Biden & Francis Followers are "Following the Scienc[ism]" & Positivism vs. Non-Catholic Elon Musk who is "Following the 'Exact Science'" & Truth
In the first place, what do we mean by “Science”? A faulty definition of this will either subjugate religion to an overweening scientism, Fr. Jaki’s lifelong bête noire, or will short-circuit science in favor of fideism. According to Fr. Jaki, “exact science” (as opposed to natural or theological science) is nothing less, and, crucially, nothing more, than “the quantitative study of the quantitative aspects of objects in motion” (Trasancos, p. 29). Of course, this definition of “exact science,” as Jaki insisted on calling it, “differs from the classical definition [of ‘science’, or scientia qua knowledge of causes)] in the medieval universities,” which is why it is so important to specify which kind of scientia one is seeking. Scientism (or positivism)...
... Unlike the Hindu view that the sensible world is all illusion, “the Christian faith kept a realistic view of the world firmly in place,” which “demonstrates the naturalism of the Christian mindset, a realistic naturalism necessary for the vitality of scientific progress” (pp. 120, 121). In contrast to a pagan worldview that subjugated man, and his explorations of the world, to quixotic, magical, animistic, and astrological forces, as well as in contrast to an Islamic view of God in which Allah could alter natural laws at whim [like the Nominalistic Catholic Modernist heretic], the Christian God had illuminated mankind with his own light to explore the world, and had signaled His own fidelity by the consistency and intelligibility of nature’s way. - One Peter Five website on the scholarship of physicist Fr. Stanley L. Jaki
It appears to me that Joe Biden and Francis followers are not "following the science," but "following the scienc[ism]" which is Positivism while the non-religious and non-Catholic Elon Musk is really "following the science" and the truth.
The Francis bishops and the Biden propaganda media machine are constantly harping like Hindu gurus hypnotizing their minions with the magical mantra of "following the science, follow the science..." until it jingles in their true believers' heads like a constant ringing in the brain.
I remember when I was like them in high school following the "science" of popular liberal cultural education and media. Following them helped bring me to the loss of my Catholic faith because I thought their teachings were true and it was easy because that is what the television shows and public schools back then implicitly taught you.
Then I read scholar George Gilder's book "Sexual Suicide" which helped me return to the Catholic Church because it showed that the Catholic teachings on sexuality were true and those persons and cultures following the of "sex without procreation" teachings of modern "scientific" popular culture, education and media were committing slow suicide.
After finding out the Catholic Church was right and everyone else was wrong on sex and procreation, I then read St.Theresa of Avila and G.K. Chesterton's Dumb Ox on the great St. Thomas Aquinas and soon after that I returned to true science and truth to make a long story short.
It appears that Elon Musk has begun a similar journey according to a Church Pop website post titled "Did Elon Musk Defend Humanae Vitae? Sex Without Procreation is “Absurd,” Tesla CEO Says":
Musk reportedly does not consider himself religious, and may not even realize that he defended Catholic teaching...
... The conversation between Musk and Fridman centers on artificial intelligence, but in a 34-second clip, Musk explains why sex without procreation is “silly.”
“Massive amount of thinking–like truly stupendous amount of thinking–has gone into sex without purpose—without procreation. Which is actually quite a silly action in the absence of procreation. It’s a bit silly,” Musk says.
“Why are you doing it? Because it makes the limbic system happy? That’s why. It’s pretty absurd, really.”
This is not the first time Musk spoke positively of procreation. The 50-year-old Tesla CEO told Independent in 2020 that “people need to have more babies.”
“I think babies are super cool and really people need to have more babies because, it sounds obvious, but if people don’t have enough babies, humanity will disappear,” he said.
... Say a prayer for Elon Musk! [https://www.churchpop.com/2021/11/11/did-elon-musk-defend-humanae-vitae-sex-without-procreation-is-absurd-says-tesla-ceo/]
Unlike Musk, when Francis and Biden and their minions say follow the "science" of modernity as well as its culture, what are they really saying and teaching?
I argue that the Francis and Biden followers are teaching and believing in Positivism in both senses of the term:
- 1.a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism.
- 2.the theory that laws are to be understood as social rules, valid because they are enacted by authority or derive logically from existing decisions, and that ideal or moral considerations (e.g., that a rule is unjust) should not limit the scope or operation of the law. [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=positivism&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwieqcTN2uP0AhWIHDQIHX34BdAQBSgAegQIAhAx&biw=1357&bih=609&dpr=1]
How Francis's conservative followers are into "Scientism (or positivism)" is explained by the scholar Fr. Chad Ripperger:
This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.
Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge - orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives
Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?
Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles. - Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. [http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html]
How modern culture and Biden's followers are into "Scientism (or positivism)" is explained by physicist Fr. Stanley L. Jaki, a philosopher and historian of science, who defines what "exact science" is as presented in an article by the One Peter Five website:
The Duhem-Jaki thesis about the origin of exact science is discussed here by Eric V. Snow; Jaki’s research has also been favorably discussed in Donald J. Keefe’s, SJ, magisterial Covenantal Theology ( 1996), Vinoth Ramachandra’s Gods That Fail (1996), Thomas E. Woods’s How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (2005), and Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason (2006), to name a few notable references.
