Introduction: In an age enamored with material explanations and secular myths, we stand to issue a comprehensive interdictum – a stern judgment – against the reigning assumptions of materialism. Modern thought often claims that morality, mind, meaning, and even the cosmos itself can be fully explained by blind evolutionary processes or impersonal scientific laws. Yet, upon closer scrutiny, these claims are found wanting. They amount to explanations without purpose, narratives that are rich in technical detail but empty of ultimate meaning. We respond with rationality enlightened by the Logos (the divine Word or Reason), demonstrating the profound holes in materialism’s methods and conclusions. As Christians rooted in Trinitarian metaphysics and the wisdom of Scripture and the Church Fathers, we challenge the myth that matter alone rules the world. We will contend with evolutionary ethics, scientism, skeptical humanism, postmodern relativism, and secular cosmology – and expose their failures by the light of eternal Truth.
Throughout this manifesto, each section addresses a specific facet of the modern secular ideology and its errors:
- Materialist Evolutionary Ethics: The claim that morality evolved from animal cooperation is exposed as an ontological confusion between what is and what ought to be. Without a transcendent moral Lawgiver, there can be no true moral obligations – only instincts and preferences.
- Scientism and Rationalism: The modern idolatry of science and human reason is critiqued as self-refuting. Scientism cannot justify logic, math, or its own assumptions, and Enlightenment morality without God collapses into either hypocrisy or tyranny.
- Agnosticism and Humanism: The pose of “not knowing” God is unmasked as a subtle form of rebellion. Claiming ignorance of God provides no escape from moral reality – it only steals ethical principles from faith while denying their source.
- Postmodern Relativism: The denial of objective truth and the reduction of truth-claims to power-plays is shown to be incoherent. If all truth is relative, then that statement itself cannot be universally true. This self-destructing creed leaves nothing but power and chaos in its wake.
- Cosmological Secularism: The secular theories of existence – whether multiverse speculation or mindless quantum accidents – are revealed as pseudo-scientific myths. They explain away purpose and design by multiplying unseen universes and invoking randomness, violating the principle of parsimony. Yet even these theories smuggle inthe very rational order (Logos) they refuse to acknowledge.
We counter each error with a firm refutation in the light of the Logos – drawing on Scripture (“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet” – Psalm 119:105), on the Church Fathers (St. Augustine’s declaration: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You”), on classical philosophy, and on sound science. We show that without God as the transcendent Source, morality has no binding force, reason has no foundation, and the pursuit of knowledge loses its meaning. In contrast, the Christian vision – grounded in the triune God who is Love, Truth, and Logos – makes sense of the world: it provides a coherent foundation for moral law, rationality, human dignity, and the intelligibility of the cosmos.
Scriptural Foundation: “Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Corinthians 1:20). In the spirit of St. Paul’s challenge, we will show how the “wisdom” of materialism is ultimately folly, and how the truth of Christ the Logos triumphs over every deceit. As the Apostle also writes: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, … and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). We intend to do exactly that – to liberate captives of false philosophy by demonstrating its emptiness and declaring the supremacy of Christ, in whom “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3).
Let us then proceed with militant clarity and, yes, with a kind of liturgical fire: a zeal for God’s truth that burns against falsehood but seeks to enlighten all who will listen. We invoke not our own authority, but the authority of the Logos – “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). By Him were all things made and in Him all things hold together. Every attempt to understand reality while excluding the Logos is doomed to collapse into incoherence. Only by kneeling before the Logos – the divine Reason and Wisdom of God – can we find sure footing to understand anything else.
With this in mind, we issue the following theses in five codices (books of condemnation), each targeting a major stronghold of modern unbelief. We aim to demolish arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and to take every thought captive to obey Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 10:5). The time for half-measures is over; let Truth be proclaimed without compromise.
✠ Codex Interdictum I: Judgment Against Materialism– The Myth of Moral Evolution and the Mirage of Mind
Modern materialism asserts that everything about human beings – from our moral codes to our mental life – can be explained as the byproduct of purely physical processes. In this view, morality is nothing more than an evolutionary strategy, and consciousness is merely brain chemistry. This first codex pronounces judgment on these emergentist myths. We refute the claim that moral law emerges from animal instincts or genetic self-interest, and that the human mind is nothing but neuroscience. In doing so, we reaffirm an eternal truth: if you deny the soul and the Creator, you destroy any foundation for morality, meaning, or knowledge.
I. The Myth of Moral Evolution
Materialist Claim: Morality is merely the emergent product of selective evolutionary processes – a set of behavioral rules that evolved because they favored cooperation and hence species survival. In this view, what we call “morality” has no objective or transcendent authority; it is just an illusion instilled by our genes to promote social cohesion.
Strategic Refutation: We dismantle this claim by revealing an ontological and logical disconnect between evolution and moral truth:
- Ontological Disconnect – Cooperation ≠ Moral Law: Evolutionary biology may explain forms of cooperative behavior in social animals (including humans), but describing an instinct is not the same as prescribing a moral law. The fact that certain behaviors contributed to reproductive success does not transform those behaviors into binding ethical duties. To put it plainly, an “is” (a description of what has occurred in nature) can never by itself yield an “ought” (a prescription of what should occur morally). David Hume identified this logical gap long ago: one cannot derive moral obligations from facts of nature. The materialist conflates the two, treating the evolution of cooperation as if it were the origin of an objective moral law, which is a category mistake. A pack of wolves hunting cooperatively or primates grooming each other might illustrate natural behavioral instincts, but these actions carry no moral obligation. There is a fundamental difference between a descriptive account of behavior (“early humans who cooperated tended to survive”) and the existence of a prescriptive moral law (“thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”). By confusing the emergent behaviors with moral imperatives, the materialist is like someone who finds a functioning clock and assumes the clock somehow invented the concept of time. Evolution can describe how creatures behave, but it cannot justify how persons ought to behave.
- No True Universals – Instinct is not Justice: Even if certain social animals exhibit behaviors that resemble rudimentary fairness or empathy (for example, primates displaying a sense of “fair play” in reward experiments), these behaviors remain on the level of instinctual reactions, not conscious adherence to universal moral principles. A chimpanzee may protest unequal treatment (like the famous experiment where a monkey given a less tasty reward throws the cucumber at the researcher upon seeing another monkey receive grapes). But the chimp does not ponder abstract principles of justice, nor could it articulate a moral law. It is reacting to social cues and self-interest (frustration at not getting the same reward). There is no evidence that animals formulate universal moral rules. They do not debate right and wrong; they simply behave as their instinct or training impels. When a high-ranking chimpanzee imposes its will by dominance, the others submit out of fear or instinct, not because they recognize a legitimate moral authority. The subordinate chimpanzee does not morally condemn the alpha; it simply yields to power. In contrast, human morality involves abstract concepts like justice, rights, and duties that apply universally – often against our evolutionary impulses. For instance, humans might say “stealing is wrong” even when stealing could benefit them, or “care for the weak” even if that has no survival advantage. Evolution alone cannot account for such self-sacrificial or principled moral convictions which frequently run counter to survival instincts. As C.S. Lewis observed, “If a man asks what is the point of behaving decently in this life, I can only answer, ‘we just have to’” – an answer that makes sense only if a moral law exists beyond material convenience. The materialist cannot invoke any such “ought” from the brute facts of nature. The chimp’s behavior might be biologically explicable, but it carries no moral weight. There is no moral law behind the animal’s act – only instinct and conditioned response.
