The Emperor has No Clothes

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?

In the Bible—somewhere—it says that in the End Times there will be a Strong Delusion upon the Earth. Naturally, as I am convinced that I am the antichrist, I am also convinced that we are in the End Times.

Of course, this particular antichrist doesn’t really want to rule the world (at least, not at the time of this writing), and really just wants to write a little, play D & D a little, and give treats to my dog, Cicero. But all that is a side note.

What is the Strong Delusion mentioned in the Bible?

I have said elsewhere that I think the strong delusion of the Bible is science. What other belief system has so thoroughly ensnared the population of the planet that virtually every religion, every society, indeed nearly every person regards science as the final arbiter of truth?

The Catholic Church goes to great pains to reconcile its dogma with scientific “knowledge.” As do the Muslims and pretty much everyone else.

What’s the harm in that? Science actually works. No other belief system has had as much success in manipulating reality to our benefit as science has. It’s great. It’s given us unparalleled power over the natural world. What’s the beef?

My beef, at the time of this writing, is threefold. First, science abuses the term “knowledge,” much to our detriment. Second, it cripples our free agency and the exercise thereof. And third, it has turned upon itself and denied the very existence of truth—and, by extension, morality.

Knowledge and Science

I’ve said it many times and I’ll keep saying it. Science, with the exception of mathematics, doesn’t produce “knowledge” in the purest sense of the word. I kind of think we need to invent another word for science. A word defined to mean “well justified rational belief.” It is stronger than mere opinion, but falls short of true knowledge.

Why do I think it falls short of knowledge? Because knowledge implies the impossibility of being wrong. If there is one thing certain about science, it is that the science is never certain. It is always correcting itself, collecting new data, and refining its theories. The process appears to be never ending. As a result, science is never 100% certain.  

This has ramifications in the political arena, particularly in the matter of free speech. The prevailing scientific theory should never enjoy such privilege that it has the right to persecute dissenters. If, for example, you don’t support the notion of “Climate Change,” you should still be free to argue for your position. Similar stuff can be said of the coronavirus.

Relativism of Knowledge

Although truth is not relative, at least not all the time, there is a certain sense in which knowledge is. The human species, I think, knows nothing. By that I mean that there is no communal consciousness or hive-mind like thing (at least as far as I am aware) called the “human species” that can pull all our “knowledge” out of our collected individual minds.

The “human species” as an object does not exist and therefore is not a living thing that knows, believes, or thinks.

Knowledge is an individual thing, known by an individual mind. And it is also limited by the capacity of said mind.

Generally speaking, a bricklayer will not “know” the same things that a carpenter “knows.” They are each specialists with different specialties. The “knowledge” of bricklaying is “knowledge” relative to the individual bricklayer. It is his possession, not the carpenter’s. And vice versa for the carpenter and carpentry.

This is relativism of knowledge. And it makes sense and I agree with it.

The Problem of Claiming to Know When You Do Not

Most people do this all the time. It used to bother me a lot. Nowadays, I’m more like, “Well, that’s how people are.”

Again, as far as science is concerned in this regard, there is a big problem with free speech. Dissenting opinions are squelched because the Authoritative Voice claims to KNOW. And if they know with certainty, everyone who disagrees is wrong and can be accused of lying and spreading disinformation.

There is also an issue of free agency. If someone claims to “know” something that affects you, and you disagree, but are wrong, does that other person have the right to compel you to cooperate with their “knowledge?” I’m inclined to think no, but that’s a little tricky. However, it is not tricky when the other person is NOT truly dealing with “knowledge.”

If they don’t know with certainty, they should either hear the other side (you) out, or, at least, let you live according to what you think is the truth of the matter.

Generally speaking, if someone doesn’t know with certainty, I have the right to disagree and live my life accordingly.

The Problem of Free Agency

This is something I am as guilty of as everyone else, I think. You go to the doctor for a check-up, and he tells you this and that and then gives you some medication to deal with your issues.

At a certain level, I feel like I am surrendering my free agency here, because the doctor knows so much more about medicine than I do. I take the medication without debate and do what the doctor says.

I am not saying that everyone should argue with their doctors. It is just worth pointing out that the doctor really can’t make your medical decisions for you. The responsibility is yours and yours alone. However, I think more and more people are surrendering their will to the doctor’s expertise.

As a result, I suspect the average human’s decision-making muscles have atrophied. We rely on our scientific experts a bit too much, I think. I know I do.

Basically, I think an unintended consequence of the remarkable success of science is that it has a tendency to turn the bulk of the population into “sheep.” We unquestioningly follow the experts, because we (falsely) believe that they “know.”

The proper role of the scientist is to inform us, and then let us decide. It is not up to them to make all our decisions for us.

The Problem of Truth

I’ve ranted and raved about truth on this blog for a number of years now. I think part of the reason that more and more people are ascribing to the view that “There is no absolute truth” is because they are getting psychological support from certain elements in the scientific community.

