Scientism: A Faith-Based Religion

SCIENTISM

sci·en·tism
/ˈsīənˌtizəm/
noun: scientism

1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
   • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

It used to be that the scientific method required 3 components. Observation, Measurement, and Reproducibility. Apparently, this is no longer the case and instead, what we have today is a new religion, of Scientism. And yes… it is a religion, as it contains all components of one. From the zealots and fanatics who worship at the altars of dogma to the great churches of higher learning where the high priests of acidemia dwell.

Faith is defined as a BELIEF WITHOUT PROOF. Period. And modern-day science has constructed much of its belief system on a foundation of unproven ideas, which they have anointed, blessed and sanctified as official objective knowledge. And who does this sanctifying? Well, it would be the high priests, the tenured professors, and aspiring underlings working their way up through the political hierarchy of the machine.

The big bang theory, evolution, and chemical fusion past iron have never been proven yet they are passed off as fact every day. No scientist has ever observed measured or reproduced a big bang. No scientist has ever observed a zebra manifest from a grasshopper much less reproduced the process, and no scientist has ever witnessed fusion past iron. Yet all of this is taught in public schools and higher education as an objective fact. The doublespeak is both amazing, and terrifying at the same time.

This is the Scientific Method

How does the postmodern secular left get around the scientific method? Apparently, the same way they get around everything else. They simply redefine established vocabulary and embark on radical activism in order to change the collective rules and standards in order to fit their current agenda. The excerpt below is from Sciencebuddies.org and is pretty indicative of the rest of the scientific publications out there.

What is the Scientific Method?

The scientific method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions. Does this mean all scientists follow exactly this process? No. Some areas of science can be more easily tested than others. For example, scientists studying how stars change as they age or how dinosaurs digested their food cannot fast-forward a star’s life by a million years or run medical exams on feeding dinosaurs to test their hypotheses. When direct experimentation is not possible, scientists modify the scientific method. In fact, there are probably as many versions of the scientific method as there are scientists! But even when modified, the goal remains the same: to discover cause and effect relationships by asking questions, carefully gathering and examining the evidence, and seeing if all the available information can be combined in to a logical answer.

Did we just read that scientists don’t actually follow the scientific process AND that this approach passes for accepted scientific method?

” When direct experimentation is not possible, scientists modify the scientific method. In fact, there are probably as many versions of the scientific method as there are scientists! “

So there is no method then? Or, there are as many methods as scientists? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN? I’ll tell you.

It began the day science was weaponized and an institutionalized methodology was adopted as a proxy for moving forward political agendas.

No doubt this originally started when holy men and shamans figured out how to calculate the next eclipse, or perhaps even discovered sulfur and were able to put on a show around the sacred campfire. But the level of sophistication it has reached today facilitated with the scientific toys available to modern-day scientists is simply amazing.

This next excerpt is from a paper published by a physicist from the department of physics and astronomy at Sacramento State. Not only is it a statement based wholly on faith as no one has ever witnessed neither iron at the core of a star or the manufacturing of other elements, but it also simultaneously acknowledges the need for a creative source of energy, something outside of the process at hand, ie a creator.

From https://www.csus.edu/indiv/t/taylorc/SIRC_March22_2011.pdf

Helium and carbon Helium, carbon and oxygen. The highest mass stars can make all elements up to and including iron in their cores. But iron is the heaviest element they can make. Fusion of iron does not create energy, and without an energy supply, the star will soon die.

At the same time, the world of acidemia passes this religion off as “Science,” something objective and beyond reproach when in actuality their belief system is almost completely reliant upon FAITH.

GLOBAL WARMING

Global warming…..I mean climate change…..I mean climate emergency…..I mean man-made climate change…..I mean climate crisis…..I mean global heating. You get the point. This branch of faith-based scientism has been with us for decades now and if you’ve ever attempted to have a rational conversation with one of its devotees you’ll experience the full wrath of faith-based scientific fanaticism.