- No Lawgiver – Without a Transcendent Source, No Act can be Called ‘Good’ or ‘Evil’: Morality in the objective sense requires a source of authority that transcends individuals and cultures. In our experience, laws come from lawgivers. If there is a true Moral Law that all persons are obligated to follow, there must be a source of that law higher than any individual or group – ultimately, higher than humanity itself. The materialist, by denying any divine or transcendent source, leaves morality groundless. Under pure materialism, to say an action is “good” or “evil” is ultimately meaningless beyond personal or societal preference. If nothing exists but matter, then there are no objective values – only electrochemical brain states giving us feelings we label “moral.” Renowned biologist E.O. Wilson (an atheist) admitted frankly that, under evolutionary naturalism, “the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will”; instead, ethics “is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes”. In their candid moments, some evolutionary theorists acknowledge that what we experience as moral duty is just a trick of DNA: “an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate”. If that is the case, then no action is truly right or wrong – our genes have merely programmed us to think so for survival’s sake. This devastating conclusion means that a murderer or a saint are both just dancing to the tune of their DNA, and we have no higher court of appeal to say one is truly better than the other. The materialist might respond, “Yes, but as human beings we feel moral emotions and have to live by them.” True – but that feeling, on their view, is ultimately arbitrary: a byproduct of evolution, not an insight into any real moral truth. Without God, moral terms like ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are unwarranted labels we stick onto behaviors – useful fictions, perhaps, but fictions nonetheless. As one prominent philosopher of atheism, J.L. Mackie, conceded, objective moral values “are most unlikely to have arisen just by chance” in a material universe, and so he denied they exist at all. This empties moral discourse of any real content. The materialist can describe what humans tend to do, or what they feel about actions, but can offer no reason why anyone ought to do what is “good” or avoid what is “evil”. In a godless world, why is compassion preferable to cruelty? The universe, as materialists describe it, neither knows nor cares – it operates by blind forces. Any effort to derive a duty from such a universe is doomed to fail, because atoms cannot author moral laws.
- Narrative Absurdity – The “Moral Gene” is a Mythical Construct: Desperate to avoid conceding a divine Lawgiver, some secular theorists have hypothesized that specific genes or evolutionary modules encode our moral instincts – as if to say biology inevitably produces something we can call morality. But this is speculative at best and fantastical at worst. Despite decades of research in evolutionary psychology and sociobiology, there is no empirical evidence of a single “moral gene” or set of genes that infallibly produce moral behavior. Yes, researchers find genes linked to oxytocin (a hormone influencing bonding) or serotonin levels (affecting mood and aggression), but these are far cries from a gene for “Thou shalt not kill.” The notion of a “moral gene” or an evolutionary algorithm for ethics is unprovable and unfalsifiable, making it no better than myth. It is invoked selectively – when convenient to argue that we didn’t need God to write the law on our hearts – yet cannot be pinned down or observed in action. Moreover, even if scientists identified genetic dispositions for empathy or fairness, it would not validate those dispositions as morally right; it would only explain their biological advantage. The materialist scenario often sounds like this: Once upon a time, selfish creatures found cooperation useful, so over millennia, genes for cooperation spread, and now we have morality. This is a just-so story, not hard science. It lacks predictive power and cannot be tested in any rigorous way. In truth, it serves a psychological function: to reassure the skeptic that there is no need for God in explaining human conscience. But as a hypothesis, it is empty – you cannot sequence a genome and locate “justice” or “mercy” in the nucleotide bases. Such qualities transcend genetic code. Indeed, conscience often tells us to resist some of our strongest genetic impulses (like aggressive competition or sexual promiscuity) for the sake of higher goods. Far from simply channeling biology, moral conscience often overrides it – a phenomenon much better explained by a law above human nature than by something produced within human nature. Thus, the materialist is left with an absurd narrative: they want to claim moral realism (that certain things are truly right or wrong) while insisting those morals popped out of mindless nature. This is as absurd as claiming a dictionary emerged from an explosion in a printing press. Order and normativity do not spring from chaos and chance – unless one smuggles in a hidden order (as the theist does openly by affirming a Creator).
In summary, the idea that evolution alone gave us morality collapses under scrutiny. At best, evolution can account for why humans feel certain behaviors are beneficial. It cannot explain why we are obligated to do what is good, nor can it guarantee that what survives is morally good (often it’s quite the opposite). Cooperative instincts are not commandments, and without a Commander there are no commandments at all. The chimpanzee may exhibit flashes of what looks like fairness, but nowhere in the animal kingdom is there a tribunal of justice or a declaration of universal human rights. Those came into the world through reason and revelation – through the Logos that enlightens every man (John 1:9), not through the blind gropings of DNA.
Canon Bellatorum III.4: “What cannot be morally commanded in eternity cannot be morally justified in time.”
(If an action cannot be grounded in the eternal character and decree of a holy God, then no accumulation of evolutionary advantages can ever make that action truly “right.”)
II. Evolutionary “Morality” Is Not Teleological
Materialist Claim: Over long periods, behaviors we call “moral” were naturally selected because they benefited group cohesion or survival. Thus, morality has an ultimate purpose in the evolutionary sense – it promotes the flourishing of groups or species. The appearance of moral progress over time (e.g. increasing cooperation or altruism) is simply the outcome of these advantageous traits spreading. No divine plan is needed; natural selection is “teleological” enough, aiming at survival and nothing more.
Strategic Refutation: Here we expose that mechanism is not the same as moral justification, and that evolutionary success does not equate to moral truth or goodness:
- Mechanism ≠ Moral Justification: Even if we grant (for the sake of argument) that certain altruistic behaviors might give groups a survival edge (a concept sometimes called “group selection”), this explains nothing about moral rightness. Biological effectiveness does not determine moral truth. History provides sobering examples: genocide, warfare, and oppression have often conferred advantages in the struggle for survival – groups that were ruthless could exterminate rivals and prosper. Does that make such acts morally good? Of course not. If a hypothetical community survived because it practiced infanticide (eliminating weak offspring to conserve resources, a practice seen in some animal populations and even certain ancient human cultures), evolution might pat it on the back for its efficiency – but our moral conscience recoils in horror at the wickedness of the act. A materialist might say “Well, those that cohere ethically will outcompete those that don’t.” But who is to say that the “ethical” cohesion won’t include cohesion in evil purposes? A regiment of conquerors tightly bonded in loyalty will defeat a disorganized tribe of peaceful villagers – survival of the fittest in action. Yet we would hardly conclude the conquerors are ethically right because they survived. Success is not the measure of righteousness. The Spartans left sickly infants to die, which may have strengthened their army, but it was not a virtue. Rape has the evolutionary “benefit” (for the perpetrator’s genes) of spreading one’s DNA without consent of the weaker – nature is replete with forced matings – but no sane person considers rape morally acceptable simply because it can increase reproductive fitness. As one philosopher quipped, “If evolution is responsible for our sense of morality, it has some explaining to do, for it often gives survival to the cruel and death to the just.” The teleology of evolution is survival, not justice. The two are categorically different ends. Thus even if materialists point out a plausible mechanism for how cooperation might spread, they still lack any basis to say we ought to cooperate in a morally praiseworthy way. The theory is descriptive at best; it can never cross into the prescriptive realm. As the evolutionary ethicist Michael Ruse conceded, “Morality is a biological adaptation… Ethics is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes”. It has survival value, not truth value or obligatory force. Therefore, it is a profound error – a kind of category mistake – to treat evolution as if it were a moral teleology. Evolution has no mind, no foresight, no concern for good or evil; it blindly filters what survives. Confusing that with true purposeful morality is like confusing a clockwork for the clockmaker.
