From
the well known Occam's razor principle which is to choose the
fewest and simplest possible axioms of faith, beliefs, assumptions,
presuppositions to construct the rational scientific method on the
anvil of falsifiability, to the belief in supernatural as the
unfalsifiable axiom of the immanent psyche that distinguish humans
from non spiritual beings, are all presuppositions that are believed
to be true but cannot always be proven to be true. These axioms can
potentially only be proved to be false (possibly at some future
time).
When
that is the case, that an axiom of faith, a presupposition of truth,
can eventually be shown to be false, it is called falsifiability.
That is the foundation of modern rational epistemology as well as the
scientific method --- necessary presuppositions of convenience which
can eventually be shown to be false (unless proved to be true along
the way when it is no longer considered an axiom but a demonstrable
fact). Why is that? Because certain fundamentals cannot always be
proved to be true even if they may be strongly believed to be true.
For
instance, take the example of geometry that we use in our everyday
life, and have been using for over two thousand years. Its principal
axiom, parallels lines don't meet at infinity, can never be proved to
be true. Because no one can go to infinity and come back to report
that they witnessed or measured that yes indeed parallel lines did
not even meet at infinity. It can, however, be shown to be false
under certain circumstances, such as in relativistic physics, where
space-time becomes curved (distorted) due to gravity effect (as
empirically demonstrated for the General Theory of Relativity during
the total solar eclipse of 1919 when the New York Times headlined the
confirmation that light, normally observed to only travel in straight
lines, can bend: “Lights All Askew In The Heavens – Stars
Not Where They Seemed or Were Calculated to be, but Nobody Need
Worry”). This effect can cause two parallel lines, one effected
by that space-time gravity field, to intersect with the other not
effected by the gravity field at some distant point. Thus, the
fundamental premise under which the parallel lines axiom of Euclidean
geometry works is only when space-time is not under relativistic
effect. But that axiom of Euclidean geometry still cannot be proved
to be false in non relativistic three dimensional space. It is just
assumed to be true without proof and falsifiability, primarily
because it is convenient, accords with daily human experience as well
as commonsense, and helps formulate as well as solve one, two and
three dimensional problems encountered in non relativistic
space-time.
When
something is assumed to be true without evidentiary proof, what
scientists call empirical evidence, it is akin to belief, faith. The
entire Euclidean geometry is based on such an axiom of faith.
In
the same way, in mental life, we hypothesize beliefs that are
immanent and constitute our core beliefs. Some of these, over time,
have been shown to be false, in which case we abandoned them (but not
easily). Such as belief in lightening / thunder, or the lunar / solar
eclipses, or celestial movement of heavenly bodies upon which
Zodiacal astrology is based, or the black cat crossing the path, or
prescriptive mantras, etc., are related to human affairs and have a
major (or minor) impact on its causality (except of course through
the placebo effect which is demonstrated to be true and has become
integral part of the process of modern medical science in what's
called double blind studies). So, these immanent human axioms of
personal faith which in the earlier primitive societies governed not
just individual human behavior, but also societal collective
behavior, have largely been abandoned (with some difficulty for
many), with evidentiary demonstration that these personal and
societal axioms of faith are false and mere superstitions.
But
other personal and societal religious axioms of faith, such as life
after death or Afterlife, the Hereafter, or Heaven and
Hell, or Day of Judgment, or existence of Angels, cannot ever be
proved to be false (nor demonstrated to be true). For no one has
returned from the dead to reliably inform us whether they found these
to be true or false, and whether or not, as their moment of death
approached, they finally witnessed the reality of the long believed
mythical Death Angel who came to extract their soul into
purgatory. And if someone were to return from the dead and if they
did not bring back evidence of what they witnessed with them, how
would anyone ever validate / adjudicate upon that personal
witnessing, testimony? If multiple people reported the same, perhaps
they were all just hallucinating, or perhaps they did indeed meet
with the Death Angel and other artifacts of Afterlife
that has informed the religions of man from time immemorial. How can
anyone else objectively tell the difference however – except,
once again, (a) in either choosing to believe them on the basis of
their shared beliefs alone, or (b) in rejecting that testimony based
on the axiom of materialistic conception of nature that nothing can
exist after bodily death (which is technically defined by modern
medicine as the measurable ceasing of the brain's electrical activity
on the EEG monitor), and thus all such immanent experiences of
returning from the dead can at best only be hallucinations due to the
mind's temporary catatonic state.
Such
axioms of faith that can never be shown to be false, and just
believed to be true, are called unfalsifiable axioms. These axioms
are also the foundational basis of world religions, specifically
those which claim the validity of Divine Revelation. And also those
that claim continuity of human existence in global consciousness ala
Hinduism, and its variants seen in new age religions including
animism (dict: belief in spiritual beings or agencies; the belief
that natural objects, natural phenomena, and the universe itself
possess souls; the belief that natural objects have souls that may
exist apart from their material bodies; the doctrine that the soul is
the principle of life and health) and animatism
(dict: the attribution of consciousness to inanimate objects and
natural phenomena).
But
is Divine Revelation itself an unfalsifiable axiom? That obviously
depends on the definition of Divine, which of course must precede
addressing the question of Divine Revelation, and that subject is
taken up systematically in the next two sections.
How
about the existence of consciousness beyond materialism, and its
derivative beliefs such as reincarnation, or interconnection
to what's termed cosmic consciousness,
animism, animatism? Once again, “proof” is usually
by way of one's own personal belief system and not by way of the
scientific method which obviously cannot be applied directly
to what is not material, what cannot be observed by its instruments,
and what cannot be measured by its instruments. So, making
distinction between say, animatism and Divine Revelation is not
permitted by the zealot materialists who tend to lump all
non-materialist constructs, whether most ridiculous and absurd, or
most profound, into the same “reject” category.
This
is exemplary, even the epitome, of the problem of presupposition –
axiomatic dogmas crippling epistemology. It leads to the dogmatic
denial of that which is even amenable to the scientific method.
The
scientific method can perhaps be applied indirectly for ascertaining
certain non-material but existential phenomenon that is dogmatically
denied by materialist science. For instance, adjudicating on ESP, and
its related effects such as telepathy, for instance, observing that
dogs know when their owners are coming home, homing pigeons uncannily
always know how to return home regardless of how “blinded”
they are made in test experiments, birds in flight always know how to
change their flight paths in sudden turns in perfect sync without
running into each other, identical twins feeling each others feelings
and thoughts, the feeling of being stared at by others and turning
around to often find them looking at you, etc. These empirical
observations of behavior of living beings indicate the presence of
some non-materialistic and hitherto unknown telepathic processes and
mechanisms in play that are not understood by the materialistic
conception of science. I.e., phenomenon demonstrated by living beings
which cannot be proved to be false, and is instead observed to be
true many a time, begging an explanation beyond the denials offered
by the dogmas of orthodox materialist scientists of the Richard
Dawkins variety (the Dawkinsian clan, Dawkinsianism).
Some intriguing scientific experiments have indeed been devised to
demonstrate their existential validity by the rebel extraordinaire,
Cambridge University biologist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (see
http://sheldrake.org/), to beggar all materialistic theories of
nature to date. William Shakespeare had way too presciently captured
the crippling of the dogmatic mind in Hamlet for all times. It is
especially pertinent to our own epoch of knowledge explosion which,
instead of humility, tends to confer unbounded hubris upon the
arrogant mind: “There are more things
in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Based
on the above short introduction, it does not take a great deal of
intelligence to perceive the impact of dogmas on crippling
epistemology when the beliefs or axioms are absurd, rooted in
authority figures as their source of truth, or in immanent
superstitions of mental life. What we believe to be true and what can
be shown to be true are two different matters.
Thus
falsifiability has become the corner stone of modern science. The
axioms of science are deliberately made falsifiable --- as in the
Occam's razor principle --- presuppositions which are
initially assumed to be true but which can eventually either be
demonstrated to be true (in which case they are no longer axioms but
facts) or proved to be false (in which case they are abandoned), or
circumscribed to their applicability limit, as is done in Euclidean
geometry for its axiom of parallel lines which are now confined only
to non relativistic space-time.
Science
dies to reincarnate as religion if, or when, its axioms turn to dogma
and become unquestionable, inscrutable, incontrovertible,
unfalsifiable. There are several examples of this throughout history
down to our own enlightened times: from the earth is the center of
the universe dogma of the Church of antiquity to the latter day
global warming dogma of the world superstate. While the former
was a genuine false belief, the latter is uber Machiavelli driving a
political agenda (see
http://tinyurl.com/Global-Warming-New-Religion).
Under
modern science's materialistic axiom of faith that all existence is
material and death of material is death of existence (non
animism), the non falsifiable axioms of faith of world religions
that are predicated on non materialistic existence, on spiritual
transcendence beyond the body, where the material body is seen only
as a temporal container, have been denigrated and marginalized as
superstitions. All non materialism is treated with equal contempt by
latter day materialist reductionists –– the absurd belief
in a cat crossing the path causing one harm, and belief in God or
Divine Revelation, are treated the same! The latter is often
dismissed by equating it to the former, and deliberately so by the
dogmatic Dawkinsian clan. The same transpires with those who
create absurd theologies as the avant-garde in thought like the
strawman of animatism (dict: the attribution of consciousness
to inanimate objects and natural phenomena), which the Dawkinsian
clan is all too happy to equate with belief in God and Divine
Revelation. That blind-sight of the Dawkinsian clan is not
mere psychological cataract. It is well crafted political theory
which underwrites “Will to Power”.
Some
in this Dawkinsian clan are surely honest exponents of their
own personal Pollyannaish
beliefs as they zealously
herald the way to Secular Humanism as the next stage of human
evolution whereby, human beings, now liberated from the clutches of
superstitious theism which has been the leading cause of all
misanthropy throughout history (as they argue), make their own lofty
declarations of universal human rights and live happily ever after
(see http://tinyurl.com/HGWells-Universal-Human-Rights). These
well-intentioned useful idiots often see scarcity of resources
and terrorism of the pirates as the fundamental problems to be solved
by Secular Humanism and the problem of primacy never occurs to their
indoctrinated minds – indoctrinated no differently in their new
religion than any theist zealot of antiquity (see
http://tinyurl.com/Problem-Primacy-not-Scarcity).
While
others, cunning predators preying on human instincts, are harvesters
of those Pollyannaish
beliefs to diabolically foster their own
political agendas to achieve their one-world empire. This is no
different than how suicide bombers, ardent believers in their own
“divine mission”, are diabolically harvested by their
terrestrial handlers who create, encourage, train and fund them to
pursue their beliefs to the very end for the enticement of heavenly
maidens, while actually serving the geopolitical interests of
policy-makers upstream (see http://tinyurl.com/Superman-Morality).
This
is how “militant Islam” is constructed by the Western
hegemons to serve their own political agenda for their Hegelian
Dialectic of having an endless enemy to wage endless wars against
(see http://tinyurl.com/hijacking-word-islam). This is also how
insurgency is fabricated by the state, both domestically as well as
in far-away places using the discontent of the local peoples, which
often the state is itself the cause of, to justify its own
counter-insurgency operations to achieve its political agendas which
it otherwise could not dignify (see
http://tinyurl.com/insurgency-counterinsurgency)
And
that is the open secret behind promulgating Secular Humanism so
freely by the West today --- where its most zealot exponents often
find themselves pushing against open doors with sanctuary, prizes,
accolades, applause, and career advancement awaiting them to
continually tickle their egos. It is the Trojan horse to subvert
world religions which the powers that be, see as impediment to the
global dystopia they have planned for mankind (see
http://tinyurl.com/Islam-vs-Secular-Humanism
).
The
impact of this axiomatic presupposition of materialistic philosophy
upon which the fundamental beliefs and practices of modern political
theories, modern science, modern medicine, modern theology are all
constructed: what we personally believe, what policies we legislate,
what projects we fund, how we manage our collective well-being
including healthcare, how we make war and peace, etc., is nothing
short of monumental. The consequent of this core materialist belief,
which I call the first-cause axiom of modernity, meaning, it is the
first-cause, the root-head, the foundational presupposition of modern
epistemology that has fashioned the dogmas of modernity, is rapidly
leading to the global scientific technetronic dystopia
encircling all non-primitive civilizations today. The principal
consequences are: (a) secular naturalism
(how we understand the world), (b) secular
humanism (how we understand human life), (c) will
to power (our political theory and the basis of
exceptionalism among the self-proclaimed shepherds of human life),
and (d) social Darwinianism
(our social theory and the basis of herding and culling human sheep
and “useless eaters”). That is the profound reality of
crippled epistemology --- in the hands of the cunning Superman, it
leads to humanity's enslavement.
(a)
Secular Naturalism
This
is the dogmatic philosophy of materialist reductionism. It separates
physics (the how) from metaphysics (the why), and focuses on
discovering the how by reducing all existence into its innate
material and physical components.
