far that the doctors almost speak a foreign language and then there are the insurance companies which, I’m inclined to think, make the mistake of thinking that science is as certain as math no matter how many times the scientists change the official opinion on eggs or chocolate or butter or whatever.
Then there is that whole relativism of knowledge thing (as opposed to relativism of truth which is untrue). The scope of science has expanded far beyond the capacity of any single human mind. And it keeps expanding. However, it is important to realize that when push comes to shove “we” know nothing. There is no “we”. Only individuals have knowledge (or well justified rational belief to be consistent). Our collective “knowledge” is recorded in books and what-have-you, but as long as it remains in a book and not in an individual mind this “knowledge” is cold, dead, and inert. It requires an individual mind to be properly called “knowledge.” And different individuals are specialized in different fields. They are in subsets of subsets of subsets of broader disciplines. Which is all fine and good, but one must realize the limits of one’s expertise. The doctors advising the White House know a ton about medicine, health, viruses, and even computer modeling of such. But they probably know about as much about economics as I do (which is very little). And there are real economic concerns arising from shutting things down that are becoming more and more pronounced. Everyone is saying, “We have to follow the science. We have to follow the science.” As if repeating a mantra given from on high. What happened to informed consent? The President, as our representative, is the one who has to consent on our behalf to what the scientists suggest (unfortunately, I think there’s a good chance that the current President and every President following him will wind up being Satan, but that’s another story—yeah, I know you want to stop reading now, but humor me). And the same holds true for our governors and other elected officials. And these elected officials must operate within the confines of the respective Constitutions they supposedly uphold.
What I see happening is kind of like what I do at the doctor’s office, but on a mass scale. Yeah, he’s the doctor; I’ll just do what he suggests. I surrender my decision to the doctor and his “expertise.” I think that is a mistake on my part, but up until now, I’ve been repeating that mistake rather regularly. Now, everybody is following the advice of a small group of doctors who just happen to be the ones tapped by the President. From what I understand, there are some dissenting opinions in the medical community, but they aren’t the ones on TV every day. But their dissent should raise two questions: “If we are going to ‘follow the science,’ which scientists should we listen to?” And, “If the answer to such is unclear, do we not have some right to make our own decisions in this matter?” I would like to add a third question, “Is it even possible to resolve a problem with the same universal solution for 300+ million people in a situation like this? Or even 7 billion people, if you want to go global?”
Related to all this, is the issue of herd immunity. Does the collective have the right to force all individuals to behave (like be vaccinated or practice social distancing or wear masks or whatever) in a certain way for the sake of the collective? From my understanding of herd immunity, it comes into effect when a large percentage of the population (I think it’s like above 83%) gains an immunity to a virus. Because of such, the non-immunized members of the group are protected by the immunized members of the group because the virus can’t establish a very long chain of infection. If someone is infected, they are not circulating among other non-immunized individuals with sufficient regularity for the virus to establish a foothold. At least that’s the theory. I’m inclined to think that individuals should have the right to decline a vaccination as, from my understanding, they are only endangering themselves and others who have also refused that vaccination and accepted that corresponding risk. But that’s vaccination (something we don’t have for the coronavirus yet). I think similar reasoning can be made regarding individuals who don’t wear masks (like the one who was pulled off a bus by force) by their own choice. For myself, I wash my hands a lot anyway, and I have some sanitizer in the car, I’ve wiped down a few doorknobs at my house a couple times, and I carry a mask which I normally don’t use, but can if I think the situation called for it (or if someone requested I do so). Oh, and I’m staying at home most of the time. But I am doing this because it was recommended to me not because it was demanded. It’s called informed consent. And I think it should still apply even in the midst of a pandemic.
Otherwise, we will slide into what I call Scientific Totalitarianism. And I fear we are on our way there. What can we expect? People without masks being dragged off buses. Solitary swimmers arrested for swimming in the ocean (Those two things have actually happened.) If we come up with a vaccine, there will likely be mandatory vaccinations. From there, to get the economy started … can anyone say, the Mark of the Beast? There’s already been talk of requiring an app on your phone that determines if you are immune or not to see if you can participate in the economy. Yes, I know, I, too, find it odd that the antichrist is warning about the Mark of the Beast as he was supposed to be the Beast doing such things. And I do see the logic of such actions, and maybe at one point in time I might have supported such actions, but I no longer believe that to be the proper course. In fact, since I am the antichrist, and if anyone is likely to be damned it would be me, I’ll likely get the Mark of the Beast so I can run around and make purchases for those who can’t because of their religious convictions.
Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?
Doubts and Questions 