- Dominance vs. Transcendence: In the animal kingdom (and often in human history), what “works” is frequently domination by the strong over the weak. A tyrannical alpha chimp can control his troop through aggression and thereby spread his genes; natural selection has no complaint with that. But we humans do have a complaint – we call it tyranny and injustice, and we praise those individuals in history who have resisted brute force and stood for the oppressed. Whence comes this moral protest against the very dynamic that nature celebrates? Only if there is a moral standard above the calculations of power and survival. Evolution would counsel, “Submit to the strong or become strong yourself; either way, the species continues.” But our conscience sometimes counsels defiance: “This might cost me my life, but tyranny is evil and must be opposed.” Evolution cannot make sense of a Mother Teresa or a Martin Luther King Jr., who sacrificed personal advantage for higher ethical ideals that often ran counter to their immediate survival or prosperity. On purely naturalistic terms, their behavior is quixotic – why care for lepers or stand against unjust laws at great personal risk? And yet we sense profoundly that such actions partake of true goodness. The difference here is transcendence: those who oppose tyranny appeal to a higher justice that does not depend on who currently has power. “Why is tyranny evil?” asks the materialist – by his framework, it’s just another survival strategy. The only answer comes from above: tyranny is evil because it violates the inherent dignity and rights given by God, and because it contradicts the moral law of love and justice written into the nature of reality by the Creator. Only a transcendent moral order can declare an act of dominance to be intrinsically wrong. Otherwise, if “might makes right” was beneficial in evolutionary terms, the materialist has no foothold to condemn it. But we know better: “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees… to turn aside the needy from justice” (Isaiah 10:1–2). In other words, injustice is evil because a just God declares it so, not because it fails some evolutionary litmus test.
- The Cycle of Brutality – Without a Higher Law, Power Simply Shifts Hands: Anthropologists and historians observe cycles in human societies where one regime is overthrown only to be replaced by another that eventually becomes oppressive. Animal social groups often just revolve who’s on top; there’s no final progress, just recurring dominance. If there is no radically different principle introduced from outside this closed system, history would be condemned to repeat endless power struggles. Indeed, apart from God, that is what we largely see: the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must. Evolution doesn’t break this cycle; it cements it by saying that’s how things should be for survival. The Christian claim, however, is that something new entered history in the person of Jesus Christ – a moral revelation that broke the cycle. Christ introduced and embodied a way of voluntary suffering, sacrificial love, and forgiveness that stands in judgment over the endless revenge and dominance of worldly powers. “The greatest among you shall be your servant” (Matthew 23:11) and “Love your enemies” (Luke 6:27) are commands utterly alien to an evolutionarily pruned ethic. They only make sense if God has revealed a higher law that calls us to transcend our natural impulses. The Cross of Christ – God Himself suffering rather than inflicting suffering – confounds the “wisdom” of evolutionary might. By teaching humility, charity, and the infinite value of each person (even the weak and “unfit”), Christianity injected into human consciousness the very ideas that can arrest the cycle of brutality instead of merely perpetuating it under new guises. Without this transcendence, materialism’s best hope is that we tolerate each other as a kind of mutual non-aggression pact for survival’s sake – but as soon as resources shrink or conflicts arise, brute nature will rear its head again. Indeed, if survival is the only telos, why not be brutal if it works? The horror of such logic was put on grotesque display in the 20th century, when Social Darwinists and eugenicists (perverting even Darwin’s own more benign intent) argued that we ought to aid evolution by eliminating the “weak.” Nazi ideology, for instance, explicitly appealed to “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” to justify genocide. Without an external check – a divine “Thou shalt not” – evolutionary teleology can and has been used to rationalize unspeakable evil as being “for the greater future good” of the gene pool. Only the intrusion of the Logos, the divine moral law, prevented and can prevent these cycles from consuming humanity completely. For without transcendence, history would be nothing but an endless animal struggle. Thanks be to God, “the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:5). The Gospel of Christ – calling us to repentance, to see every human as made in God’s image, to break the chain of hate by forgiveness – this is what truly civilizes and elevates us beyond tooth-and-claw, not any gradual tweak of selfish genes.
In sum, evolutionary explanations not only fail to ground morality, they can be twisted to endorse atrocities unless checked by higher authority. As evolutionary theorist Michael Ruse admits, if our moral beliefs are shaped by natural selection alone, then “the processes responsible for our having the moral beliefs that we do are ultimately fitness-aimed rather than truth-aimed” – meaning we would hold whatever beliefs helped us survive, true or false. This undercuts any confidence in moral truth. It leaves us in “moral skepticism” where right and wrong are unknowable, even meaningless. Thus we reject evolutionary teleology as a source of ethics. Only by acknowledging the true telos of man– to love God and neighbor, as revealed by the Creator – can we have morality that rises above pragmatism.
Illustrative Quote – St. Gregory of Nyssa (4th Century): St. Gregory, reflecting on human dignity, wrote that if one looks only at the physical, man seems no different from the animals in his needs and passions. “But look at the purpose (telos) for which man was made,” he says, “to be a citizen of heaven, and you will see that he far excels his nature… Indeed, brute animals follow their instincts, but man was given a share in the divine Reason (Logos) so that he might rise above the brutish and pursue the good.” In other words, our true purpose is defined by God, not by survival instincts.
III. Consciousness and Neuroscience: The Mirage of Materialist Mind
Materialist Claim: Neuroscience has shown that our thoughts, feelings, and even our sense of self are nothing more than brain activity. As we map the brain, we find correlates for memories, emotions, and decisions in neural firings. Therefore, the mind is the brain; consciousness is an emergent property or an illusion created by neurons. Free will and the soul are outdated concepts – everything about us can be explained by chemistry and physics. As some go so far to say: the very notion of a consistent “self” is an illusion generated by brain processes.
Strategic Refutation: We counter this claim by highlighting the profound explanatory gap between brain activity and subjective experience, and by showing that denying the reality of mind undermines truth and knowledge itself:
- Correlation Is Not Explanation: It is true that modern neuroscience has identified many correlations between mental states and brain states. For example, functional MRI scans show distinct patterns of neural activation when a person is happy, sad, thinking of music, solving math, etc. But a correlation or even a causal relationship does not amount to an explanation of consciousness. The materialist leaps from “when thought X occurs, brain region Y lights up” to “therefore thought X is nothing but brain region Y firing.” This is a non sequitur. It’s akin to saying: since a radio’s circuits correlate with the music it produces, the music is nothing but electricity – ignoring the transmitter and the signal encoded. Likewise, observing the brain’s activity is observing the instrument or mediumthrough which the mind operates, not necessarily the full story of the mind itself. Neurons and synapses are the necessary conditions for our earthly mental life – but they are not sufficient to account for the rich, first-person experience of being a conscious self. As philosopher John Searle puts it, the fact that brain processes accompany thought does not tell us why those processes are accompanied by subjective awareness at all. Indeed, in philosophy this is called the “hard problem of consciousness”: why and how do physical processes give rise to the qualia – the felt qualities – of experience? Materialists have not answered this. They often just assert that somehowconsciousness “emerges” when systems are complex enough, but this is hand-waving, not an explanation. It’s like saying “magical pixie dust” – a placeholder for ignorance. Notably, many philosophers of mind (including atheists like Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers) acknowledge that strict physicalism fails to account for consciousness. Nagel famously wrote, “Consciousness is the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism … It implies the physical description of the universe is only part of the truth”. In other words, subjective experience doesn’t logically follow from firing neurons; something is missing in the materialist account. Scanning a brain can tell you which neurons fire when you see red, but it cannot by its nature tell you what red looks like or feels like to the person. The experience of color, sound, pain, or love – these cannot be read off an EEG printout. Thus, neuroscience describes the interface of mind with matter, but not the essence of mind itself. To assume the map is the territory is a fallacy. No image on a brain scan, no matter how detailed, contains the quality of understanding a concept or meaning a word. We must not confuse the activity of the brain (which is publicly observable) with the meaningful content of thought (which is privately accessible to the conscious subject).