It
postulates that all natural existence, and all natural phenomenon,
from galaxies to quarks, anywhere in the universe, is based on, and
governed by, quantifiable and fixed laws of nature which apply
universally to these innate material components, whether or not man
has discovered all of them as yet.
These
laws of nature are universal and apply equally to all material
existence in all frames of references everywhere in the universe,
including to man himself (there is nothing out of band about man's
existence), and including to that which the mind of man or his
instruments can and cannot directly observe or measure but are
necessary to hypothesize to explain existence. Such as: dark-matter,
fields, waves, fundamental particles, singularities, first-cause of
existence such as the big-bang, final-cause of existence such as its
natural end-state which, in the Aristotelian thought, used to be the
metaphysical or teleological “why”, the purpose of
existence, but with the separation of physics from metaphysics in
the seventeenth century, is now substituted with what is the
“end-state” of existence.
When
material existence ceases to exist in its physical form, that entity
which embodied that physical form ceases to exist completely.
Material
existence has no inherent purpose except to exist by the laws of
nature which govern its creation, evolution, functioning, and its
end.
It
is meaningless to ask the “why” of material existence
which is left to philosophy or religion to answer as it has no place
in the laws of nature.
The
empirical methods of science known as the scientific method,
are the best approach to understand that “how” of
physical existence.
The
focus on understanding physical existence is sufficient to explain
all forces of nature and the nature of all existence.
Nature
has no a priori purpose and came about by natural processes that are
governed by natural laws, not all of which may be understood or
known at any given moment.
The
natural laws are “a-moral” and “secular”,
and neither concern themselves to the “why” of
existence, nor to the “values” of existence (such as
moral law), nor to the “purpose” of existence (such as
its goal).
The
philosophy of materialist reductionism denies
all existence that is not physical, not governed by the physical
laws of nature, including transcendental existence, spiritual
existence, and existence outside of its natural materialist
manifestation such as the soul and consciousness.
When
the physical body dies it leaves no soul behind. When the physical
brain dies it leaves no consciousness behind.
In
the materialist philosophy a man dying and a star exploding are
equivalent. They both cease to exist completely after death, apart
from the physical residues they each leave behind, the lifeless
cadaver and debris-radiation fields respectively, which (obviously)
no longer contain the innate characteristic of what existed before
death.
These
presuppositions and corollaries of materialist reductionism therefore
guide the processes of not just the hard sciences, but also all
social sciences as well as theology and philosophy, and limit the
understanding of existence to the ambit of these presuppositions. To
what extent these presuppositions have become dogmas that serve
narrow self-interests and political agendas is demonstrated by
empiricism. Pursuit of science today is a-moral, its understanding of
existence solely materialistic and physical, its mega-funding mainly
for primacy and profit imperatives, and its advancements the
harbinger of dystopia and seeds of self-destruction. The
presupposition of the nature of man being fundamentally a material
construct with no spiritual component --- that latter notion being
the gratuitous appendage of how societies evolved from its primitive
state when such superstitions among all peoples of the ancient world,
were necessary to explain not just natural phenomenon, but also to
give meaning to life and rationalize away the many inequities
besetting man from time immemorial, all of which have now been
supplanted by the wisdom of science and the Will to Power --- is the
harbinger of hedonism, sense of emptiness, despair, loneliness,
isolation, purposelessness. It has led to large prison populations on
the one hand, and rising psychological discontents in the general
populations on the other. This manifests itself empirically in:
a)
rising behavioral dysfunction (such as loss of public empathy,
as witnessed in the wild cheering among Americans when watching the
slaughter of the untermensch on their television screens;
easy acceptance of inhuman treatment and torture of prisoners as a
necessary evil, as witnessed in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq's
prisons under American occupation; easy acceptance of the paradigm
of guilty unless proven innocent, as witnessed in the Patriot
Acts and police-state deployed worldwide; increasing anger and
violence; etc.);
b)
rising social dysfunction (such as living in servitude under
authority figures as mark of high civilization; increase in
dysfunctional families, alienation, social violence, global wealth
disparity, unpardonable impoverishment worldwide; lifestyles that
encourage self-absorption for the haves while countenancing patience
for have-nots whose “death rates must go up”
(McNamara, 1970) to curb world population explosion; creation of
eugenics international policies (suitably disguised), such as that
witnessed in NSSM 200 (Kissinger, 1974) that envisioned food as a
weapon to curb global birth rates in least developed nations before
it became a threat to the affluent West's national security: “Is
the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who
can't/won't control their population growth?”; sky
rocketing crime rates in industrialized societies, as witnessed in
the West which has some of the highest concentration of prison
inmates anywhere in the world, especially in the United States of
America which has become the prison capital of the world;
recruitment for soldiery among dysfunctional populations, plentiful
harvests of economic conscription, both of
which lead to war crimes against humanity during field deployment,
and PTSD when soldiers return home to feelings of intense isolation,
unable to relate to their families, unable to reintegrate, and
suffering mental anguish for the inhuman butchery they have
committed and witnessed; etc.);
and
c) rising mental psychoses (such as mental illnesses going
through the roof, as seen in increasing big-pharma profits for
psychotropic drugs; the inability to appreciate beauty of a lovely
sunrise and sunset; etc.); all heralding new discontents in the
materialist civilizations.
Cambridge
University British biologist Rupert Sheldrake in his iconoclastic
book and public talks on this subject variously titled: The
Science Delusion – Dispelling the The Ten Dogmas of Materialism
and Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry, observes of the present state
of the materialist axiom of science: “Despite
all the achievements of science and technology, materialism is now
facing a credibility crunch that was unimaginable in the twentieth
century.” “Materialism provided a seemingly simple,
straightforward worldview in the late nineteenth century, but
twenty-first-century science has left it behind. Its promises have
not been fulfilled, and its promissory notes have been devalued by
hyperinflation.” The book identifies the
following ten dogmas of materialism which have straight-jacketed
science, understanding of both the nature of man and the world around
him, and which limit its advancement due to the almost church-like
orthodoxy that controls the scientific outlook (what's funded, what's
published, what's followed-up):
Dogma
1 is the assumption that nature is mechanical, or machine-like, that
everything in nature is like a machine. Animals are like machines,
plants are like machines and we’re like machines, lumbering
robot in Richard Dawkins’ vivid phrase our brains are like
genetically programmed computers. So that’s the first
assumption, being in science since the 17th century.
Dogma
2 is the assumption that matter is unconscious. The whole universe
is made of unconscious matter, all of nature is made of unconscious
matter, our bodies are made of unconscious matter, but for some
peculiar reason our brains become conscious and that is one of the
big problems in materialist science. Consciousness ought not to
exist at all.
Dogma
3 is the assumption that the laws of nature are fixed, they are the
same at the moment of the big bang as they are today and they will
be the same forever. (And so they’re constants and that is why
they are called constant, things like the speed of light and
gravitation are constant.)
Dogma
4 is the assumption that the total amount of matter and energy is
always the same, it all came into being at the big bang, it’s
been the same ever since and it will be the same forever.
Dogma
5 is the assumption that nature is purposeless. There are no
purposes in animals or plants or in life as a whole. And the entire
evolutionary process has no purpose; it’s just come about by
blind chance in the laws of nature.
Dogma
6 is the assumption that biological inheritance is material, it’s
all genetic or epigenetic or possibly inside the epigenetic
inheritance, but in any case material.
Dogma
7 is the assumption that memories are stored as material traces
inside the brain. All your memories are inside your head in some
way, stored in nerve endings or phosphor related proteins or no one
knows quite how, but the assumption is they are all in the brain.
Dogma
8 is the assumption that your mind is inside your head, it’s
an aspect of the activity of the brain.
Dogma
9 is the assumption that psychic phenomena like telepathy are
illusory, they appear to exist, but they are not real. That’s
because the mind is inside the head and can’t have any effects
at a distance.
Dogma
10 is the assumption that mechanistic medicine is the only kind that
really works. Alternative and complementary therapies may appear to
work, but that’s only because people have got better anyway or
it’s the placebo effect. And that’s why governments and
medical research funding and so on funds only mechanistic medicine
based upon the principle of ‘the body is a machine’,
working on chemistry and physics, so it can only be treated
chemically or physically by drugs or surgery. And of course that is
very effective up to a point, but it’s just part of medicine,
anyway that’s the assumption. (From transcript of one of
Sheldrake's talks)
Rupert
Sheldrake writes in the Introduction of The Science Delusion:
“Together,
these beliefs make up the philosophy or ideology of materialism,
whose central assumption is that everything is essentially material
or physical, even minds. This belief-system became dominant within
science in the late nineteenth century, and is now taken for granted.
Many scientists are unaware that materialism
is an assumption: they simply think of it as science, or the
scientific view of reality, or the scientific worldview.
They are not actually taught about it, or given a chance to discuss
it. They absorb it by a kind of intellectual osmosis. In everyday
usage, materialism refers to a way of life. In the spirit of radical
scepticism, I turn each of these ten doctrines into a question.
Entirely new vistas open up when a widely
accepted assumption is taken as the beginning of an enquiry, rather
than as an unquestionable truth. For example, the
assumption that nature is machine-like or mechanical becomes a
question: ‘Is nature mechanical?’ The assumption that
matter is unconscious becomes ‘Is matter unconscious?’
And so on.” --- (see http://sheldrake.org/)
The
hard reality of the forces behind the mechanistic medicine of Dogma
10, is the total domination of big-pharma in medicine and healthcare
industries worldwide. The total orthodoxy of big-pharma's medicine,
regulated by the American Drug Trust and owned by the Money
Trust, has taken over the world of healthcare to only permit
those treatments, fund those research and developments, and pay for
those healthcare modalities, from which big-pharma can make big
profits (see Medical Monopoly in Eustace Mullins' Murder by
Injection, 1988). This medical orthodoxy denies the efficacy of
natural medicine and refuses to fund the discovery and development of
natural remedies that nature has provided for a song – for
there is no profit in it. This medical orthodoxy has taken upon
itself to dictate to mankind how they shall heal themselves, and in
the process, has become integral part of the military-industrial
complex of the Western primacy system to rigidly control mankind.
Virtually every discipline of medicine, and virtually every approved
treatment of every disease, is based on the dogmas prevalent in that
area. And these dogmas limit the treatment options available to the
patients in the mainstream of medicine. Heart disease, diabetes,
cancer treatment, psychiatry are all driven by dogmas both of
big-pharma and the consequence of secular naturalism under which the
practitioners of medicine are trained, licensed and regulated (see
http://tinyurl.com/Truth-Modern-Medicine).
Arguably,
the field most ripe with dogmas is psychiatry. In his 1973 paper
published in Science: On Being Sane in Insane Places, Dr.
David L. Rosenhan of Stanford University, inquired into the
foundational question of psychiatry in his empirical study of
American psychiatric hospitals: If sanity
and insanity exist, how shall we know them? (see
http://bonkersinstitute.org/rosenhan.html) And concluded that
psychiatry is rife with dogmas and presuppositions that beggar
objective diagnosis: “It is clear
that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric
hospitals. The hospital itself imposes a special
environment in which the meaning of behavior can easily be
misunderstood. The consequences to patients hospitalized in such an
environment -- the powerlessness, depersonalization, segregation,
mortification, and self-labeling -- seem undoubtedly
counter-therapeutic.”
Today,
psychiatry is completely taken over by the neuroscience of managing
brain biochemistry with designer psychotropic drugs for virtually
every behavioral / psychiatric diagnosis. New mental illnesses are
continually defined in the manual of psychiatry called DSM, for which
big-pharma continues to design new high margin psychotropic drugs,
and which medical professionals continue to prescribe to their
patients who are rapidly descending into younger and younger age
groups.
Cardiovascular
disease has been so taken over by big-pharma for-profit dogma that it
must be mentioned here. Coronary Artery Disease, or CAD, directly
related to modern food and lifestyle, is the leading heart disease in
the world today. Its first-line treatment is to immediately insert
stents to open up clogged arteries during the diagnostic process
itself, called PCI, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. The moment
someone experiences chest pain or angina, and taken to the hospital,
Cath-Lab is the first stop right after the emergency room has
stabilized the patient. And invariably high profit margin heart
stents are inserted with PCI under dubious (exaggerated) information
given to the patients of the efficacy of the procedure. The New York
Times reported: “Every year, more than half a million
Americans undergo procedures to have a narrowed coronary artery
propped open with a small metal mesh tube, or stent. In an emergency,
when someone is having a heart attack, the operation can be
lifesaving. But far too often, studies show, stents continue to be
implanted in patients who stand to gain little if any benefit. Last
month, two of the country’s largest medical organizations
identified the procedure commonly used to place a stent —
called a percutaneous coronary intervention, or angioplasty —
as one of five highly overused medical interventions.”
(http://tinyurl.com/NYT-stents-overused-15Aug2013 ).