One needs only to begin questioning the results of agenda-driven fanatical science for objective prove in order to watch their platform fall apart and see them digress to faux moral and emotional arguments.

Flat Earth

There’s been perhaps no greater David and Goliath story in regards to academic bullying as the flat earth debate. What started out as something people scoffed and joked about has turned into a bit of a sticky widget for the scientific community at large. The debate has progressed to the point where mainstream academia has realized they cannot when the debate through their scientific method and of opted to ignore the argument completely and fight the battle through consorted propaganda efforts utilizing the silicon infrastructure and the social media matrix. It’s actually hilarious that they still attempt to utilize shame and ridicule in place of their own scientific method to discredit any challenge to their bastion of fortified ideas.

Just type in “Flat Earth” into Google search and see what comes up. Google algorithms have been tweaked to bring up only anti-flat earth material. They have done their best to redirect the searcher to “official” authorities on the topic. Wikipedia is a great example of the collaborative effort to control the narrative. Just check out their article on “Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat.”

Now, I am not a flat earther, but my opinion is irrelevant in this matter. What is highly relevant however is the fact that mainstream academic science cannot prove the earth is round. All they have is a belief. There are equally as many scientific experiments proving the earth is flat that there are for a globe Earth model. And stranger yet, it’s almost impossible to find a globe Earth model advocate who will enter into a public debate with a Flat Earther. They simply will not do it. They cite the reason that they will not lower themselves to the level.

It’s also interesting to note that the only authorities/witnesses there are testifying to the globe Earth model are either government agencies or government-contracted and managed corporations, it begins to add credence to the flat-earthers. Still, the Globalists will not debate, opting for snide ridicule instead.

I’m inclined to get behind this. It seems as solid as any of the other theories.

The Conspiracy of Academia

Were colleges always a bastion of left-wing/socialist/progressive/communist thought and activism? The answer is NO. Like our government, founded by Freemasons and occultists and designed to be the perfect balance of freedoms and protections, it is been infiltrated and weaponized. Higher education was once a noble institution, free of agenda and radical activism, and actually encouraged debate and free thought. Today’s colleges are little more than are pits of collectivist activism and political correctness oftentimes using violence as a means of coercion. This is straight out of Saul Lewinsky’s communist playbook.

Ironically, both our government and higher education were founded by classical liberals, but as leftists always do, they change definitions to suit their agendas.

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom.

Unfortunately higher education today resembles little of its Greek origins where one would find logic, rhetoric, and debate held above all else. Instead what we’re left with is a shell of an institution that primarily indoctrinates one generation after the other into leftist behavior and ideals.

This is where scientism begins

Like all religious institutions, there is a hierarchy. It would seem that humans are predisposed to recognizing and even creating hierarchies in order to manage their survival. Our institutions are no exception and are simply extensions of this natural ingrained predilection.

• 

• 

Overlay Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the base need for resources for survival as well as acceptance, love, and self-realization, and you have the framework for a tiered system of authority. Now all one needs to do is provide the control mechanism for this machine (Money) and they have a vehicle for creating subtle sustainable change within society. Boom, academia.

College/higher education has been held up as the bar one must reach in order to attain success in our world today. This may have been true 40 years ago, but today colleges function is nothing more than extensions of public education indoctrination and cultural conditioning mechanisms. Of course, they are without a doubt overwhelmingly liberal in their political stances and generally punish conservative thought, especially within the hierarchy.

But take a look at the students.

So within the system of academia itself, we find structured leftism.

College isn’t for everyone, it most certainly wasn’t for me. But when the society standard for success or the potential for success is a college education, and this institution is held up as an authority regardless of its overwhelming bias structure we have a collective overt problem.

Very few seem to question the symbols in academia which have grown into their respective fields of science, law, and medicine. Most people simply take them at face value because they’ve always been there. However, nearly ALL of them are ancient, religious, and occultic in nature.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

This is because science grew out of religious institutions and is fundamentally still a religion.