- The Undeniability of Qualia and the Self: Qualia refers to the qualitative, subjective aspects of experiences – what it is like to taste coffee or hear a violin. Many materialist scientists have tried to dismiss qualia as “just brain events” or even deny their existence because they don’t fit into a physicalist worldview. But denying qualia is self-defeating – one has to experience things even to form thoughts. We all know qualia are real from first-hand life; pain hurts, red looks distinct from blue, etc. You cannot persuade someone who is in pain that their pain is just an illusion of neurons – they directly apprehend its reality. Here’s the rub: if the self and conscious experience are illusions, who is experiencing the illusion? An illusion is something that appears real to a subject but isn’t. But if there is no real subject (self) behind the brain, then nothing is actually “being fooled.” The argument devours itself. Some neuroscientists like Sam Harris or Bruce Hood claim the self is a constructed narrative of the brain. Yet they write books trying to convince our conscious selves that we have no selves – a rather ironic endeavor. Even as they argue, they presuppose an audience of conscious reasoning agents who can examine evidence and be persuaded by logic – faculties that go beyond mere neuron firing. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga humorously points out that if he believes his thoughts are nothing but physical events, he has no reason to trust them as true; they’re just things happening, like a toothache, not insights into reality. Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism highlights that if our brains are cobbled by evolution for survival, not necessarily for truth, we have a defeater for trusting any of our cognitive faculties under pure materialism. Notably, Thomas Nagel (an atheist) similarly stated, “Evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously, including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends.”. This means that if consciousness and reason are epiphenomenal accidents, we undermine the validity of all our thoughts – including the thought that materialism is true. How can a series of chemical reactions be “true” or “false”? Those terms only make sense if thoughts can aim at truth beyond themselves – something purely physical processes cannot do, since chemicals have no concern for truth, only obeying blind forces. Thus materialism undercuts itself: in denying the soul and reducing mind to matter, it gives us no reason to trust the products of our minds, including the theories of materialism.
- No Room for Truth or Free Will – A Self-Defeating Worldview: If the brain is a deterministic machine (or even a probabilistic quantum machine), then all our thoughts and beliefs are just outputs of that machine – effects of prior physical causes, not judgments of a free rational agent. In such a scenario, the very concept of truth becomes irrelevant. The chemical reactions in my brain that produce an equation or a theory do so not because the equation is true or false, but because of antecedent physical conditions. Whether I believe materialism or dualism, on this account, has nothing to do with logic or evidence; it was determined by the state of my neurons, genes, and environment. By the materialist’s own premise, a person believes in materialism not because it is actually more rational, but because their neurons happened to fire that way. The same for the theist: not because God is real, but because of some brain state. This leads to a radical epistemic nihilism – a denial that we can genuinely know anything. For knowledge traditionally requires that our reasons for belief are grounded in evidence and logical inference, not merely physical causation. If there is no “ghost in the machine” (no soul or intellect) to evaluate reasons, then reasoning is an illusion. We become like a pot of water that “decides” to boil – i.e. it doesn’t decide at all, it just reacts. Yet here we are, engaging in argument, weighing reasons, striving for truth. The materialist cannot consistently say “My view is true and you should accept it” because, under his view, “accepting” is just neurons firing, not an act of apprehending truth. It reduces to “my brain states want your brain states to change”, which is more akin to programming than persuasion. This empties meaning from every conversation and thought. Renowned physicist Sir John Eccles (a Nobel laureate in neuroscience who believed in a non-material mind) argued that the uniqueness of conscious will is evident: “I want to raise my arm,” and lo, it happens. No physical law compelled that specific thought at that moment. If everything were just physics, intentional action and rational argument would be impossible – yet we all experience them. Even atheist philosophers of mind like Jerry Fodor admitted that “If mental processes are just physical processes, we shall never understand how a system could be, for example, evaluating an argument.” The irony is thick: materialists often pride themselves on rationality, yet their theory destroys the foundations of rational thought. Atheism here self-destructs epistemically: No soul, no true knower; no knower, no knowledge.
In contrast, the classical Christian view holds that consciousness and rationality are not illusions but reflections of the divine image in us – the imprint of the Logos on the human soul. That is why we have a mind that seeks truth and a free will that can choose the good. Our brain is indeed marvelously involved – it is the instrument our soul uses – but it is not the whole story. Mind is more than matter, as evidenced by the fact that matter itself obeys immaterial laws (logic, mathematics) that our minds can grasp. The Logos doctrine (John 1:1-4) affirms that a rational principle undergirds reality, and our rational minds share in that light. As St. Augustine argued, eternal truths (like 2+2=4) require an eternal mind, and our ability to see such truths points to our being more than dust. The triumph of the materialist worldview would actually be the death of reason, but reason cannot be killed – because even to attempt it, one must use reason. So consciousness remains a towering proof that we inhabit a reality where mind is fundamental, not derivative. In the words of neurologist Wilder Penfield after a career of brain research: “The mind is independent of the brain in the same sense that a programmer is independent of a computer.” We assert the same: the soul is not produced by neurons, but uses neurons.
Max Planck (founder of quantum physics) famously stated: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.” He went on to say that we cannot get behind consciousness, and that all science presupposes the mind of the observer. Materialism, in denying this, saws off the branch on which it sits. As Scripture says, “In Him (the Logos) was life, and that life was the light of men” (John 1:4) – that light includes the light of conscious knowledge. It is God’s gift, irreducible to clay.
IV. Psychological Materialism and the Despair of Modern Therapy
Materialist Claim: The human quest for peace and meaning can be fully addressed by psychology, psychiatry, and pharmacology – all on a purely natural plane. Mental health issues like depression or anxiety are medical problems to be treated with therapy techniques and medications. There is no “soul” that needs salvation; what people need is proper neurotransmitter balance and cognitive restructuring. As this view implies: our inner turmoil has purely natural causes (brain chemistry, childhood conditioning, etc.), and thus purely natural solutions. Religion or repentance is unnecessary – one can be made whole through secular therapy and perhaps a regimen of SSRIs. In short, there is no spiritual dimension to mental health, only the material.
Strategic Refutation: We acknowledge the value of science in understanding the mind, but we point out that treating humans as mere biochemical machines yields only palliative fixes, not true healing. The epidemic of despair in modern secular society testifies that something essential is missing:
- Palliative, Not Curative – Soothing Symptoms vs. Healing the Soul: Modern psychological and pharmaceutical interventions can certainly alleviate symptoms. Therapy can provide coping strategies; medications can stabilize mood or anxiety by altering brain chemistry. These are often genuine blessings, as far as they go. However, they do not address the deeper existential vacuum that afflicts the human soul. We see around us a paradox: never have there been more therapists, self-help books, life coaches, and psychiatric drugs, yet rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide have not plummeted – in many places, they are rising. Why? Because removing pain is not the same as providing meaning. A painkiller can stop your nerves from hurting, but it cannot tell you why you should endure and what you are living for. Much of modern therapy ends up being a management of symptoms – helping people cope with life’s stresses or numb their emotional pain – without being able to answer the fundamental human craving for purpose. The phrase “chemical imbalance” is often used to assure patients that their sadness is like a physical ailment to be medicated. But while brain chemistry correlates with mood, dousing the brain in serotonin cannot instill hope or virtues. It might lift the floor of despair enough that a person can function, and that is good – but if their life remains void of meaning, the specter of despair returns. Indeed, secular psychology often finds itself in the business of making people comfortably adjusted to a meaningless existence. That may sound harsh, but consider: if a person believes life is ultimately purposeless (as materialism implies – “we are just accidental blips in an indifferent universe”), then a sense of futility or anxiety is actually a rational response. The therapist is then tasked with helping the patient feel better anyway, perhaps by distraction, personal goals, or embracing subjective meaning. It’s akin to putting a cheerful wallpaper over a structural crack. True healing would require addressing the reality of that crack – the absence of real meaning – which secular therapy is unequipped to do. The soul (and I will unabashedly use that term) is oriented toward ultimate things: truth, goodness, beauty, and communion with the divine. When cut off from these, it withers or rebels. Modern society tries to feed the soul entertainment, career, sex, etc., but these do not satisfy the hunger. As Jesus noted, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). The bread (material solutions) can keep the body alive, but the inner man starves without God’s truth and love.