Cardiovascular
surgeon Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., MD, of Cleveland Clinic Wellness
Institute, challenged the practice by comparing the present CAD
therapies to the dogmas of the nineteenth century: Is
the Present Therapy for Coronary Artery Disease the Radical
Mastectomy of the Twenty-First Century? (see
http://dresselstyn.com/Esselstyn_Caldwell_Article.pdf) Esselstyn
began his challenge with the understatement: “To
fully grasp how so many smart, right-minded people could get it so
wrong, it might help to start with a quick review of medical
history.” And he put his finger on the principal
dogma reigning not just in his discipline, but in several other
medical disciplines as well: “For the minority of heart
patients, specifically those in the midst of heart attacks or acute
coronary syndromes, stents or coronary artery bypass may be
lifesaving. For the rest, none of the present therapies targets the
cause: the Western diet. As a consequence,
the disease marches on in all patients, which leads to more drugs,
stents, and bypasses, increasing heart damage, heart failure, and,
too often, death, from an essentially benign, food-borne illness.”
Iconoclast Esselstyn has persisted in challenging the medical dogma
prevalent in CAD therapy by presenting original research and
scientific data collected over years of
following patients that CAD is in fact reversible by nutritional
intervention with plant based diet (see: A Way to reverse CAD?
http://dresselstyn.com/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf ).
The
dogmas of modern medicine are not merely theological, but designed to
make permanent paying customers for big-pharma as part of the modern
medical profession. They deliberately limit treatment options for the
public by crippling the epistemology under which the medical
profession and healthcare providers are trained, function, and offer
treatment plans / knowledge to the public.
Is
it trivial to undo big-pharma's full spectrum control of medicine and
healtcare, to introduce laws to permit natural medicine to co-exist,
to fund its research, to modify medical school training curriculum to
incorporate its wisdom? To the naïve mind, it appears as simple
to initiate as the stroke of a pen!
(b)
Secular Humanism
Secular
Humanism is the outgrowth of the presuppositions of Secular
naturalism and deals with the sources of legal and moral codes that
govern and direct human beings. This source is exclusively the mind
of man, and not some supernatural, transcendental, spiritual or
divine source. In the laws of nature there is no such construct as
moral law, legal law, or value system, except that which naturally
falls out from evolutionary sociobiology
of Darwinianism, called social Darwinianism. The
first-cause of human existence on earth, like all life on earth, is
chance or accident. And social Darwinianism is the only
natural behavior as seen in the jungle, and arguably the only natural
“value system” if one may call it that, which may be
attributed to the laws of nature. Morality is but a subjective value
system and all spiritual questions of the “why” of
existence are immanent, i.e., philosophical, in the mind of man,
entirely abstract, and not part of the laws of nature that govern the
physical world. Naturalists therefore treat moral, legal, and
philosophical questions that regulate both human behavior and human
destiny (i.e., final-cause), as mere utilitarian conventions created
by political thinkers and philosophers for inducing social harmony
and regulating human behavior.
Secular
Humanism is the benign or Pollyannaish version sold by the Übermensch
(Nietzschean Superman) to the gullible public to create useful
idiots championing its cause. The reality however is what
Nietzsche termed “der Wille zur Macht” (the Will to
Power). In his final philosophical work published posthumously, Thus
Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche proclaimed: “God is dead.”
And he presented the path to man's accelerated social (and
biological) evolution through his “Will to Power”. Here
we first look at the Pollyannaish version of Secular Humanism and
take up the reality version next. The Pollyannaish version of Secular
Humanism was described by this author in his 2011 study of hegemony
and multiculturalism titled: Islam and Knowledge vs.
Socialization.
Begin
Excerpt
The
following Biblical Commandment from antiquity was, and still is, at
least in my view, both complete and sufficient for governing the
peaceable, equitable, and virtuous conduct of mankind:
|
“Do
unto Others as you have others do unto you.” ---
The Bible: Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31; Old Testament Mosaic Law;
Socrates; Confucius; Solon
|
So,
why does mankind need anything more than that one primary fundamental
Biblical statement? Indeed, one can easily surmise that all
beneficial national constitutions, international and local laws,
trade treaties, foreign policies, inter and intra governing
principles, and even effective principles for dispute resolutions,
are logically derivable from just that one ancient first principle,
for a fairly equitable co-existence of mutual benefit for all
mankind. There'd be no room for masters and slaves under the
corollaries derived from such an egalitarian first principle!
While
that universal pithy wisdom is deemed Biblical, I have found evidence
of its truism in other antiquity as cited above. For instance, Solon
the Athenian law giver, according to Plutarch's Lives, when
asked which city he thought was well-governed, said:
|
“That
city where those who have not been injured take up the cause of
one who has, and prosecute the case as earnestly as if the wrong
had been done to themselves.”
--- Solon in Plutarch's Lives
|
Even
beyond divine religion, in the realm of logic and rational empiricism
alone, the following operations-research (OR) logical formulation due
to Bertrand Russell, a man of considerable beliefs in no religion, is
the most commonsensical recipe of governing peaceable human conduct.
In my own succinct rendition, Bertrand Russell's formulation goes
something like this (and I am putting it in single quotes to indicate
that the formulation belongs to Russell but the words may not all be
his):
|
'Maximize
individual happiness while minimizing social conflict for
optimizing the overall common-good.' --- Bertrand
Russell's prescription to do away with religion as the bearer of
moral law, probably in 'Why I am not a Christian' and
similar writings
|
With
just a little bit of reflection, one will see that Bertrand Russell
captures the beneficial essence of many religions, including Islam,
in at least so far as “haquq-al-ibad”, i.e., the rights
of man upon man, otherwise known as moral law, are concerned, quite
admirably.
By
just using rational empathetic logic which hinges on spreading virtue
rather than glory, vice, hegemony, and conquest, one can come up with
reasonably equitable methods of governing oneself in any age, and
among any peoples.
However,
the Author of the Holy Qur'an advocating the path of mutual
co-existence to mankind through the perfection of its message which
it called “Islam”, is just as meaningless as man coming
up with his own protocol for mutual co-existence using his own
sensible logic and reason, if man is unwilling, or unable, to
implement the protocol:
|
“This
day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour
upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.”
--- Verse fragment from Holy
Qur'an 5:3, 632 AD
|
|
“Hegemony
is as old as mankind.” --- Zbigniew
Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy and Its
Geostrategic Imperatives, 1996 AD, pg. 3. The book's
dedication reads: “For my students—to help them
shape tomorrow's world”
|
Thus,
if nihilist followers of Zbigniew Brzezinski's predatory foreign
policies which predicate upon primacy and its geostrategic
imperatives because they believe that “Hegemony is as old as
mankind” so why change it, choose sociopathic mass
psychology to mobilize the public to villainy and infamy by
bequeathing to them only facile worldviews, well, that's not because
there is any shortage of great platitudinous recipes in either the
divine books of antiquity, or the modern mind of reason as the
Deistic philosophers of eighteenth century enlightenment argued (of
which Bertrand Russell was the atheist legatee).
That
choice, of exercising villainous hegemony, or equity and benevolence,
upon the 'untermenschen' is entirely man's of course. The Author of
the Holy Qur'an itself asserts that such a choice between life's
governing principles is entirely up to mankind in all its diversity
of existence, and is neither a monolithic diktat of triumphalism, nor
a choiceless matter like being born to one's parents:
|
“There
is no compulsion in religion.” --- Holy Qur’an
2:256
|
|
“There
surely came over man a period of time when he was a thing not
worth mentioning.” --- Holy Qur’an 76:1
|
|
“Surely
We have created man from a small life-germ uniting (itself): We
mean to try him, so We have made him hearing, seeing.” ---
Holy Qur’an 76:2
|
|
“Surely
We have shown him the way: he may be thankful or unthankful.”
--- Holy Qur’an 76:3
|
The
overarching point being, at the risk of being repetitious, whatever
the religion, whatever the people, and whatever the culture and
geography, man naturally gravitates firstly towards one's own kith
and kin, and secondly towards one's own socialization which
principally gives birth to one's dominant worldview. It is all but a
truism that just as one man's terrorist is another man's freedom
fighter, one man's “messiah” is another man's lunatic.
Referring
back to Zbigniew Brzezinski's ode to hegemony quoted at the very
beginning, the method of circumventing domestic impediments to the
“sustained exercise abroad
of genuinely imperial power”
become empirically self-evident:
|
“Moreover,
as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may
find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy
issues, except in the circumstance of a
truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.
[Because] the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands
popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or
challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being.”
--- Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, pgs. 211, 44
|
Sociopathy
of hegemony is the real problem. A problem that is as old as
hegemony, as old as mankind.
It thrives on the facile mind. Consequently, the sociopaths who often
rise to power easily, ensure that the public mind stays facile.
Making the public mind is the first art of governance from caliphate
to democracy --- for unlike a dictatorship, ruled at the point of the
bayonet, caliphate to democracy depend on a measure of consent from
the governed. Unless that governance is changed first, until the non
sociopaths in society force their way into ruling power to devalue
the villainy of the facile mind, all Divine Books will be
constricted, “mahjoor” (Holy Qur’an 25:30), and the
public mind shall forever remain chained to its unturning neck in
Plato's Cave.
End
Excerpt
The
reality is that primacy is a stronger categorical imperative of the
sociopathic elites in society than morality which occupies
theologians and hoi polloi. Learned people consistently fail
to understand this as they variously sublimate the problems of
modernity onto theology, religion, overpopulation, resource scarcity,
environmental pollution, etc., without realizing that each of those
“problems” are Machiavellianly amplified in the narrative
space, and concomitantly harvested to drive a predetermined agenda
which has nothing to do with the problem itself. For empirical
examples of primacy pretexts that cunningly scapegoat and harvest
religion, see Islam and Knowledge vs. Socialization (
http://tinyurl.com/Islam-Socialization ); that harvest environmental
problems, see Global Warming / Climate Change - What's it all
About? ( http://tinyurl.com/Global-Warming-A-New-Religion ). The
fact that this is openly admitted by the mainstream press that Global
Governance is piece-meal enabled by these pretexts (which they call
“crises”) which will naturally culminate in one-world
government, see Response to Financial Times Gideon Rachman's 'And
now for a world government' (
http://tinyurl.com/And-now-for-a-world-government ).
Primacy
is the first order dilemma plaguing mankind. It cannot be cured with
more laws, or morality transposition, be these from theism, atheism,
or secular humanism. Because primacy fundamentally sees itself as
amoral; beyond the bounds of the calculus of morality. And this
logically follows from the natural Darwinian order, the laws of
nature, the survival of the fittest. Primacy has in the past, and
will in the future, continue to act upon its own categorical
imperatives, while concerned citizens, too naïve to understand
primacy, look hither and thither. A recent example of this
misdirection is in the Documentary Thrive, for which this
scribe penned his vexed vivisection: The Road to No Where: The
Journey of Voluntary Servitude (see
http://tinyurl.com/Primacy-The-Road-to-No-Where ).
The
first-cause problem for civilizations, from time immemorial, is
primacy of their elite; their drive for a homogenized mono-culture in
a one-world empire in our own modernity, only temporarily disguised
from the masses under their respective flags. Not the lack of moral
codes --- for what can be better than the Golden Rule FOR EVERYONE
(unlike the American Constitution and its famous Bill of Rights which
apportioned inalienable rights only to those whom the founders
considered full human beings of “equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them”, negroes and natives were not included in
that august category); nor the misguided question of world religions.
A man's religion, a society's preference for its own beliefs, their
maddening inertia for reformation, at least in the twenty-first
century, ought to be their own business and determined by their own
needs and values. But as in the colonial era, this is taken up by the
secular humanists as their new white man's burden. It is
permitted to thrive under the empire's many tools of primacy. To put
down world religions in the name of freedom of speech, is to push on
an open door by the useful idiots as far as the empire is
concerned --- for they are accomplishing its task for a song; for a
mild applause, prizes, career advancement. For the house nigger
mentality, it is gratifying just to bring his massa's message
to his own people as “he changes
from the representative of the Negro to the white man into the white
man’s representative to the Negro. The tragedy is that too
often he does not recognize what has happened to him.”
(see http://tinyurl.com/faq-intellectual-negro ).
(c)
Will to power
Nietzsche's
philosophy and its impact on society is described in this scribe's
essay: Morality derived from the Intellect leads to Enslavement!
(see http://tinyurl.com/Superman-Morality).
(d)
Social Darwinianism
This
is the final-cause (end state) of Secular Humanism – When led
by its ablest Nietzschean Superman, the creation of dystopia,
the rule by force of the elite and the endowed, the culling of
“useless eaters”, the survival of the fittest, the
genetic design of masses in some scientific caste / functional
hierarchy in an highly organized and controlled society. And theism,
all world religions, are impediments to Social Darwinianism. This is
analyzed in this scribe's open letter to Muslims: Islam vs.
