ARE YOU A FUNDAMENTAL MATERIALIST?
Institutional Science/Atheism/Pseudoskepticism, or Fundamental Materialism
for short, has all the earmarks associated with a dogmatic system of belief.
The first and most obvious of these, as adherents to older dogmatic belief systems are quick to point out, is articles of faith
. Atheist/Skeptics believe that there are no invisible entities interacting with humanity, even though the scientific method has established beyond a shadow of a doubt that invisible forces not only exist, but have tangible and observable effects on the observable world everywhere. Any claim to know the limits of this unseen world would be met with justifiable skepticism, but still, skeptics assure us that the very idea of invisible intelligences is wrong, harmful, and certainly not worth thinking much about.
Fundamental materialism has a mythology
, embodied in the soft sciences of Archaeology, Paleontology,
All three of these disciplines are exempt from scientific method, since they seek primarily to affix a chronology
to the evidence they uncover, which cannot
be objectively tested. At least partially as a result of this immunity from objectivity, the theoretical frameworks of sub-disciplines herein tend to fluctuate wildly every 25-50 years... but we are assured, very casually, and with authoritative language that the current understanding is very dependable.
Institutional science wouldnt be a very organized religion without a hierarchical priest class
. The fields of Theoretical and experimental physics
hold veto power over all the physical sciences. The rest of the unwashed masses without the benefit of scientific training are gently counseled by so-called social scientists
(science, in this case, meaning the objective study of subjective reality). This includes anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists and psychiatrists, aided by an army of social workers. They are charged with the responsibility of determining what is ethical, who is crazy, and who is too dangerous to remain free and undrugged.
For the longest time, my religious framework for Fundamental Materialism was really hung up over the object of worship
. I think i've figured it out, but it was difficult to uncover because it is sublimated even in the minds of adherents. Just as a Christian worships GOD
, believes they are saved and, resultingly, takes comfort in the notion that everything will be alright, the Fundamental Materialist takes comfort in the belief that natural systems are very slow and predictable, and that the straightforward march of technology will gradually make our lives less and less perilous, or even eventful. This is the doctrine of Occam's Razor
: Weirdness is uncommon, so it's probably normal. To use the psychological parlance, this is called normalcy bias.
Even today, catastrophism meets constant resistance in virtually all scientific fields—despite being utterly self-evident—for no better reason than that it is uncomfortable and unpopular, and therefore undermines science's prestige in their unending holy war with older religious establishments.
While we're on the subject of the most useless truism ever coined, we can cover ostracism, circular reasoning and hypocrisy
in one fell swoop. Skeptics love to invoke Occam's Razor as a first line of defense against evidence contrary to their worldview, though in a far less sophisticated or precise form: "It was just a coincidence."
From their perspective, this statement is obviously true, after all, every event is the result of actions coinciding. But the real intent of this strategy is revealed in the word just.
It implies that the evidence presented is meaningless, even though meaning is neither observable nor quantifiable, but rather emotional. If science has any meaning or emotional impetus, it is to explain the natural world, so anything unexplained
should be of foremost importance to the scientifically-minded. Too often, though, it is ignored in favor of comfortable doctrine, and when brought up as a counterweight to static, mundane ideology, is met with ad hominem suggestions that the advocate is stupid for disagreeing with the psuedoskeptic's opinion.
Still not convinced?
It has its own eschatology
: imminent ice age
, i mean global warming
, well, lets just settle on climate change
, shall we? I'm sure it'll be REAL bad,
whatever-it-is-that-is-just-around-the-corner that we caused with our sinful behavior;
: guesses about the composition of planets are almost laughably groundless, this has proven true at every opportunity to more closely observe them, and even includes our own planet. Every high school science textbook contains a cutaway view of Earth, presented as fact even though nobody has ever drilled even halfway through what is assumed to be the thickness of the Earth's crust.
Additions are welcome, as are wild, pious protestations.