- Therapy Without Logos – Narcotic Coping vs. Authentic Transformation: Much secular therapy ends up being what one might call a narcotic for the conscience and the existential angst. It might encourage one to “accept yourself just as you are”, to practice mindfulness to silence the nagging inner voice, or to “reframe” every negative thought. Again, these techniques can bring relief. But sometimes what a person in despair needs is not mere relief – they need redemption. They need to change in a profound way, to reconcile with themselves, others, and God. Without the Logos – the truth of God’s Word – therapy lacks the power to call a person to repentance or to offer forgiveness and grace. It is largely non-judgmental (by design, to make a safe space), which is fine to an extent; but it means it often cannot say: “Yes, you feel guilt – perhaps because you are guilty. Here is how to find forgiveness and make amends.” Nor can it easily say: “You are feeling hatred or despair – here is how to find love and hope through a relationship with your Creator.” Instead, it might say, “Those feelings are just thoughts, let them pass,” or “No one is here to judge you, just do what feels right to you.” This is coping, not curing. It’s teaching someone how to manage a wound rather than healing it. The soul estranged from God is meant to feel a certain restlessness or even torment – like an engine meant for high-octane fuel chugging on low-grade substitutes. Therapy might disable the warning light (through rationalizations or meds), but the underlying emptiness remains. By contrast, Christian spiritual tradition offers true restoration: through repentance (facing and renouncing our wrongdoing), through reconciliation (receiving God’s forgiveness and forgiving others), and through worship (reorienting life around the highest good, God, rather than self). These acts, guided by divine grace, heal the inner fragmentation rather than just paper it over. As any good recovery program (like Alcoholics Anonymous) ironically recognizes, you need a “Higher Power” to truly recover – a wisdom and strength beyond your ego. Secular therapy that rejects any higher power is left to your own ego trying to fix itself – which is a closed loop. Only by opening to the Logos, the light of Truth, can the inner darkness be dispelled. The ancient title for Christ is not only Savior but Physician of souls. He heals the root cause, not just the symptoms.
- Historical Amnesia – Modern Epidemics of Meaninglessness: We often assume that depression or existential crises are just byproducts of brain chemistry or modern stress, but it’s instructive to compare with past ages. Our ancestors endured wars, plagues, high child mortality, harsh living conditions that by all rights should cause immense psychological stress. And yet, we do not read of medieval peasants having existential crises en masse or high suicide rates due to meaninglessness. This is not to romanticize the past (which had its own woes and injustices), but to highlight a difference: they generally perceived their suffering in the context of a meaningful universe. Religion – Christian faith in Europe, as well as other faiths elsewhere – provided a framework in which suffering could be redemptive or at least not meaningless. For example, a mother losing a child to illness in 1300 might be heartbroken, but she likely took comfort that her child’s soul was in God’s hands, and that there was some divine purpose or at least providence at work. Today, a mother losing a child (with no faith) faces an abyss: a cruel universe that killed her child for no reason. That existential grief is qualitatively different. Likewise, cultures with strong community and spiritual life often had effective ways to cope with mental distress (even if they lacked our medical knowledge). Today, we have drifted into atomized living – individuals cut off from community, family, tradition, and God. We are wealthier and live longer than ever, yet many are drowning in despair. Suicide rates have alarmingly climbed in affluent societies, and “deaths of despair” (from suicide, opioids, etc.) are a recognized phenomenon in secular Western cultures. This suggests that material well-being and therapy are not solving the deep crisis. As Viktor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor and psychiatrist, observed: “Ever more people today have the means to live, but no meaning to live for.”. Frankl’s own approach, logotherapy, centered on helping people find meaning even in suffering. He identified what he called the “existential vacuum” in modern man – a chronic sense of emptiness, boredom, and lack of purpose . He noted a “mass neurotic triad” of aggression, depression, and addiction arising when people lack meaning . Importantly, Frankl insisted that meaning is not just subjective; it often comes from commitment to something greater – love, work, ideals – ultimately tied to a spiritual dimension. Our secular culture tries to fill the vacuum with entertainment, consumerism, activism, etc., but these often devolve into idols that disappoint. Only rediscovering a transcendent purpose – that our lives are part of a larger story willed by a loving God – can truly address that vacuum. When suffering has meaning, it becomes bearable (as Frankl saw in concentration camps, those with spiritual purpose survived better). When pain has no meaning, even comfort cannot prevent despair. Thus, ironically, it may be easier to endure great physical hardship with faith than to endure luxury without any metaphysical hope. This is why we see epidemics of depression even in peaceful, wealthy societies: souls starve while bodies are fed.
In conclusion, psychological materialism fails because it treats the human person as less than what he truly is. We are not just complicated biological machines; we are embodied souls, made for communion with God and each other. The modern secular approach often offers Band-Aids for wounds that require surgery. It can manage, but not heal, the anguish that comes from sin, guilt, fear of death, and lack of meaning. That healing requires spiritual medicine: confession and absolution, prayer and the sacraments, love and hope infused by God. As St. Augustine eloquently opened his Confessions: “You have made us for Yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.” Secular therapy tries to calm the restlessness without acknowledging its cause. But we declare: peace is not the mere absence of conflict or symptom, but the presence of God’s grace restoring order to the soul.
Jesus Christ, Wonderful Counselor: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). No psychiatrist ever made such a promise – and for good reason, as only the Divine Physician can truly deliver it. Christ offers rest not by numbing us, but by reconciling us to God, giving us His Spirit, and promising us that our sorrows will turn to joy. History is replete with those whom society’s methods could not save, but who found redemption in Christ – from Augustine himself (a former slave to lust and false philosophies, turned towering saint) to countless addicts and suicidally depressed individuals today whose last shot was a conversion. The Logos incarnate brings a peace “not as the world gives” (John 14:27). Psychological materialism knows nothing of this peace, which is why, despite all its knowledge, it remains largely powerless to cure the modern soul’s despair.
V. The Absence of “Why” – Materialism’s Void of Purpose
At the core of all these materialist frameworks lies a chilling emptiness: an unwillingness or inability to answer the question “Why?” Materialism is a worldview that offers, at best, descriptions of how things happen, but never a reason for which they happen. It is the metaphysics of explanation without meaning. We highlight this deficiency to show that only a world imbued with Logos (divine reason and purpose) can satisfy the deepest human intuition that life is meaningful and ordered toward some good end.