Secular Humanism and World Government (see
http://tinyurl.com/Islam-vs-Secular-Humanism).
As
the direct consequence of the dogma of Secular Naturalism and
Nietzschean philosophy of “God is dead”, since there is
no absolute moral law any longer, and man's existence is only by
chance or by accident like any other life form, therefore, the
fundamental concept of equality among mankind is specious.
Equality
no more exists in nature than it does in the jungle. Is wolf equal to
sheep? Why should it apply universally to man – there is
nothing unique about him except for his intelligence. And that is to
be prized, alongside power and might, and including those with
special talents and abilities and skills that enrich human life, and
of course including cunning and sophistication, all of which
determine the survival of the species under the natural law of the
jungle, and so it should under the social Darwinian jungle. Thus,
some are more equal than others based largely on their power and
utility to society. This is expressed from time immemorial in all us
vs. them separations, from tribalism to ethnocentrism, sectarianism
to religionism, racism to culturalism, and nationalism to patriotism.
None in these collectives think the others are deserving of the same
rights and privileges, and at their worst moments, during warfare,
are inspired by intense hatred and demonization of the other. During
peace respites, the other is merely tolerated, either because of
their numbers, utility, or power. Today, by human rights conventions
on fancy parchments that are only enforced as long as self-interests
require that humanitarian facade. All over the world in the
twenty-first century, the lesser peoples are bearing the full brunt
of this principal axiom of social Darwinianism.
There
is no room for altruism except as a public relations scam. There is
no room for selflessness except to get simpletons and useful idiots
to sacrifice themselves for those with greater cunning. Noble lies
govern the behavior of Übermensch to manipulate the public mind
in pursuit of their higher goals. Those unable to meet the demands of
society, the “useless eaters”, must be weeded out, their
breeding curtailed, their populations managed like game on
reservation, and the most hardworking among them put to work in the
service of the elites with crumbs thrown at their feet to keep them
motivated even working harder and longer --- until they fall dead
from exhaustion.
Without
perceptive understanding of all that which is examined above, and
making the observation that what is going on under the very nose of
the public with increasing ubiquity, is not too far from what is
captured in those passages, the crippled epistemology that the public
mind is continually indoctrinated into, regardless of which
socioeconomic class it belongs to, leads it to willingly accept the
prevalent dogmas under one pretext or another.
The
more educated the mind, it is observed, the more years of academic
schooling it has gone through, and the more invested it is in its own
successes, the more likely it is to live under crippled epistemology
without even thinking of questioning it. The public mind, immersed in
dogmas from birth, becomes so accustomed to that tortuous state of
existence – the state of learned helplessness as
psychologists prefer to call it, a state that no rational mind really
ought to accept – that it comes to easily accept its servitude
to ruling dogmas with as much thought to rebelling as the sheep does
against the habit of mutton eating. Crippled epistemology completely
determines its attitude and behavior just like the sheepdog and the
shepherd's whistle do for the sheep.
The
following empirical behavior is described in this scribe's analysis
of current affairs titled: Imperial Surrogates and 'Terror
Central' in Operation Gladio Redux.
It belies all the tall claims of Pollyannaish pied pipers of all
flavors who are as much victims of their own dogmatic presuppositions
as the public minds they wish to lead.
Begin
Excerpt
George
Bernard Shaw, the most insightful playwright that tiny Anglo-Saxon
island of worldwide usurpation has ever produced, perceptively
observed of its weight in the Preface of his 1921 book of plays, Back
To Methuselah:
“[The]
hard fact being that we must not teach political science or
citizenship at school. The schoolmaster who
attempted it would soon find himself penniless in the streets without
pupils, if not in the dock pleading to a pompously worded indictment
for sedition against the exploiters. Our schools teach the morality
of feudalism corrupted by commercialism, and hold up the military
conqueror, the robber baron, and the profiteer, as models of the
illustrious and the successful. In vain do the prophets who see
through this imposture preach and teach a better gospel: the
individuals whom they convert are doomed to pass away in a few years;
and the new generations are dragged back in the schools to the
morality of the fifteenth century, and think themselves Liberal when
they are defending the ideas of Henry VII, and gentlemanly when they
are opposing to them the ideas of Richard III. Thus
the educated man is a greater nuisance than the uneducated one:
indeed it is the inefficiency and sham of the educational side of our
schools (to which, except under compulsion, children would not be
sent by their parents at all if they did not act as prisons in which
the immature are kept from worrying the mature) that save us from
being dashed on the rocks of false doctrine instead of drifting down
the midstream of mere ignorance. There is no way out through the
schoolmaster.”
In
our own 21st century too, as in the century of George
Bernard Shaw, our well-intentioned men and women of science, arts and
letters, the lauded savants, domain experts and Nobel
laureates, all having advanced university degrees with “learned”
and “expert” prominently stamped upon their forehead,
display barely a nodding acquaintance with the subject of political
science; and mostly only with its name. The few who do inevitably go
to work for the Superman
of empire. Their only god has always been power, and Mephistopheles,
not truth, not compassion, and not concern
for the lesser humanity despite oft rehearsed public relations
in “humanist” terms. These
are the vulgar propagandists, the pied pipers whom the rest of the
super-educated useful idiots
of modernity, the well-intentioned “likkha-parrha jahils”,
hold sacred as if it was all revealed in the Sinai. Siding with the
tales of the emperor is also always “legal” and mostly
safe (so long as the emperor remains in power of course), often
bringing with it the unbridled
opportunities to profit, open doors, entry visas, social standing,
the privilege to flatter one's ego, and the gratification to carry
the white man's burden.
All of which easily blur any remaining distinction between
ideological mercenaries, and mere pimps and
prostitutes, useful idiots, and Uncle Toms.
Once the false narratives are uttered, it comes to make not even two
straws worth of difference who is a propagandist
by malevolent creed, who by opportunism, who by ignorance, and who by
psychological dispensation.
All
these brilliant savants of modernity, both man and Superman,
the perennial breed in every society who hold the pens, lead its
rocket science, and make its public's mind, have been educated to the
point that adding two plus two correctly is their most dreaded pons
asinorum, taxing both their mind
and their consciences so feverishly that it is never to be crossed
publicly.
George
Bernard Shaw couldn't have spoken a more truer half-sentence in his
entire half-century of most perceptive and progressive writings than
this one: “Thus the educated
man is a greater nuisance than the uneducated one: indeed it is the
inefficiency and sham of the educational side of our schools ... that
save us from being dashed on the rocks of false doctrine instead of
drifting down the midstream of mere ignorance.”
The
remaining half-sentence this sanguine bedrock of moral sanity left
unstated, perhaps only due to some polite consideration for the
British empire then on the wane, and not due to being victim of the
schoolmasters he lamented: the description of the empirical Superman
who already exists. That brilliant Social Darwinian among the
Neo-Darwinians, infested with extreme predatory instincts and extreme
pathological evil, who replaced God after Nietzsche killed Him in the
name of giving birth to the immanent Superman
of the future! Instead, Shaw, just as immoderately as the
Neo-Darwinians, misattributed the mayhem that he was witnessing in
the aftermath of World War I: “At
the present moment one half of Europe, having knocked the other half
down, is trying to kick it to death, and may succeed: a procedure
which is, logically, sound Neo-Darwinism.”
to the rule of the infirm: “Government
and exploitation become synonymous under such circumstances; and the
world is finally ruled by the childish, the brigands, and the
blackguards.”
(Ibid.) That is perhaps only three-quarters truth, or half-truth, and
not the whole truth.
The
world was then, as it is today, from behind the scenes of the idiocy
of political governments, ruled firmly by the rational and calculated
primacy instincts of the most brilliant Superman who continually
divine wars, and World Wars, now we are up to World War IV, as the
means of crisis creation to piece-meal remake World Order in their
own image.
In
fact, the educated man controlling the narrative as the avant-garde
in intellectual thought, not only remains a greater nuisance than the
uneducated one, he also becomes the vile propagandist by adopting
silence about truth that is to be protected from the masses. The
British novelist and essayist Aldous Huxley most insightfully
understood this about distortions fashioned by omissions and its
practical utility in influencing public
behavior. Huxley observed in the Preface of his 1931 book of fable,
Brave New World, which depicted a eugenist
dystopia controlled by ubermensch forces from behind the
scenes that the rest of society remained unaware of:
'The
greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing
something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still
greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By
simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what
Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses
and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as
undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have
influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by
the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical
rebuttals.'
In
a talk given to the students at the University of California,
Berkeley, on the thirtieth anniversary of the publication of the
Brave New World, Aldous
Huxley observed of the very real and empirical role of these
behind the scenes forces depicted in his fable, in channeling
the public mind that is already most carefully primed by Shaw's
schoolmaster for celebrating ignorance, into complete voluntary
surrender to the Superman:
'You
can do everything with bayonets except sit on them! If you are going
to control any population for any length of time you must have some
measure of consent. It's exceedingly difficult to see how pure
terrorism can function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly
long time, but I think sooner or later you have to bring in an
element of persuasion. An element of getting
people to consent to what is happening to them. Well, it seems to me
that the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now
faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing a whole
series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who
have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people
actually to love their servitude! This is the, it seems to me the
ultimate in malevolent revolution shall we say.'
We
see precisely that reality unfurl today. Shaw's educated childish
fools impervious to political science, and brigands and blackguards,
controlled by Huxley's oligarchic forces from behind the scenes,
attempting to persuade the public mind to accept Alice in Wonderland
absurdities as fact.
We
even observe how willingly the world public traveling
through American airports surrender themselves to grotesque
indignities in physical searches to keep them safe from Ali Baba. The
only truly global superpower in the history of earth's civilizations,
which Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1996 Mein Kampf, The Grand
Chessboard – American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives,
characterized as: “America is not only the first, as well as
the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the
very last.” (pg. 209), has been reduced to a
police-state with virtually its own public's consent.
All
on the mere fable that Ali Baba
wielding some antediluvian and
distorted dogmas from the stone-age propagandistically titled
“militant Islam”, is a
ubiquitous threat to their well-being! Pakistan is daily bombed by
drones based on that very same fable. The world is rapidly being
reduced to a global police-state based on that same fable.
End
Excerpt
Limits
to Knowability – Hard and Soft Limits
So
now we arrive at seeking understanding of the limits to knowability
of reality. What can't be objectively knowable by any mind, human or
alien, is the hard limit. The soft limit to objective knowability is
characteristically human and it can only be extended to the degree
that a human mind can naturally expand, analyze, scrutinize and
synthesize objectively, and overcome its own subjectivity,
conformity, and asininity while retaining insight and intuition.
There is a hard limit to this that is individual specific and depends
on their natural genetic makeup. In the preceding sections we have
already seen the many pernicious traps that easily ensnare the human
mind into crippled epistemology. The epistemological limit problem
was first described by this author in the case study: Why is the
Holy Qur'an so easy to hijack? Part-IV.
Begin
Excerpt
While
natural programming of the human mind may appear to be a fine point
to those unfamiliar with the making of the human mind, it is a
crucial one nevertheless. Epistemology, how we know what we know,
cannot be ignored in any learned scholarship that claims to be in
genuine pursuit of “knowing”, the discovery of what is,
without imparting any personal coloring of one's own to it. Meaning,
keeping the observer and the observed separate and non-influencing,
often impossible in social sciences where man is observing his own
species. And of course, also impossible in the Schrödinger's
cat physics paradox, of the act of observation itself disturbing
the observed, and therefore making it paradoxical to learn what was
the state of the observed before one tried observing it! Meaning, if
there is a cat in a black box, and the cat is found dead upon opening
the box, was it also dead before the box was opened, or was it only
found dead upon observation. In the human sense, since the mind that
is being used to understand the world, is part of that world itself,
there is an automatic self-referential limit to what is objectively
knowable. It is the limiting factor of epistemology whereby the
judgment of the mind not only colors what is being observed, but is
unable to objectively observe itself. It carves a self-limit for
discovering what is using the scientific method. Its well-known
processes, which basically involve four recursive steps, or stages,
any of which may be absent or combined in a given endeavor: (1)
theorizing, hypothesizing, modeling; (2) testability (of the model),
observability, reproducibility (by others); (3) measurability,
quantifiability; and (4) predictability, anticipatability (based on
the model); cannot deal with self-reference.
That
fundamental limit was discovered/proved by the twentieth century
Austrian logician, mathematician and philosopher, Kurt Friedrich
Gödel, and has come to be known as Gödel's
incompleteness theorem. How far does this fundamental limit
extend from its self-referential hard limit clearly depends on the
observer. Some minds are more limited in their abilities to be
objective than others and hence encounter the limits of knowability
sooner than they need to. The ultimate knower of all things
therefore, even by its philosophical definition, the one who can
transcend this hard limit, is the one outside of the domain of all
things. That is the definition of God, both philosophically as well
as mathematically. And it is precisely that definition of God that is
also categorically expressed in the Holy Qur'an.