In any case, the bad news is that Jaki’s work has still not achieved broad mainstream exposure, but the good news is that a growing web of research and fidelity is keeping his legacy alive. It is in this larger “Jakian” stream that Stacy Trasancos inserted her own contribution, Science Was Born of Christianity. In chapters 1, 2, and 3, Trasancos parses elements of the book’s title–“Science,” “Was Born,” “Of Christianity,” respectively–to illuminate Fr. Jaki’s main insights about the interface between real science and true religion.In the first place, what do we mean by “Science”? A faulty definition of this will either subjugate religion to an overweening scientism, Fr. Jaki’s lifelong bête noire, or will short-circuit science in favor of fideism. According to Fr. Jaki, “exact science” (as opposed to natural or theological science) is nothing less, and, crucially, nothing more, than “the quantitative study of the quantitative aspects of objects in motion” (Trasancos, p. 29). Of course, this definition of “exact science,” as Jaki insisted on calling it, “differs from the classical definition [of ‘science’, or scientia qua knowledge of causes)] in the medieval universities,” which is why it is so important to specify which kind of scientia one is seeking. Scientism (or positivism)contends that all knowledge is only empirical, quantifiable knowledge, thus disqualifying theology, morality, and metaphysics as domains of knowledge. All other considerations aside, scientism is false simply because the scientistic thesis itself is not empirically verifiable or quantifiable. Much to our shame, we live in a scientistic culture, driven by the four S’s that Fr. Jaki loved to poke fun at: Sport, Sex, Science, and Smile. As such, being able to put science “in its place” (literally and conceptually) not only frees devotees of scientism from empirical idolatry, but also opens the way towards higher forms of knowledge, ultimately and hopefully to knowledge of the Incarnate Word of God.
Second, Trasancos parses the phrase, “Was Born.” Again, to a scientistic culture like ours, this borders on heresy. Science is almighty and eternal! It is the way (to stability), the truth (about the world), and the life (of society)! In reality, though, “exact science” is a very delicate and finicky thing, subject to abuse, corruption, and delusion just like any other human endeavor. Consider works like Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise and Political Influence in Scientific Research (1992) by Robert Bell, Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion (2001) by Robert S. Greenberg, Trust Us We’re Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future (2002) by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, and The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science (2014) by Tim Ball, among many others. In a word, Lysenkoism is not a purely Soviet problem. Science was born and it can easily die. It is not a metaphysical given, but was a gift wrapped in very particular paper (of which more presently), and its continued progress is not an eschatological guarantee.
Just as a fetus requires proper conditions to survive birth, so it requires ongoing care to grow and ward off death through its entire life. Historically and logically, exact science required very precise social and, most importantly, conceptual (viz., theological) conditions in order to be born, and its vitality going forward depends on sustaining those same conceptual parameters. As Jaki wrote in one of his most important works, “Science cannot arise, let alone gain sustained momentum, without an articulated longing for truth which in turn presupposes a confident approach to reality” (Trasancos, p. 71).1 While something very much like exact modern science was “born” in other civilizations in the past (Egyptian, Babylonian, Mayan, Greek, Islamic, etc.), Jaki has marshaled extensive evidence of the “stillbirth” of science in those same civilizations. “He acknowledged cultural wombs that were capable of developing science even to the point of viability as a sustained discipline,” explains Trasancos. However, his “choice of the word ‘birth’ was to show that the final step from isolated dependence to universal independence was not taken in any culture before the Scientific Revolution in the Middle Ages” (p. 73).
This leads to the third phrase, “Of Christianity.” What were–and are–the specific conceptual features of Christianity that allowed for the birth and flourishing of exact science, according to Jaki (and Duhem). First, there was the belief that the world was orderly and reflected the good will of Divine Wisdom itself. In contrast, cultures such as the Babylonians saw the world as a chaotic battlefield of the gods and dark powers. No scientist can conduct his work if he believes his subject is inherently chaotic and inconsistent. Christianity rescued man from this delusion by positing an orderly, logical world, one created by the Logos Himself. Second, there was the Christian belief that man, made in the imago Dei, was created with the capacity to understand the world. As Adelard of Bath (1080-1125) wrote to his nephew,
[Exploring natural causes does] not detract from God. Whatever this is, is from Him and through Him. But the realm of being is not a confused one, nor is it lacking in disposition which, so far as human knowledge can go, should be consulted. Only when reason totally fails, should the explanation of the matter be referred to God. (Trasancos, p. 121)
Unlike the Hindu view that the sensible world is all illusion, “the Christian faith kept a realistic view of the world firmly in place,” which “demonstrates the naturalism of the Christian mindset, a realistic naturalism necessary for the vitality of scientific progress” (pp. 120, 121). In contrast to a pagan worldview that subjugated man, and his explorations of the world, to quixotic, magical, animistic, and astrological forces, as well as in contrast to an Islamic view of God in which Allah could alter natural laws at whim [like the Nominalistic Catholic Modernist heretic], the Christian God had illuminated mankind with his own light to explore the world, and had signaled His own fidelity by the consistency and intelligibility of nature’s way. [https://onepeterfive.com/book-review-science-was-born-of-christianity/]