- Science Describes the “How,” But Not the “Why” of Value: Consider the achievements of science – physics tells us how particles behave and stars form, biology tells us how organisms grow and reproduce, neuroscience tells us how brain cells fire. But none of these disciplines can tell us why anything is significant or valuable. Materialism sticks to quantitative facts: for instance, it can trace the neurochemical cascade when a mother sees her child and feels love. But ask the materialist scientist, “Why is love good or sacred?” and science falls silent, or reduces the question to something meaningless (“Love is just dopamine rewarding certain evolutionary beneficial interactions”). That answer dodges the real question. We humans do not just ask how neurons fire when we behold beauty; we ask, why does beauty move my heart? Why do we weep at a sunset or a symphony? The materialist can measure the wavelengths of light in a sunset and the decibels of a symphony, perhaps even map which brain regions activate. But the glory of the sunset, the meaning of the music – these transcend the measurements. By refusing any transcendent reference, materialism leaves these most important dimensions of life unaccounted for. It can tell you how stars form in clouds of gas, but not why the stars are beautiful or why the human mind finds awe in the heavens. It can catalogue the biochemical processes of a tear, but not the meaning of why we cry at injustice or joy. In short, a material universe might be described with exquisite detail, but it would remain, in the words of one physicist, “pointless” – “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,” said Steven Weinberg (an atheist Nobel laureate). He recognized the paradox: science yields comprehension of mechanism, yet from a materialist view, it yields no purpose or moral. Another way to frame it: Materialism lights up the house with bright fluorescent bulbs (explanation of workings), but reveals it to be empty of furniture or inhabitants or festivities (no ultimate reason or celebration). Truly, as one of our apocryphal quotes has it, “A universe without Logos is a tomb lit by fluorescence.” It’s well-lit and dead. Humanity cannot thrive in such a tomb; we are meaning-seeking creatures.
- Moral Imperatives Demand a “Why,” Not Just a “How”: Materialism narrates a cosmos and an evolution, but cannot justify a single moral imperative. We come back to morality here: science can tell us how cooperation evolved (perhaps), but not why I ought to be selfless today when it’s against my interest. It can describe how human beings tend to develop moral feelings, but not why one moral stance is truer or better than another. It is no coincidence that as Western culture has become more materialistic, moral discourse has decayed into emotivism (morals as subjective feelings) or utilitarianism (morals as calculations of survival/pleasure). Both are collapsed versions of true ethics, which require a teleology (an ultimate purpose or good). If man is for something, then we can say what is good for him to do. If man is for nothing (just a cosmic accident), then to quote Dostoevsky’s paraphrase: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” Because there is no “why” behind the command “Thou shalt not kill” except a perhaps pragmatic “society runs smoother if we don’t.” But if I can get away with it and benefit, why not? The materialist can answer “you’ll be caught” or “you wouldn’t want others to do that to you” – all how and prudential reasoning. But if I could ensure no social consequence, their system has no “why not?” beyond personal preference. This is why some of the bolder atheists (like Alex Rosenberg) admit that from their view, “morality is a trick of evolution, there is no right or wrong.” But no human truly lives that way consistently; if they did, they’d be sociopathic. We intuitively know some things are really wrong – which implies a moral order or “why” behind our existence. Materialism’s silence on “why be good” is therefore evidence of its incompleteness. As the German writer Hermann Hesse noted, “If life must be not taken too seriously – then so neither must death.”Remove meaning and duty, and life and death alike become trivial – a recipe for either hedonism or nihilism. Neither is sustainable for civilization.
- Yearning for Purpose – Evidence We Are Meant for More: Humans are peculiar in that we do not just perform functions; we incessantly ask about purpose. A frog may be content with its pond and flies, but a human in paradise will still wonder, “What is the meaning of my life?” This “why” will not go away. Even when people abandon belief in God, they often seek surrogate purposes – political causes, career goals, legacy projects – something to fill the void of ultimate meaning. This very yearning is indicative. Why should purposeless beings desperately crave purpose? The materialist might call it an evolutionary byproduct of our intelligence – an “overactive meaning generator” that helped us, say, interpret patterns. But that’s a just-so story again. A far more reasonable inference (one that does not violate Occam’s razor by multiplying imaginary selection pressures) is that the desire for purpose corresponds to a reality of purpose – much like thirst corresponds to water and curiosity corresponds to real discoverable truths. C.S. Lewis argued this in his Argument from Desire: “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is food… If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”We desire meaning that transcends the material – which suggests we were made for the transcendent. Materialism’s inability to offer anything but eternal silence to the question “Why?” is a strong sign it’s false or at least deeply inadequate as a worldview. In contrast, Christianity proclaims that in the beginning, God created all things with a purpose: to reflect His glory, and specifically for humans to know and love Him and one another. Thus everything – from the stars to the sparrows – has meaning in the tapestry of creation. The beauty that moves us has a purpose: to lift our minds to the Beauty of God. The moral law that pricks our conscience has a purpose: to guide us to goodness and ultimately to God’s character. Our capacity for love has a purpose: to participate in the divine love of the Trinity. Remove these answers, and one is left like a child incessantly asking “Why? Why? Why?” to every answer, until the materialist parent snaps, “Because it just is, okay?!” That is hardly satisfying. The human spirit ultimately rejects an endless chain of brute facts and seeks a foundation – a Logos – where the buck stops and things make sense. Materialism, by refusing to allow a foundational Mind or Person as the end of explanation, ends in a bunch of brute facts: things that just happen to be. The universe just exists, life just emerged, consciousness just sparked, the Big Bang just banged. This isn’t rationality; it’s a refusal of reason at the deepest level (the level of ultimate explanation). It’s ironically a kind of mysticism: “Accept these mysteries of atheism on faith: that everything came from nothing for no reason, and miraculously arranged itself rationally enough for you to now rationalize it has no rational cause.” We demur. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”(Genesis 1:1) – that is an answer that anchors all “Why” questions in an ultimate purposeful agency. Without it, the “Why” echoes into the void.
In summary, materialism can produce facts without values, causes without intentions, and an abundance of data without any wisdom about what it means. It leaves us, in the words of T.S. Eliot, “Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” It is not surprising that, having largely lost a sense of divine purpose, our age wallows in information and technique (the “how”) but flounders in confusion about identity, ethics, and direction (the “why”). People drown in facts and stimulus, but starve for meaning.
Only by restoring the primacy of the Logos – the divine Reason who gives order and goal to creation – can we fill this void. When St. John calls Jesus “the Logos,” he speaks to Greek seekers of meaning: This is the answer to your cosmic Why. As Colossians 1:16 says, “All things were created through Him and for Him.” There is a “for.” The universe is for the Logos, for God’s glory and love. Remove that, and everything is “for nothing” – literally. Therefore, to all who languish in the secular void, we echo the invitation of the prophet: “Why do you spend your labor on what does not satisfy?… Incline your ear, come to Me; hear, that your soul may live” (Isaiah 55:2-3). In coming to God, we find not only how things work, but why we were given life at all – to be children of God, delighting in Him forever.
Codex Stratagematon (fragment): “A universe without Logos is a tomb lit by fluorescence.” – This metaphor captures it well: materialism may illuminate the world with the cold light of scientific analysis, but without the warmth of divine purpose, it is like a brightly lit tomb – all clarity and no life. We choose the light of Christ instead, which not only reveals reality, but imbues it with life and meaning abundantly (John 10:10).
Final Judicium (Codex I): Let it be declared that the throne of Materialism stands as a shrine to the impersonal, the untrue, and the unbearable. It promises knowledge but gives hollow answers; it promises liberation from superstition but leaves man in chains of meaninglessness. Its idols – the “selfish gene,” the neuron-as-mind, the evolutionary accident – are false gods that cannot save or satisfy. We call for these idols to be burned, their claims silenced, their narrative scattered to the ash heap of history. We do not do this as enemies of science (true science is a gift from God), but as enemies of the arrogance that says nothing exists beyond science. In place of materialism’s despair, we proclaim the risen Logos – Jesus Christ – who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). Every molecule must kneel to Him, for through Him even the molecules came to be, and in Him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). The emptiness of materialism is filled with the fullness of Christ, “in whom all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17). Therefore, we judge Materialism and find it wanting, and we cast it down before the throne of the Logos. Amen.