Only
God can be the Knower of all things. Aleem. It is no surprise that
Aleem is among the 99 names of God in the Holy Qur'an, each name
expressing a characteristic of God that can only apply to God in its
most superlative degree. Which is why postulating the existence of
God is so much easier than proving His existence --- the superlative
degrees can only apply to the one who is by definition God. Which is
why atheism that seeks only empiricism as its standard for argument
and falsification falls on its face philosophically. Agnosticism is
philosophically far more tenable and even sensible. And the super
atheist of the twentieth century, Lord Bertrand Russell, admitted it
as such in his debate with a priest in New York in 1948 that was
broadcast by the BBC (see The Existence of God – A debate
between Bertrand Russell and Father F. C. Copleston, Chapter 13, Why
I am not a Christian, Routledge), that atheism cannot be proved or
disproved, just as theism cannot be proved or disproved, and
therefore they are both similar in terms of having beliefs on either
end of the spectrum which cannot be falsified, and consequently the
more tenable state is that of agnosticism. While empiricism is
neutral towards both if we ignore existence as a self-evident proof
in itself, philosophy swings the balance on the side of theism.
Atheism is an absurdity of the one-half brained creature quite unlike
the logical Mr. Spock who would straightforwardly see the
philosophical logic of at least a philosophical God, one who can know
all things, one who is not constrained by the material laws of nature
and above it by definition. But when laws of nature is made god, then
that axiom automatically precludes the existence of a philosophical
God, and thus remains crippled philosophically by accepting the
limits to knowability. Nothing is knowable outside of the laws of
nature [natural secularism], which is limited by empiricism as its
defining epistemology.
By
definition then, accepting the limits to knowability confines
knowability, alongside the imagination to believe that something
greater than what's knowable by the mind can exist. If one accepts
such limits to existence, one can really not make any sensible or
rational statement of what one admits is beyond the realm of
existence, i.e., nothing exists outside of the laws of nature. Thus,
atheism remains crippled by absurdity as it ventures to make a
negative statement outside the limits of its own self-defined limits
to knowability. The atheist dug his own grave by making the laws of
nature his supreme god because Gödel's incompleteness theorem
provides a hard mathematical limit to perfect knowability, or perhaps
better stated, proof of perfect knowability that what is knowable
within the laws of nature is both complete and self-consistent. Since
there is nothing outside of the laws of nature as the atheist's axiom
of faith, his knowledge remains subjected to Gödel's
incompleteness theorem. Therefore with his incomplete knowledge,
he cannot deny that something does not exist for such an assertion
logically requires complete and perfect knowledge in order to
provably know what exists and what does not exist. For the theist
however, the laws of nature are but a part of creation, like all
other creation, even if the former may appear to be mechanistically
governing the inner workings of the rest of creation. And thus,
philosophically at least, there can exist one who can know beyond the
laws of nature by being outside of the creation that is governed by
the laws of nature! It violates no principle of logic to imagine it
and is self-consistent with its own axiom of faith of theism. Ergo,
God! An entity that is not governed by the laws of nature by
definition, but who created the laws of nature as God, and transcends
His own creation.
To
Mr. Spock's fascination, the Holy Qur'an introduced man to just such
a philosophically adjudicated God, self-consistent with the
mathematical idea that in order to have perfect knowledge of a
system, one must exist outside of it, and beyond it, and if one
postulates that it is possible to have perfect knowledge of the
system that is governed by the laws of nature, then one is also
compelled to postulate God who must exist outside of that system. It
is only logical. And conversely, in order to deny that God exists,
one must also deny that perfect knowledge can exist, and then one is
caught in one's own inconsistency trap for one cannot assert
something does not exist if one accepts that perfect knowledge does
not exist. For only perfect knowledge can provably claim what does
and does not exist! Q.E.D.
Atheists
who by definition claim absolute knowledge by asserting the negative,
die by the hand of reductio ad absurdum. Which is why Bertrand
Russell, as the philosopher-mathematician who understood logic, was
way smarter than his modern progeny to quickly squirrel out of that
charge of atheism by claiming agnosticism. And he did so in the very
second sentence uttered by him in that debate with Father F. C.
Copleston! For the sensible types who accept hard limits to knowledge
amenable to both logic and the human mind and who don't make absurd
claims beyond its logical purview, there is natural limits to perfect
knowing. This has direct implications for epistemology and assertive
axioms of faith which are its consequent; statements that cannot be
proved to be true and are simply assumed to be true by faith alone
because they might appear sensible, obvious, appeal to the heart or
mind, or for convenience. The entire Euclidean Geometry is built upon
such an axiom of faith for instance, that parallel lines don't meet
at infinity! No one can prove this axiom to be true but it is both
convenient and sensible under the assumption of non-relativistic
physics in everyday existence.
Now
that we better understand the unconquerable hard limits to knowing,
to objective study, to absolute knowledge, that man is not God, and
also understand the role of axioms in epistemology, it is easier to
accept even the softer but somewhat more conquerable limits to
knowing that are the consequent of our very nature of being a
socialized species which defines our worldview from birth. It
outlines and confines our “system” of existence so to
speak. This human system has its own set of axioms, its
presuppositions of faith, values, and beliefs that become ingrained
into cultures and civilizations and which are taught to its every new
generation born as “truths”. This natural human process
of socialization and cultural memory creates a self-perpetuating
system of subjectivity, and of myths that come to govern even the
minutest details of daily lives spanning the gamut of existence from
behavior to beliefs.
Even
if there was no deliberate social engineering to make the public mind
in calculated directions, the nature of human societies by definition
creates social control that is beholden not always to a group of
people, but to shared memory, shared habits, shared ethos, all of
which drive the social norms and values, and consequently both
individual and collective behavior. In other words, to be part of
society is to be part of some behavior and belief control system by
definition. To get an accurate and more objective knowledge of our
own “system”, we have to extract ourselves from the
confines of our worldviews and baseless presuppositions, and rise
above them. The truth of this statement is most assuredly beyond
doubt. It is in fact self-evident. No reasonable person can deny its
commonsense even from their own daily experience of life. The
uncomfortable fact that the subconscious human tendency towards a
priori conclusions and predisposition, despite all earnest
protestations of due diligence in having no presuppositions, appears
to be the inherent nature of socialization bias, and of the
subjectivity therein, and of the religiosity and self-righteousness
conferred to one's socialized perspective, makes it hard to transcend
our ingrained worldviews. Recall from the text in Part-II that the
left and right half brains are abstractions of the logic and
intuition functions of the mind loosely mapped to the brain geography
and not necessarily a hard physical demarcation. Logic and rational
reasoning abilities of the IQ (Intelligence Quotient) dominated
left-half brain is quite unable to penetrate that socialization
shield of soft bias subconsciously built up by the EQ (Emotional
Quotient) dominated right-half brain. The latter evidently cocoons,
or at least interferes with, the left-half's logic function of the
mind in as yet unquantifiable but still visibly undeniable ways.
This
visibility of their being separate functional entities that directly
affect the understanding of reality is easily seen in the marked
contrast between the characters of Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk in the
Star Trek fable explored in Part-II. It is mentioned here only as a
reminder of the full context of how the non-logic subjective mind can
both help and hinder the objective logic mind. The only effective
antidote to overcome the hindrance aspect which cripples human
epistemology and the consequent understanding of reality, is
increasing self-awareness. One must rationally attempt to compensate
for all the accumulated filters of years of socialization biases by
new cognitive filters that can negate their distortion effects of
subjectivity. Know thy self to know the world! In electrical
engineering parlance, it's like having compensation filters in the
signal processing path to improve its signal to noise ratio –
an analogy more apt for social sciences than may first be apparent to
the un-initiated. Think of tuning an AM radio signal. It uses a tuned
LC circuit to reject the noise and extract and amplify the broadcast
signal. Un crippled epistemology in the social sciences as well as in
physical sciences that purports to understand and know reality the
way it is, shares this common characteristic --- the requirement to
remove the layers of noise first in order to even receive the signal.
Its accurate detection, extraction, decoding, verification of correct
decoding, and making sense comes much later. History is exactly like
that --- wrapped in accumulated layers of generations of socialized
noise and willful as well as subconscious self-interests. The
narratives that survive do so either by rulers' sanctions, or by oral
history that is passed from generation to generation until it gets
penned when the new rulers permit it. What is the signal? It needs
that basic AM radio tuned circuit abstraction for detection,
extraction, and making sense!
This
is perhaps why the Holy Qur'an, while accepting socialization as a
human fact of God's own Creation, has also laid such categorical
emphasis on striving for “haq” (knowing reality, truth,
justice, calling a spade a spade even against one's own self) under
all conditions, for everyone among mankind, whereby, striving for
overcoming one's “nafs”, the personal inclination and
whim due to natural bent of mind, proclivity, socialization,
predisposition, self-interests, and desires and fears (both conscious
and subconscious), is termed the greater jihad and is made a hard
co-requisite to the reflective study of the Holy Qur'an (for instance
see Surah Al-Waqia, 56:78-79: “In a Book well-guarded, Which
none shall touch but those who are clean (purified)”).
This
is also why the sensible first order model of a cryptogram ciphertext
from which the plaintext message needs to be accurately extracted,
with graduated access control to its meaning based on shedding all
biases as precondition, developed in this study is the most apt model
for logically deciphering the message contained in this most unique
Book of all books. Without this perceptive model that lends some
measure of objectivity to the study of the Holy Qur'an, socialization
bias virtually determines its entire meaning for both an individual
and his society. That exercise of socialization, for the lack of a
more sanitizing description, lays the first foundation of
indoctrinating systems to control public behavior. For religion to
have any philosophical significance beyond man-made as a method of
social control, and beyond personal as a method of self-catharsis and
self-gratification, meaning, for religion to be viewed as being of
Divine origin and Divine purpose as the Divine Guidance from a
Transcendental Source rather than of human origin, accurately
deciphering its specification irrespective of the observer, mandates
such a rational model for understanding it.
The
fact that virtually zero understanding of this aspect of social
science is betrayed by any notable Muslim scholar that has passed by
this scribe's slovenly gaze over the years of his study, bespeaks of
the moribund state of intellectual thought in Muslim scholarship
which has progressively only degenerated into incestuously
self-reinforced dogmas and doctrines that find scant support in the
Determinates of the Holy Qur'an.
The
proof of that pudding is in its eating. It is self-evident by just
looking at the state of Muslims and at the state of the enemies of
Muslims – both are driven almost exclusively by their
respective socialized predisposition instead of what the Good Book
itself says. The same text is interpreted by them based on their own
narrow socialization bias when subconscious, and pathetic
self-interests when conscious. The staunchest enemies of the Muslims,
the Jews, are driven exclusively by their blind hatred of Prophet
Muhammad and Islam, just as they are driven by their blind hatred of
Christ and Christianity – although the two are today cozy bed
fellows of strange mutual convenience with the Jew wagging the goy in
their combined onslaught against Islam and Muslims – and both
enemies of Muslims exaggerate and amplify their hatred along their
respective narrow socialization biases in about the same measure as
the Shia and Sunni Muslims are each driven by their blind love of
Prophet Muhammad and Islam, while differing in their respective
understanding exactly along their own narrow socialization biases.
Qualitatively, to the observant student of sociology at least, one
who has succeeded in distancing himself to some measure from what he
is observing, these are different manifestations of the same primary
phenomena: socialization under crippled epistemology. It yields a
plentiful harvest of useful idiots for Machiavelli and Übermensch.
The
Case Study in Mantra Creation in the report on The Mighty Wurlitzer
explains how the socialization biases and cultural memories of the
unwary public are cunningly harvested for their own perception
management. Specific attention is paid to the works of Edward Bernays
and political psychologists referenced therein --- a social science
field that appears to be entirely foreign to the Muslim intellect.
That unsophisticated public mind, Muslim and non Muslim alike, is
easy picking for the diabolical Western hegemons who have today
penetrated not just psychology and behavior control, but are rapidly
moving towards full spectrum human control. See Zbigniew Brzezinski's
presaging in Between Two Ages, Aldous Huxley's dystopic fable: Brave
New World, and Aldous Huxley's talk at the University of California,
Berkeley, titled The Ultimate Revolution, March 20, 1962, all fully
referenced and examined in The Mighty Wurlitzer, ibid., to realize
how little independence of thought even an intellectual really
exercises upon his own mind today.
The
trifecta of the forces of nature, nurture, and perception managers
all conspire to extract obedience and conformity from the human mind.
The truly independent mind may exist only in philosophy, in fables,
and as an abstraction. It arguably cannot exist in socialized man.
Especially when he is compelled to “United We Stand”.