And since science holds such a huge sway over our psychology, this maxim is accepted without a fight. And I don’t like that. Of course, I’ve beaten this particular issue to a pulp over the last several years, so I won’t delve too deeply here.

I just want to say my concern is less “absolute truth” and more “moral truth.” Half the time, I (an individual who has studied philosophy and truth) don’t know what people mean by the term “absolute truth,” while at the same time I think many of the people advocating that position are even more clueless on the matter.

For the record, absolute truth is defined as a truth that is self-sufficient and dependent on nothing else. I think (my philosophy brain is a little rusty).

Anyway, all the different shades of truth are being blurred by modern society and I fear that “no absolute truth” will eventually become “no moral truth,” and the same people who developed nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and psychological programming will authoritatively say there is no moral truth. Will the bulk of society believe them?

With the track record science has, they probably will. And I doubt that will end well.

Basically, I think the nature of truth is out of the purview of science. Truth is not green or square. It does not have mass, nor velocity or virtually any other empirical quality that I can think of. Why must it be an empirical object? Why can it not be something else? Something more.

What We Lose When We Lose Truth

When we lose truth (specifically “moral truth”), we lose many things. The Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”), human rights in any form, and the value of the sacrifices of all our heroes past.

World War II was fought for nothing. Slavery was ended for nothing. Governments cannot be held accountable to any standard beyond themselves—there is no “true justice” against which they might find themselves lacking.

I’m sure the list goes on, but I already find the cost too brutal to bear. And I strongly suspect that most people agree with me on that point, even if they don’t admit it. Humanity believes in truth. Science is trying to kill it. And that is something for which I will not stand.

In any event, when sciences reaches this point and denies the existence of truth, it undermines itself (among other things). Science has become the epistemological emperor of the world. And when it comes to truth, the emperor has no clothes.

What You Should NOT Take from this Post

Now that I’ve said all that, I want to clear up a few possible misconceptions about this topic. I am NOT trying to suggest that we just suddenly ignore science. Rather, I think we should just take it with something of a grain of salt. Enough of a grain that we reclaim our right to free agency.

A doctor is supposed to advise you on your medical decisions. He or she is not supposed to make them for you. Even if multiple doctors agree, you still should have to give your informed consent.

That said, I wouldn’t recommend just throwing all your medications away because you read someone’s blogpost and it had a few negative things to say about science. That probably wouldn’t end well.

Lastly, I also want to point out that the point of this post is mostly a moral one. And I am an imperfect sinner. Probably the worst on the planet. Probably responsible for the Apocalypse. And so on. Judge the content of this post on the meaning of the words with which it was written, not on the many failures of the sinner who wrote it.

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?

Regarding Plato

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?

I wrote this a number of months ago, maybe even several years ago, but I never got around to publishing it. So, I’m going to publish it now.

My favorite philosopher is Plato. He’s kind of tied into my antichrist issues in ways I won’t discuss here. My favorite dialogue of his is “The Gorgias.” I was never particularly fond of his most famous work, “The Republic,” and I’ve never read his “The Laws.” I think one of the best descriptions of Plato’s work that I’ve come across is that he wrote foundational documents for both Christianity and Fascism. As an author he advocated non-violence (“Endure the ignominious slap in the face.”) several hundred years before Jesus was born. He also argued that in the “perfect state” a special lottery, supported by a “noble lie”, would dictate who could mate with whom in a society ruled by a Philosopher King. So, you got some good and some bad.

I remember years ago, a Humanities professor I had blamed the Nazis on Plato. I thought that to be particularly unfair at the time (and I still do today) because Plato lived over two millenia before the Nazis came on the scene. I mean, yes, some of the ideas he promulgated would fit within a Nazi worldview, but not all. He was surely arrogant and thought some people (most notably philosophers) were better than other people, but I think the mass slaughter promulgated by the Nazis would have made him balk. I don’t think he’d be fond of killing like that (enter the aforementioned “foundational documents of Christianity”). Regardless, he lived 2400 years before the Nazi’s when they still wrote on scrolls; so, at best he might have had 100 years of recorded history to look back on, while we have a full 2400 or so. And with that vast expanse of years separating the two, I think it is problematic to draw a meaningful causal connection between the two. It’s almost like blaming the destruction of Hiroshima on Euclid or Archimedes.

Anyway, for myself, I was once too smitten with Plato to recognize the full scope of his arrogance, but, regardless, he embraced non-violence long before it was popular. He was just terrible at politics and thought just a little bit too much of himself (as I tend to think of myself). Although, if you live in a democracy and that democracy kills your best friend just because that friend is asking annoying questions, I think you might look for a better system of government, too. Of course, “The Republic” is hardly a “better” system. Like I said, his politics is pretty lame. 

Anyhoo. Those are my thoughts on Plato.

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?