✠ Codex Interdictum II: Judgment Against Scientism and Enlightenment Rationalism
The second codex targets two related idols of the modern age: Scientism, the belief that science alone is the arbiter of truth; and Enlightenment Rationalism, the creed that unaided human reason (apart from God) can ground morality and knowledge. Both rose from laudable origins – the successes of science and the power of reason – but both were corrupted into absolutisms that reject the Logos. Scientism elevates empirical science to a total worldview, dismissing anything not testable by its methods. Secular rationalism enthrones human reason as an almost divine faculty, capable of legislating morality and truth on its own. We will show that scientism refutes itself and cannot justify the very rationality it presupposes, and that Enlightenment rationalism without God collapses into either empty abstractions or tyranny of subjective reason. In short, by divorcing reason from the divine Reason (Logos), these systems undermine their own foundations.
I. The Self-Refuting Creed of Scientism
Enemy Claim (Scientism): “All real knowledge must come through the methods of natural science – through hypothesis, observation, and empirical testing. If something is not testable or falsifiable by scientific means, it is not credible or ‘known.’ Therefore, metaphysical or religious claims (like ‘God exists’ or ‘souls exist’), being untestable, are meaningless or at least not knowledge. Science, and science alone, can give us truth.”
This claim is increasingly common – you hear it in popular slogans like “Science is real” or from figures like the late Stephen Hawking, who said philosophy is dead and science is the way forward. However, scientism has a fatal flaw: it is self-refuting. Furthermore, it rests on a number of philosophical presuppositions that science itself cannot justify (thus betraying its own rule). Lastly, we’ll note that science as practiced today doesn’t even live up consistently to its ideal method (e.g., the replication crisis shows the human factor often trumps the method).
Strategic Refutation:
- Auto-Destruction – The Statement “Only Science Yields Truth” Is Not a Scientific Statement: Scientism hoists itself by its own petard. Consider the central claim: “All truth must be scientific (empirically testable, falsifiable, etc.).” Is that statement itself arrived at by scientific means? Can we put “Only science leads to truth” into a test tube or derive it from an experiment? No, we cannot. It is a philosophical assertion about knowledge, not a discovery of biology or chemistry. It’s not falsifiable by experiment; it’s taken as a given. Thus, by its own criterion, the creed of scientism would be non-sense – something that should be thrown out as not real knowledge. The claim is self-referentially incoherent: if true, we shouldn’t believe it, since it’s not scientific knowledge. This is reminiscent of the logical positivists who in the early 20th century claimed that only statements verifiable by the senses were meaningful – a position that collapsed when they realized that statement itself was not verifiable that way. Scientism is just a new wrapper on that old mistake. A modest respect for science is warranted, but an absolutist claim like scientism goes beyond science’s own capacity and thus self-destructs. Indeed, many scientists and philosophers of science readily admit that science rests on philosophical assumptions and cannot be its own justification. As mathematician/logician Kurt Gödel might analogize: no system can prove its own axioms from within itself. Scientism tries to, and fails.
- Epistemic Hypocrisy – Scientism Smuggles in Unscientific Presuppositions: The devotee of scientism happily uses logic and mathematics in every scientific endeavor – but pause and ask: Are the laws of logic and mathematical truths scientifically proven? Did we discover “2+2=4” or “If A > B and B > C, then A > C” by doing lab experiments? No, these are either innate or grasped by reason independent of sensory testing. Similarly, science presupposes the reliability of our cognitive faculties (like memory, perception, and reasoning). A scientist trusts her memory of what she observed yesterday in the lab; she trusts that nature’s laws are uniform (the experiment will behave the same today as it did last year under the same conditions); she trusts language to communicate results meaningfully; she trusts the validity of statistical and logical inferences. None of these trusts come out of an experiment – they are philosophical and metaphysical commitments that are a precondition of doing science. As an example, the uniformity of nature (the assumption that the future will resemble the past and distant parts of the universe obey the same physics as here) cannot be proved by science because any such proof would already assume what it’s trying to prove (that observations to date have predictive power). David Hume famously showed you can’t derive uniformity from mere inductive reasoning without circularity. We just assume it because without it science collapses. Or consider morality: the practice of science requires an ethos of honesty, openness to critique, and ethical treatment of data and subjects. You can’t run proper experiments if you constantly lie or fake data; the community won’t work if scientists don’t abide by some moral norms. Yet, is there a scientific experiment that demonstrates “lying is wrong” or “honesty is good for science”? No – it’s a moral axiom, part of the philosophy of science. Even the meaningfulness of the scientific method itself can’t be scientifically proven – you can’t test the scientific method with another more fundamental scientific method without circularity; at some point you have to say, “We have good reasons philosophically to trust observation and induction.” Thus, scientism lives by non-scientific assumptions while denigrating non-scientific knowledge. This is rank hypocrisy. It is like a man who says he doesn’t believe in air even as he continues breathing. A particularly glaring contradiction is the use of logic: the statement “all knowledge must be empirical” is a logical claim about categories of knowledge – one must employ the very logical reasoning scientism cannot account for (since logic is abstract and not a physical thing to be measured). In essence, scientism borrows the tools of philosophy and theology (like belief in order, truth as a value, rational inference, intrinsic morality of honesty) and then denies the validity of those fields.
- The Scientific Method Not Loyal to Itself – The Replication Crisis: Proponents of scientism often imagine Science as a near-infallible march toward truth, throwing out false ideas by rigorous testing and keeping only what is proven. However, the reality of contemporary science is more complex and, frankly, more human. We see whole swathes of published scientific findings failing to replicate – meaning when independent researchers repeat the experiments, they do not get the same results. This has been particularly acute in fields like medicine, psychology, and social sciences, but even touches biology and physics. For example, a 2016 survey in the journal Nature of 1,500 scientists found that over 70% had tried and failed to reproduce someone else’s experiment, and over half even failed to reproduce their own results! Only 36% of 100 major psychology findings held up under replication attempts. In cancer research, only 11% of 53 landmark studies could be confirmed by Amgen’s scientists. This startling situation shows that published scientific knowledge is not as self-verifying as we tend to believe. There are many reasons: selective reporting (journals prefer positive, novel results – leading to publication bias), p-hacking (researchers unconsciously bias their analysis to get significant results), poor statistical power, lack of peer replication, and even occasional fraud. The point here is not to undermine confidence in science’s capability for truth, but to humble its claim to exclusive authority. Science is a human endeavor, susceptible to error, bias, and even faddish consensus that later proves wrong. Whole paradigms can shift (as Thomas Kuhn described with his idea of scientific revolutions), meaning what “science says” today might be overturned tomorrow. Therefore, to treat “Science” (capital S) as an oracle of Truth that automatically validates only itself is naive. Real science advances by remaining open-minded, critical, and even skeptical of its current understanding. Ironically, scientism – by claiming only science has truth – tends to shut down the healthy skepticism needed within science. If a study is published, the devotee of scientism might say “It’s scientific, so it’s true,” whereas a good scientist might say “Interesting, but can it be replicated and does it align with other knowledge?” The motto of science is supposed to be “truth at any cost”, but in practice, it can become “publish or perish”, and perverse incentives lead to cutting corners on truth. Moreover, science deals in probabilities and models, not absolute certainties, especially in complex domains. A little-noticed fact is that most scientific “knowledge” is actually accepted on authority by non-specialists. For example, I (as a layman in physics) trust quantum mechanics works because of the authority of physicists and the technology it yields – I have not personally derived the equations or run the experiments. Thus a blanket statement “science says X” often reduces to “some scientists claim X based on certain studies.” It’s prudent, but if one is too dogmatic, it becomes another priesthood demanding faith – something scientism ironically mirrors even as it rejects religious faith. In short, scientism idealizes science beyond its actual practice. True scientific spirit is curious and critical; scientism is dogmatic and dismissive. The former is a path to knowledge; the latter, ironically, can become an obstacle to knowledge by ruling whole domains (like ethics, meaning, aesthetics) out-of-bounds a priori.