Self-serving forces of co-option and cognitive dissonance ensure that
outcome, often subconsciously when one is not an outright mercenary
or superman. This complex reality directly colors the acquisition of
knowledge, and the subsequent expression of knowledge. Especially for
studying the untermensch, the lesser peoples, meaning others
different from us, their belief systems, their value systems, their
histories, their literatures, and their civilizations whence one
man's treasures become another man's trash.
A
telling quote from Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay of the British
Empire, speaking to the British Parliament to redefine the Indian
subcontinent's education policy under British colonial rule, captures
the veritable truth of these words which have universal import for
the pursuit of all social sciences:
“I
have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. But I have done what
I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read
translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have
conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their
proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the
oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves. I
have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of
a good European library was worth the whole native literature of
India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature
is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who
support the oriental plan of education.” --- Minute on Indian
Education, Minute by the Hon'ble T. B. Macaulay, dated the 2nd
February 1835
While
the aforementioned example is one of shocking denigration from a
colonizing power flushed with the hubris of imperialism and suffering
from the superiority complex of all conquerors, the same
qualitatively applies in converse as well, when one is
hagiographically studying one's own civilization, literature,
history, or religion, and gloats as Macaulay does in the above
example. Also when one is suffering from an abject inferiority
complex as the colonized and enslaved people and studying the ruling
class whereby everything that is one's own is deemed inferior and
unworthy. It is often accompanied by a mad rush to adopt everything
foreign, from ideas, language, and solutions to objects, lifestyles,
and amenities.
The
first step towards objectivity therefore, on any subject, is none
other than becoming aware of one's own innate subjectivity, and its
immersion in crippled epistemology, and confronting it head on.
Everything else just follows from it.
No
sensible person can deny the truth of these words for the matter is
self-evident. Except perhaps when applying to one self. This scribe
has yet to meet a person, from the man of cloth to the man of
science, arts, humanities, or letters, who believes he is anything
but objective! That is the tragedy of man from time immemorial;
living and dying self-righteously off of a crippled epistemology!
Which is why this scribe calls this age the Age of Jahiliya. It is an
age from which self-awareness has been most cunningly stripped off
and substituted with, as Zbigniew Brzezinski put it in Between Two
Ages, “narrow-gauged specialists or superficial generalists”.
This makes for a perfect golden age for the Machiavellian scientific
controllers behind the scenes as depicted in Plato's Allegory of the
Cave. The age, and the methods of human behavior control in that age,
go hand in hand:
“In
the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward aggregating the
individual support of millions of unorganized citizens, who are
easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities, and
effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to
manipulate emotions and control reason.
Reliance
on television—and hence the tendency to replace language with
imagery, which is international rather than national, and to include
war coverage or scenes of hunger in places as distant as, for
example, India—creates a somewhat more cosmopolitan, though
highly impressionistic, involvement in global affairs.” ---
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970, pg. 11
The
possibilities of scientific human control in the technetronic society
is also examined in great depth in Bertrand Russell's Impact of
Science on Society, 1952, where the British Fabian philosopher of the
oligarchic ruling class made the argument for absolute control of the
masses finally being made possible in the modern scientific era. It
was the same wine in a new bottle which was corked by Zbigniew
Brzezinski for the same oligarchy in Between Two Ages some two
decades later. The British philosopher observed that global
scientific control in a world police-state is the only effective way
for a stable society to exist in which all the undesirable useless
eaters have been population controlled like game on a natural
preserve, and the preferred races, mainly the European white man,
given unlimited liberty to procreate their superior progeny at will.
Russell's purpose being the same as Brzezinski's, Huxley's, Wells',
and many others going all the way back to Plato. While the latter was
warning the public against the Übermensch social engineers with
the best of intent to have noble men become their wise shepherd as
the philosopher-king, others arguably presaged the techniques of mind
manipulation and behavior control as a self-serving self-fulfilling
prophecy for the Social Darwinian Übermensch continuing as their
natural shepherd in the scientific era just as he has been from time
immemorial with more primitive techniques:
“There
is, it must be confessed, a psychological difficulty about a single
world government. The chief source of social cohesion in the past, I
repeat, has been war: the passions that inspire feeling of unity are
hate and fear. These depend upon the existence of an enemy, actual or
potential. It seems to follow that a world government could only be
kept in being by force, not by the spontaneous loyalty that now
inspires a nation at war.” --- Bertrand Russell, Impact of
Science on Society, 1952, Chapter 2, General Effects of Scientific
Technique, pg 37
As
one can easily see, these dystopic forces of social engineering have
direct implications for the creation, promulgation and acquisition of
knowledge; for both suppression of accurate knowledge, and for making
it difficult to acquire the pertinent facts and analysis in a timely
manner when its widespread public disclosure can prevent a fait
accompli. Control of knowledge, of reporting of events of history and
current affairs, and of the perceptive understanding of these
matters, is the cornerstone of controlling humanity. Control,
control, control, is the mantra of the superman in every era --- Why?
Because he claims to know best because of his higher intelligence,
greater wealth, or the privilege of being closer to God, if not god
himself. Aldous Huxley warned of the grotesque reality of that style
of social control for inducing voluntary servitude, and the arrival
of the scientific era which is enabling this brave new world
of engineered social control at an accelerated pace. Huxley called it
the era of the Ultimate Revolution in social control, an era in which
people can be made to love their servitude:
'You
can do everything with bayonets except sit on them! If you are going
to control any population for any length of time you must have some
measure of consent. It's exceedingly difficult to see how pure
terrorism can function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly
long time, but I think sooner or later you have to bring in an
element of persuasion. An element of getting people to consent to
what is happening to them.
Well,
it seems to me that the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which
we are now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of
developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the
controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably always
will exist, to get people actually to love their servitude!
This
is the, it seems to me the ultimate in malevolent revolution shall we
say.' --- Aldous Huxley, The Ultimate Revolution, speech at the
University of California, Berkeley, March 20, 1962, minute 04:06
Overcoming
such dystopic forces of social engineering requires overcoming the
reality captured by Brzezinski, of the macro economics of nations and
the rapid pace of scientific development fashioning “narrow-gauged
specialists or superficial generalists” who are content to
labor hard all day long, and loving it.
This
counter exercise to perverse social control requires a great deal of
societal transformation in who wields its power, an exercise which is
nothing short of revolutionary, the least of which, to begin its
public demand, is the public:
–– acquiring
a perceptive understanding of power and its role in the making of the
human mind;
–– acquiring
wherewithal of social forces by not merely training to become
blind-folded economic widgets chasing the “American Dream”;
–– acquiring
knowledge that leads to better understanding of reality and the
forces that have shaped it, and continue to shape it;
–– and
consequently, requiring the expenditure of a great deal of mental and
physical personal energy despite the needs of the stomach and career
and for which there may not be any immediately gratifying pot of gold
waiting at the end of the rainbow.
A
tall order to think important, let alone to pursue, in an age that is
by design engineered to fashion only “a large number of men who
are content to labor hard all day long”:
'The
economic well-being of the nation depends on the presence of a large
number of men who are content to labor hard all day long. Because men
are naturally lazy they will not work unless forced by necessity to
do so.' --- Bernard de Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees, 1705
These
are all the very real forces behind the man-made soft limits to
knowledge, difficult to overcome, but not impossible to overcome.
Nevertheless, it is also not so straightforward to overcome either
because in the age of universal deceit, to discover the truth is a
revolutionary act!! The levels of co-option hiding in the dark
recesses of the human mind, and in the human stomach, are not
separated from the pursuit of this revolutionary act. And it all
hinges upon the Qur'anic prescription of “jihad-un-nafs”
– waging an epic battle against the self to extract oneself
from the throes of crippled epistemology including self-deceit and
self-interest – the first principle from which all truth shines
through its protective layers.
Now
we understand the full dimensions of the many impediments to both
acquiring knowledge of reality the way it actually is, past and
present, and using that knowledge productively rather than just for
amusing ourselves when we do dare to seek it forthrightly.
End
Excerpt
Philosophical
God vs. Religion's God
As
uncovered in the preceding section, the forensic attitude of a
reasonable rational mind (as opposed to the dogmatic mind of the
Richard Dawkins variety, the Dawkinsian clan) towards
epistemology, has quite logically led to the believable hypothesis of
a philosophical God. The same attitude can also help answer the age
old question of whether or not Divine Revelation exists, or can
exist, or is it merely figment of prophetic imagination, its
originating source being the mind itself and which cannot exist from
external transcendental source.
The
Deist philosophers, after the compromise of separation of Church and
Science in the seventeenth century – whereby the Church agreed
to not interfere in the purview of science if men of science stopped
making claims in the purview of the men of Church – had stopped
at the threshold of philosophical God. The deists believed that there
is a Creator of the Universe, the God of Nature, but did not believe
in metaphysical notions of God of Nature being involved in the
affairs of man, including through Divine Revelation; metaphysics was
the Church's purview. It is said by historians that the founders of
the New World, the United States of America, were deists in their
almost secular theological dispensation. Which is why the Declaration
of Independence signed by them references in the first opening
sentence, both “Laws of Nature and
of Nature's God”, and not religion's God, not
even Christianity's, despite their being of that cultural background
--- the founders evidently had supped enough from the gods of
religion from which they were declaring their final separation: “When
in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
As
we have already gleaned from the discussion of Secular Naturalism,
and we shall revisit it again in this section later when the need
arises, the founders crafted their notion of “equal station”
in their New World in full accordance with the “Laws of
Nature”. The New World was to be a safe haven for men of all
religions, and no religion, but mainly the persecuted colonists
escaping Europe, many of whom were iconoclasts of their time, and not
the indigenous peoples and Negro slaves the colonists had brought to
the New World to power their cotton industry. For those of “equal
station” however, it was not to be the business of the new
state to dictate in matters of faith; and thus came the separation of
Church and State by appeal to the God of Nature, and not God of
Religion!
That
separation, which had come on the heels of the separation of Church
and Science in Europe, was due to a political dispensation learnt
from the experiences of the Dark Ages that had engulfed the European
continent under the divine power of the Church, and against
which polymaths of reason and philosophy had rebelled; and not
because the men of science had discovered that the nature of the
universe or the laws of nature itself called for that separation.
Not
sufficient was known about the laws of nature then, nor is it known
now, to dogmatically declare that everything is understood about how
the universe works, and its basis is entirely materialism. That
forced separation of convenience however, led to making the
gratuitous presupposition which subsequently became codified in the
epistemology of science as well as the philosophy of science, that
only materialistic existence was real, the rest was the business of
the Church. Only materialistic Nature and its physicality could be
reasoned about, observed, measured, quantified, theorized, and
hypotheses confirmed or refuted in experimentation and not just by
philosophical arguments. The Greek philosophers had been notorious in
their lack of experimentation; they had concentrated mainly on
philosophical reasoning and logic as their principal method of
understanding reality. Empiricism obviously bettered that method.
Thus
modern science and its empirical scientific method was born; the
inheritor of both the Hellenic civilization of antiquity, and Muslim
civilization that had re-lighted and passed on the Hellenic torch of
learning to the new West to spur its Renaissance. Its principal axiom
however was still the dogmatic separation that Church and Science had
agreed upon under duress from each other, and which removed from the
ambit of science not just all non physicality, but also all
metaphysical and teleological questions (along with the superstitious
nonsense of course): the Aristotelian final-cause.
Materialist
conception of Nature, the only philosophy of science acceptable to
the Church fearing their own loss of power and reluctantly agreeing
to grant concession to the primacy of science as the way to
understand the physical world, became purposeless once the
metaphysical domain was ab initio removed from the purview of
science. Only Church could seek to answer the “why”
questions, not science, and only Church could opine on the
non-material aspects of the universe. That reactionary legacy of
compromise with the powerful Church which continued to hound
iconoclastic men of reason in the seventeenth through the nineteenth
centuries despite the half way to three-quarter way into the
Renaissance spur, continues to dog the fundamental paradigm of
science to this very day in the twenty-first century. Unfortunately,
it is no longer remembered by the Young Naturalist scientists and
philosophers how we got here since the axioms of separation due to
the seventeenth century dysfunction have become sanctified into
sacred “truths” of modern science.
With
that brief overview of how we got to the modern sacred dogmas of both
materialist reason and materialist science, the combined contribution
of deists and atheists who desired separation from the dogmaticism of
the Church, we return to the foundational question that divides
theism from atheism. If the philosophical God is logical, why isn't
Divine Revelation? While the former is abstract, the latter is
concrete --- for it is a claim made by existent Scripture(s) that can
now be falsified. The preceding section enables us to get a more
objective (and less dogmatic) handle on this question than is
possible without the perceptive understanding of epistemology and how
its presuppositions determine process outcomes. Now, the source which
makes the claim to Divine Origin, whether a Book or claim to
Prophethood, instead of outright rejection based on the materialistic
dogma, can be put under objective forensic scrutiny to decipher what
precisely is it saying in its core guidance principles and does its
religion fit the philosophical God; independent of the observer
making the scrutiny, and using only philosophical truths as the first
order criterion for adjudication.
Let's
quickly review how we arrived at the philosophical God in the
preceding section before we delve into the question of Divine
Revelation. It is, after all, an intense dose of high potency
intellectual vitamins and reminding ourselves of its logic is
necessary for full absorption. In order to accept or reject the
reasoning, one must be clear as to what precisely it is. If we have
understood the concept that Divine Revelation implies a
Transcendental Source, let's just abstractly call that God for the
lack of a more familiar term, then we can look for evidence in the
Prophetic Text of God being its Author, or man being its author, to
confirm or deny that hypothesis of Divine Revelation by first
understanding what is meant by that word God. We have already seen
the philosophical God arising both mathematically and philosophically
in the above discussion --- as the consequence of Gödel's
incompleteness theorem. An entity that must be above all else in
order to have complete and self-consistent knowledge of that below it
(mathematical necessity); the Creator of all things except itself,
not bound by the laws that govern its creations and consequently
having perfect knowledge of its creations that is both complete and
self-consistent; it itself being complete and self-consistent
(philosophical necessity because there is nothing else above it and
the premise of perfect knowledge demands that it terminate on God)
with perfect knowledge of itself as well all its creations. This is
philosophical God.
If
we accept that philosophical definition of God on the premise that
perfect knowledge can exist, and we have seen in the preceding
discussion that it can only exist in the philosophical God as the
consequence of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, then we
have the opportunity to examine the hypothesis of Divine Revelation
and compare against the definition of philosophical God. By that
philosophical definition, God cannot Author a Divine Guidance for its
creation, namely, human beings, that is inconsistent, or incomplete
for the purpose that it is created, especially when it itself claims
to be both perfect and complete Guidance as the Holy Qur'an does, the
only Divine Text in existence today that claims to be the direct
Words of God (and not merely “inspired words” as claimed
for the New Testament of the Bible by its adherents): “This
day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on
you and chosen for you Islam as a religion;” (verse
5:3). Or, obviously, the hypothesis of it being from the
philosophical God is naturally falsified. In the case of the religion
of Islam, this falsification criterion is the strongest among all
contenders to Divine Revelation because of this categorical claim
made by its Scripture, the Holy Qur'an. Other scriptures can also be
falsified on the same basis even though none of them claim to be the
direct word of God. But their absolutist principles are deemed to be
from God and can thus stand falsification.
It
cannot be the philosophical God's work if it hides fallacies,
absurdities, inconsistencies (due to self-consistency requirement of
perfect knowledge), or is incomplete (due to completeness requirement
of perfect knowledge), or is inaccurate (due to perfection
requirement of perfect knowledge). This is a rational and fairly
objective logical criterion for falsifying the hypothesis of the
philosophical God being the Author of any claim to Divine Revelation.
And
any God that is less than the philosophical God, cannot really be God
– the Creator of all Existence in Nature and Itself beyond it.
Hence
all conceptions of God must minimally satisfy the philosophical God
condition that is the direct consequence of Gödel's
incompleteness theorem. And the philosophical idea of what that
entity would be if it had complete and self-consistent knowledge of
the highest order system, namely that of all existence in nature.
Other attributes that are generally applied to God are religion
specific and nothing to do with the philosophical God. These include
beliefs about God such as God being Most Beneficent, Most Merciful,
Most Just, etc. etc. etc. Religion and its scripture give these
attributes to God and these are unfalsifiable beliefs. When one
accepts a religion on faith, one also accepts these attributes of God
on faith, just like one accepts Afterlife, Day of Judgment,
Heaven and Hell, etc. Thus, while Muslims believe in Islam as the
Divine Revelation and its conception of God includes those
aforementioned attributes and beliefs, the ancient Greeks accepted
the plethora of their own mythological gods like Zeus et al. who, as
their mythologies depicted, were unjust, fickle minded, selfish,
jealous, tempestuous, and played their heavenly power-games amongst
each other using the earthly humans as their proxies. If a divine
scripture is claimed to be Divine Revelation from God, the Word of
God (or the underlying principles being from God), then it must minimally satisfy the
condition of the philosophical God, complete and self-consistent, or
the hypothesis is trivially falsified.
This
is of course only the rational and reasonable Rejection
Criterion for the divine hypothesis. The question
however remains: is it also a rational and reasonable Acceptance
Criterion when the hypothesis cannot be falsified by
the Rejection Criterion?
For
even the most objective human mind --- that latter question must
still ultimately reduce to the response from the non-quantifiable
capacity of his right half brain, intuition and insight, after the
left half brain has done its job of filtering out the chaff from the
wheat in accordance with its logic and reasoning capacity. This is a
rational utilization of the whole mind whereby both reason and
intuition are permitted to play their symbiotic role to reach a human
conclusion (as opposed to solely the materialist's conception of
reason that denies intuition as a valid source of understanding
reality unless it can be reduced to some kind of empirical
physicality). It is also why, although belief in a philosophical God
is based entirely on reasonable exercise of logic and reason, belief
in a religion, usually the one in which one is socialized, is often
based on emotional and spiritual exercise, its appeal to the heart
--- like falling in love. The distinction among emotional attachments
due to 1) socialization (or indoctrination) vs 2) emotional
attachment due to spiritual enlightenment and faith (including love)
vs 3) emotional attachment due to capacity to appreciate what cannot
be captured in materialistic and Darwinian philosophies such as
appreciation of beauty (and all that which it synthesizes such as
beautiful music, art, poetry), appreciation of the profound (and all
that which it synthesizes such as philosophy, theology,
spirituality), etc., cannot be easily made. It is also not clear cut
between the preceding three cases of belief through exercising the
predominant right-half non-logical intuitive mind and 4), that
egalitarian condition of the rational human mind in which the
left-half logic mind has reasoned through the Rejection
Criterion and not rejected it, and intuition / faith
of the right-half mind have made the final judgment call on the
Acceptance Criterion and
accepted the exact same belief.
But
observe that in this latter case, faith in a non materialist belief /
hypothesis / non-physicality is not irrational nor whimsical because
reason and philosophy, the best tools for separating chaff from wheat
available to the rational mind, have exhausted their purview and if
not accepted the proposition by weight of evidence, have also not
been able to reject it as an absurdity.
For
what is obviously beyond the bounds of physical materialism and thus
beyond the purview of the scientific method, employing reason
and self-evident philosophical truths is the rational approach of a
non-dogmatic intellect; one not plagued by materialist presumptions
of reductionist empiricism being the sole determinant of all
existence. It is because of this lack of wisdom and dogged
unreasonableness that all non-physicality appear equally specious in
materialism's reductionist dogma which fail to distinguish among them
(but its subscribers too, when it suits them, also go by faith or
trust in authority figures without any empirical evidence, as the
scientific world did when none rejected Nobel laureate physicist
Richard Feynman's word for his own Out of Body Experiences in
a sensory deprivation tank as valid experiences of reality, even
though no one else could reproduce it).
That's
because these human experiences are all interconnected and
interrelated, and to make any clear cut among them is impossible.
One's treasures in these matters cannot necessarily be proved to
others because the final say must come down to what is often
intensely subjective and personal --- human intuition, human
insights, human feelings, the cornerstone of faith, as well as
families, communities, cultures, and civilizations that share common
bonds and values. To ignore these innate human traits as both sources
of understanding of reality, as well as human necessity to
progressively advance as fuller human beings in one's own life (from
meeting materialistic and physical needs to meeting higher order
spiritual needs, like from satiating reproduction needs and hunger to
seeking companionship, to seeking meaning in life, to living the
highest moral ideals, to reaching the pinnacle of man's existence),
is to ignore substantial aspects of what truly makes us unique as
human beings. Otherwise, modern sociobiology and socioneurology
reveal that we are not that much different from advanced primates in
our most existential functions, including what was previously deemed
to be exclusively human, such as empathy, stress, revenge, group
violence. It is also to willfully ignore how epistemology is crippled
by gratuitous presuppositions and dogmas, further strengthening the
foundations of human ignorance. This applies as much to the physical
as to metaphysical.
The
gratuitous presupposition of the naturalists at hand, that Divine
Revelation cannot exist when a) reason alone can rather rationally
lead to the hypothesis of a philosophical God as demonstrated above,
and b) existence of Scriptures which claim to guide mankind towards
moral ideals and which can be subjected to rational criterions to
separate absurdities from meaningful truths, is just that, a dogmatic
presumption born of their pseudo religious belief that all that
exists in the natural order are through forces which can be reduced
to physicality and mathematicized.
Without
getting needlessly polemical, and holding steadfastly on to logic and
reason as the yardstick to penetrate into the heart of the matter
that motivates this discussion, regardless of where moral truths such
as the Golden Rule mentioned previously first originated from, or
which scriptures these are found in today (whether in Solon's ancient
dispensation of law, or Confucius's ancient edicts, or the Bible both
Old and New Testament, or the teachings of the Holy Qur'an, etc.),
now that mankind has these moral truths in their possession, and many
more like these, we can sure implement them --- And that too hasn't
happened in the recorded history of mankind. Nor is it ever likely to
see the light of day in the future. Because primacy is as strong a
natural instinct in man as hunger. And it is easily facilitated by
secular naturalism.
It
is only the mankind's religions, held sacred in their respective
scriptures, in collective memories of its respective adherents, and
in rituals which continually remind mankind of these absolutist moral
truths as emanating from an absolutist source and therefore not
subject to man's expediencies in changing them when suited; which
continually harken mankind to implement them; and which continually
harken mankind to sever their bonds of servitude to the wolves among
them. These truths continue to inspire people, if not always in
practice, then at least in their minds as the ideals to live by. And
perhaps some day these ideals may indeed transform man, but only when
these moral guidance succeed in lighting the proverbial fire in the
mind of man as categorical imperatives and not rituals to plan for
Afterlife and to soothe the troubled conscience. Religion plays an
enriching role in man's life which simply cannot be extirpated by the
Descartesians. It can of course be cleansed off of its
superstitions and absurdities, reformed off cultural intrusions and
bold impudences of the mind of man, but not eliminated from the life
of man. For, something else, something perverse, something that suits
the wolves and the primacy instincts of man, shall quickly fill that
void.
None
other than prominent scientists with lasting contributions to science
have arrived at the holistic conclusion that there can be no clear
cut between materialistic reductionism and non-physicality that is
precious and enriching to man. Here is world's foremost physicist of
the last century, German theoretical physicist Max Planck whose work
on quantum theory won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918,
offering his sage counsel to the one-track world of Dawkinsian
scientific materialism:
“Modern
physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot be
discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying each
part by itself, since such a method often implies the loss of
important properties of the system. We must keep our attention fixed
on the whole and on the interconnection between the parts. ... The
same is true of our intellectual life. It is
impossible to make a clear cut between science, religion and art. The
whole is never equal simply to the sum of its various parts.”
--- Max Planck
The
best scientists in the world, those not narrowly and overly
specialized, well understand the role subjective imagination and
intuition (i.e., what appears as faith to others) plays in one's
rational scientific pursuits. As Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel physics
laureate, stated it:
“Science
wants to know the mechanism of the universe, religion the meaning.
The two cannot be separated. Many scientists feel there is no place
in research for discussion of anything that sounds mystical. But
it is unreasonable to think we already know enough about the natural
world to be confident about the totality of forces.”
The
Muslim scientist Abdus Salam, who shared the 1979 Nobel Prize in
Physics with (Jewish atheist) Steven Weinberg and (Christian) Sheldon
Lee Glashow "for their contributions to the theory of the
unified weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary
particles", noted the role of faith in the grander discoveries
of physics by first reciting verses 67:3-4 of Surah Al-Mulk from the
Holy Qur'an at the Nobel podium in Stockholm during his Banquet
Speech on December 10, 1979:
“Thou
seest not, in the creation of the All-merciful any imperfection,
Return thy gaze, seest thou any fissure. Then Return thy gaze, again
and again. Thy gaze, Comes back to thee dazzled, aweary.”
--- Holy Qur'an, verses 67:3-4
And
then stated:
“This
in effect is, the faith of all physicists; the deeper we seek, the
more is our wonder excited, the more is the dazzlement for our gaze.”
Arthur
Leonard Schawlow, 1981 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on lasers,
observed:
“It
seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the
universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible
answers are religious. ... I find a need for God in the universe and
in my own life.”
Even
modern philosophers of the twenty-first century have begun to feel
the gratuitous imposition of the Dawkinsian clan led dogma of
scientific materialism prevalent in our own century which denies
animism completely, especially in relation to Revelation and Prophecy
that underwrite world religions.
This
is Charles Taliaferro, American professor of philosophy at St. Olaf
College, in his interview to Tehran Times published January 7, 2016:
“As
a philosopher I believe that such skepticism about the historical
Jesus and Muhammad is based on philosophical assumptions of secular
naturalism which presupposes by definition that prophecy and
revelation is impossible, an assumption that, in my view, is
unjustified.”
The
battle between the two antipodes on the validity of Divine Revelation
is mainly one of dogmatic presupposition leading to crippled
epistemology. But as we have also witnessed in the preceding
discussion, that crippled epistemology is also easily rectified when
dogma is subtracted from its ambit and its various aspects
scrutinized forensically for what they are without prejudice.
It
is also important to not overlook the obvious caveats that accompany
this forensic exercise on a theological matter that transcends the
bounds of material empiricism. Since this exercise of adjudicating
upon a speech that is hypothesized as emanating from the
philosophical God (our falsifiable axiom) that is both perfectly
self-consistent and perfectly complete, by even the most rational of
human minds that is neither, makes the exercise vulnerable to both
Type 1 and Type 2 errors defined in
statistics to validate hypothesis, as respectively: false
positives (it is not speech of God but is incorrectly
accepted as such due to incomplete or misapplied criterion), and
false negatives (it is indeed speech of God but is
incorrectly rejected due to incomplete or misapplied criterion).
Once
again, the innate human dimension in epistemology simply cannot be
ignored. It leads to greater reliance on intuition and insight –
does the proposition sound right, does it appeal to the heart, even
if impersonal logic or misanthropic reason may argue otherwise. For
instance, reason might dictate to the utilitarian mind to kill granny
and handicapped children once they become a social or family burden,
but the heart rejects it outright --- and heart prevails unless
forced by power. In Impact of Science on Society for example,
Bertrand Russell, the father of twentieth century postmodernist
atheism, offered his highest reasoning to rationalize a global
dystopic police state for humanity as the most stable mechanism for
governing a global scientific society, that there “would now
be no technical difficulty about a single world-wide Empire”,
“a world government” which “could only be
kept in being by force”. No free human being can agree to
live in a global prison-state just because the primacy reasoning of
uber rationalists lead them to preach to the sheep that a world government
managed as a global police-state is the most “stable”
method of governance of a scientific society in the greater public interest.
Faith
is exactly like that after all the rational scrutinizing criterions
are exhausted by the rational portion of the mind. Faith appears to
be innate in man. The drive for faith appears to be unlearned, like
the drive for reproduction. It has persisted since time immemorial,
and cannot be separated from man's existence anymore than the natural
drive for reproduction can. It can, however, be replaced with crafty
dogmas and false beliefs just as easily as in the past faith was
dominated by specious dogmas and superstitions to create false
intuitions. Faith appears to be like a natural and innate container
in man – varying in size for each human being based on their
natural makeup like any other human trait (such as IQ or athleticism
or sense of beauty, etceteras) – pour anything into it. When
the Divine spark springs in it, it can move mountains. When garbage
is poured into it, it creates enslavement.
And
now we also begin to perceptively appreciate why it is necessary to
remove faith in the Divine from people's lives with the drive towards
atheistic world Secular Humanism (previously it was with the drive
towards world Communism) and Newspeak (saying one thing and
meaning quite another) and Doublethink (accepting or
promulgating conflicting facts and ideas). Subtraction of God from
people's lives under whichever pretext, makes it easier to control
them; to standardize and organize the populations in functional
units; and to easily foist the worst dystopia upon them in which
people just learn to love their own servitude. Goethe had captured
that existence: “None are more
hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The
truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule
them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like
right in their eyes.” It enables the sheep to
perform their daily routines in blissful contentment, never acquiring
the motivation, nor the inspiration, to rebel against their despotic
shepherds; the wolves who feed off of their blood. The uncanny power
of God in people's lives as a counter force to be reckoned with, is
so well understood by shepherds who are the masters of social
engineering, and have been so from time immemorial, that even modern
fables have depicted the power of faith in liberating awakened slaves
from the worst dystopia – dystopia constructed by men of
highest intellect to control the public mind. Man simply cannot
escape from the clutches of the Superman by Pollyannaishly
closing his eyes to the dangers posed by the poisoned apples hidden
underneath the syntactically sugared declarations of universal human
rights made in the new sacred theology of Secular Humanism. It is
indeed a theology, one that is based on the perversity of
Doublethink.
As
previously examined and restating for emphasis, the logical and
entirely rational consequence of secular naturalism which posits that
life on earth is innately purposeless, that mankind arose by sheer
accident just like wildlife and wild flowers, and that natural order
which governs nature and its species, also governs man, is that since
there is no equality in nature (empirical observation), no altruism
in nature (another empirical observation, different from empathy
which is observed in some species), no justice in nature (yet another
empirical observation, no sheep has ever approached the king of the
jungle for justice from the wolf and not been eaten by the king
itself), then why should there be voluntary equality and altruism and
justice among the human species who are just another species of
nature? Some are lions and some are wolves while others are sheep.
What rational sense in having the same valuation for all of them? The
wolves may seek equality amongst themselves, and seek altruism in
their relationship with the hungry pride, but neither have any
inclination to extend either to the sheep --- but both of course
preach it to the sheep. How else will the wolves and lions satiate
their hungers and rule their kingdom? Thus the natural order of the
jungle, the natural philosophy of primacy, social darwinianism,
hegemony, is the natural order for human life as well.
But
of course that philosophy has to be disguised. The reality of secular
naturalism cannot be practiced too openly before the sheep who are
essential to the scheme of primacy. So the Secular Humanists come up
with advocacy of ancient truths like the Golden Rule for everyone,
lofty ideals on worthy pieces of parchment to lull the sheep to sleep
as their native religion is systematically stripped from their lives.
One can see the sophistry in the naturalists' arguments for man-made
morality derived solely from man's intellect, not just in theory, but
also empirically in the long and bloody history of primacy among
mankind; a history that is still unfolding in the twenty-first
century. The sheer chutzpah after the sheep have been lulled to sleep
is even seen in the National Security Advisor of the United States of
America writing the blueprint of superpower primacy coldly titled:
The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy And Its Geostrategic
Imperatives! ( Also see [a]
http://tinyurl.com/Islam-vs-Secular-Humanism ; [b]
http://tinyurl.com/Superman-Morality ; [c]
http://tinyurl.com/Problem-Primacy-not-Scarcity ; [d]
http://tinyurl.com/HGWells-Universal-Human-Rights ; [e]
http://tinyurl.com/MightyWurlitzer )
It
is also not persuasive to claim that reason can beget equality and
altruism and justice as higher order brain functions in the more
evolved superman of the future when it has shown to only beget
primacy ---- and Nietzschean Übermensch is ample evidence
of the culmination of that naturalists' philosophy. Secular Humanism
neither has any empirical merit, nor any philosophical merit given
their own sacred axiom of man's existence being accidental and
purposeless like any other life form. Lack of self-consistency with
their own naturalist axiom spells the death knell of the naturalists'
religion of secular humanism. It exposes their sophistry of
Doublethink!
The
naturalists' claim of reason and natural laws as the god of man
able to bring mankind equality, altruism, justice, as well as noble
governments and the end to primacy, under the religion of Secular
Humanism is only sophistry. It can only bring standards of the
Newspeak-Doublethink variety as was witnessed in the American
Declaration of Independence that is bandied about before the
world as the epitome of Western Liberal Republican Constitutional
Democracy (albeit the word “Democracy” itself does
not occur in its verbiage). That plan of liberty conveniently
excluded undesirable races who weren't deemed to be full human
beings deserving of “equal station
to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them”,
from its calculus of full human rights and equality. Australian
colonists as recently as the 1960s were hunting for Aborigine heads
as hunting trophies. Africa today, the cradle of mankind's
birthplace, is shamefully impoverished and plundered for its natural
wealth. The same story is repeated for South America, and the rest of
the developing nations of the world that have boundless riches
underneath their feet and living in abject poverty. Plundered by who?
By
the primacy instincts of the secular humanist West; exercised through its institutionalized multinational corporation
thuggery through neoliberal laws and free trade treaties, enforced
through tax-free trade zones and protected by Western military might
--- The reincarnation of East India Company in modern uniforms. The
modus operandi of modern neocolonialism is not much different from
the colonial era, and they boldly admit it themselves. Writing in the
New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman stated in his column of March 28,
1999: “The hidden hand of the market
will never work without a hidden fist -- McDonald's cannot flourish
without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden
fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is
called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”
And
that colonial era of Western plunder, right after the Renaissance
philosophers taught all their lovely secular theories of superiority
of natural law and the primacy of reason, was the epitome of direct
colonial raping of the less sophisticated civilizations by the West
in the guise of la mission civilisatrice, the white man's
burden. None of the finer values of secular humanism were on display
as the natives were brutally harvested to serve global trade under
changing European flags of one PAX or another as the sophistication
of their primacy tools evolved. While the natives were taught that
this slavery was for their own good. They were being civilized. And
that was the price of being gifted Western civilization. The same
West today, the same nations, the same races of peoples, the same
inheritors of the East India Company, under the new flag of PAX
Americana, are out to destroy the one thing colonists couldn't take
away from the world's natives whom they otherwise lorded over as the
new gods --- their religion. And this last remaining treasure, the
inheritance of all mankind, is their focus of plunder for the
twenty-first century in which the same white man is once again
remaking world order. This time into a secular one-world empire.
The
naturalist is once again coldly speaking the language of might has
rights behind the facade of humanitarian platitudes, while
brazenly displaying its superiority of primacy techniques. The
predator makes the same arguments as before --- that this is good for
the natives. That the superiority of the Western civilization is due
to its secular naturalism, and it is its noble gift to all
civilizations when it strives to replace mankind's antediluvian
superstitious religions with the common world religion of Secular
Humanism. That is the very nature of natural law, the law of social
Darwinism, the survival of the fittest races, peoples, cultures
and civilizations. It conquers whenever it can. It is never satiated.
Neither did mankind witness equality, altruism and justice in the
past from the harbingers of secular naturalism, nor is it anywhere to
be seen today except in Newspeak, and nor will it be seen in
the future --- because it is not in the nature of secular naturalism.
The
tragedy is that the finest house niggers, mindless fools with
fancy Western university degrees, are once again taken in by the
chicaneries of the predators' Doublethink to begin loathing
what is their own heritage. They once again labor against their own
civilizations just as they did in the colonial era. The house nigger
has once again taken up the white man's burden --- and for
what? For the price of some applause and a meal ticket? This is not
to say that those who believe in the materialist dogma, irrespective
of who they are, aren't entitled to their own religion. But only to
state that the primacy of every dogma, every religion, every
predator, is rejected and must be confronted head on. That
confrontation is the principled teaching of absolutist moral codes,
and when attributed to Divine Revelation, become immutable. And that
is the one remaining intellectual threat to global primacy, the
spiritual threat from world religions, which is why they must all be
eliminated.
In
the previous sections we witnessed how axiomatic dogmas cripple
epistemology. Here we have again seen the polished Machiavellian
subversion of epistemology of Divine religions that only leads to the
primacy of natural law. If epistemology was not crippled, not only
would all self-ascribed categorical imperatives of primacy be
naturally crippled, but man would be rid of all dogmas that limit its
understanding of reality, and consequently, its egalitarian striving
for equality, justice, peace, happiness and growth would finally
materialize. The first baby step in that space is to confront primacy
head on. All primacy. Howsoever it is disguised. In law, in
platitudes, in Newspeak-Doublethink.
This
forensic attitude to scrutinizing epistemology with some measure of
objectivity, by distancing the observer from the observed, and by
perceptively understanding its hard and soft limits; the sources
of its corruption and motivations for its subversion, also helps
rectify idiotic divisions among peoples of boundless faith who
ceaselessly fight amongst themselves over insane matters. This
includes infighting on purely theological matters which quickly leads
to doctrinal warfare, and which can easily mutate into physical
warfare. And it also helps counter Machiavelli when it too,
ceaselessly, uses their inanity and senseless divisions to harness
their boundless energies as useful idiots; zealots and prima
donnas who unwittingly end up doing Machiavelli's diabolical bidding
like puppets on a string.
About
The Author
The
author, a justice activist, formerly a Silicon Valley systems
architect (see engineering patents at
http://tinyurl.com/zahir-patents
), founded Project Humanbeingsfirst.org in the aftermath of 9/11. He
was, mercifully, most imperfectly educated in the United States of
America, which might explain how he escaped the fate of
“likkha-parrha-jahils” mass produced from its vast
manufacturing consent complex with all his neurons still intact, and
still firing on all cylinders. Email: humanbeingsfirst@gmail.com
. Verbatim reproduction license at:
http://humanbeingsfirst.org/#Copyright
.
Excerpted
From: Some Problems in Epistemology, problems 4, 5, and 6
Last updated Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:00 pm 33707 20955
Reflections
on Axioms, Presuppositions, Faith, Intuition, Reason, Philosophy and
their Impact on Epistemology By Zahir Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org