To be clear, we love science when properly bounded – it’s a magnificent tool given by God’s common grace for understanding the natural world. But we refuse to worship it as a total worldview. Science itself arose in a theistic milieu, arguably because of a belief in an orderly Creator whose laws nature follows. Early scientists like Newton, Kepler, Boyle were devout and saw themselves as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Remove that foundation, and science can become unmoored – either degenerating into a mere instrument for power (technology without ethics) or into an insatiable nihilism that explains away the very mind doing the science. We’ve seen both: from the atrocities of scientists in unethical experiments to the existential despair expressed by some physicists at the void of meaning.
Therefore, against scientism we reassert the classical understanding: science is one avenue of truth, suited to quantitative study of the material world, but it rests on and must be guided by higher truths from philosophy and theology. As Pope Pius XII quipped, “Science can purify religion from error; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”
Liber Tacticae: “If you cast out the Logos, do not be surprised when your formulas become fog.” – This suggests that without the grounding of divine Reason, even scientific formulas lose clear meaning or orientation. Indeed, under scientism, science loses its philosophical clarity about what it is for (truth, human flourishing) and can become a kind of sorcery – power without wisdom.
II. The False God of Falsifiability
Enemy Claim: “God cannot be proven or disproven by scientific experiment; His existence is not falsifiable. Therefore, belief in God is unworthy of serious consideration – it’s not a scientific hypothesis, and what’s not scientific is not intellectually respectable. Only beliefs that could, in principle, be shown false by empirical evidence are worth believing; God fails this test.”
This argument, influenced by philosophers like Karl Popper (who introduced falsifiability as a demarcation for science), tries to relegate God to the dustbin of unfalsifiable notions (like the Invisible Pink Unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster orbiting Pluto). It says, in effect, “If your God can’t be put under a microscope or potentially refuted by an observation, then talking about God is meaningless or at least not knowledge.”
Strategic Refutation:
- Category Fallacy – God Is Not an Item Within the Universe’s Inventory: Demanding that God be “falsifiable” by scientific means is like demanding that the author of a novel should be a character in the novel’s pages subject to the plot. God, if He exists, is not just another object in the universe – He is, by classical definition, the ground of all being (the source of existence), not a being among beings. He’s more like the playwright to the play or the programmer to the simulation. To require that God be falsifiable by lab tests is a category mistake; it treats God as though He were a phenomenon in nature, when He is rather the reason nature exists at all. The proper domain of science is the natural, contingent world. God, being necessary and transcendent, exceeds that domain. Insisting on scientific proof of God is akin to trying to use a metal detector to find plastic – when the tool doesn’t find it, concluding plastic doesn’t exist. Science’s methods aren’t suited to measure or test for the transcendent. This doesn’t make God unreal; it means God isn’t a scientific question in the narrow sense. Indeed, one can argue that evidence for God is of a different sort – philosophical (like the cosmological argument reasoning that contingent reality needs a necessary cause) or experiential. For example, one cannot “falsify” the statement “the laws of logic hold everywhere” with a single experiment – it’s a precondition of reasoning. God is in many ways similar: the assumption of an orderly intelligible universe, which science takes for granted, aligns with belief in a rational Creator. A crucial point: The existence of God is actually the foundation that makes the concept of falsifiable scientific laws coherent. The laws of nature themselves are not falsifiable in the sense that you assume their uniformity to test anything. If tomorrow an experiment defied known laws, scientists wouldn’t say “laws don’t exist,” they’d say “our understanding of the law was incomplete; a deeper law exists.” There’s a metaphysical faith here that nature is lawlike. Why? Because if one doesn’t assume a lawful order (a cosmos, not chaos), one couldn’t do science. That faith historically came from the theological conviction of a Lawgiver. So to turn around and demand the Lawgiver appear as a test tube effect is silly. As the Christian apologist John Lennox likes to say: Asking for a scientific proof of God is like asking for the PIN code of your phone to prove the existence of Beethoven. It confuses different realms of inquiry. We have other grounds to believe in Beethoven (the music), and we have other grounds to believe in God – in fact, the very enterprise of rational inquiry is one such ground, as alluded. The “falsifiability” criterion, when absolutized, would ironically force one to abandon many important kinds of knowledge: ethical truths (you can’t falsify “torture is wrong” by experiment), aesthetic truths (no experiment proves the beauty of a sunset), metaphysical truths (like other minds existing – I can’t falsify solipsism scientifically). We don’t dismiss these domains; we use other modes of knowing. Thus, the demand that God must be squeezable into a test is just narrow-minded. The foundation of reality isn’t subject to one of its subordinate methods.
- No Alternative Ground – Materialism’s Failure to Offer an Account of Reality: While the atheist or skeptic dismisses God as “not falsifiable, therefore I don’t believe,” they often fail to notice they are then left with no coherent alternative explanation for the existence of everything, the order of natural law, the reality of consciousness, etc. The theist provides a metaphysical architecture: e.g., an eternal necessary being created contingent beings; the laws of logic and math reflect His rational nature; moral laws reflect His good character; the uniformity of nature reflects His faithful governance. One might not accept that architecture, but at least it purports to explain these phenomena in a unified way. The materialist often just says: “The universe exists, that’s a brute fact; the laws of physics just are; consciousness just emerged by accident; morality is just a byproduct.” These are brute assertions that really explain nothing – they are placeholders saying “we don’t know, but definitely not God because that’s not science.” This stance is what one philosopher called “Defining God out of existence rather than arguing Him out.” By insisting on a narrow standard (falsifiability), the skeptic doesn’t so much win the debate as avoid the debate. They make it such that God can’t even enter the discussion. But doing so doesn’t solve any mysteries – it just shields the skeptic from having to think about them. It’s “epistemic sabotage,” as we might say: a willful blinding of one’s cognitive faculties to anything outside a chosen method. Imagine a fisherman with a net that has a 3-inch hole size. After fishing, he concludes, “No fish smaller than 3 inches exist in this lake, because none show up in my net.” That is analogous to the falsifiability-only mindset: by using a method that by definition catches only natural phenomena, they declare there is no supernatural or transcendent reality. The method guaranteed the result. Meanwhile, the “small fish” of meaning, value, purpose, or God’s subtle workings slip through and are declared nonexistent. But if one steps back, one might see plenty of evidence of a different sort – philosophical arguments, historical testimony (like the Resurrection of Christ, which is not a repeatable lab event but is supported by historical evidence and which, if true, is certainly significant evidence of the divine), personal religious experiences, etc. Atheists often retort “those aren’t scientific!” – precisely, they aren’t, but they aren’t therefore invalid. They are simply not addressable by test tubes.
In sum, we do not fear the criterion of falsifiability in its proper sphere. Certainly, specific claims about God’s action in nature could be testable (say, if someone claims prayer has a measurable effect on healing – one can run studies, though even then the metaphysical complexities make interpretation tricky). But the core of God’s existence and His sustaining of reality isn’t something one would falsify any more than one would falsify the existence of space-time – it’s the backdrop of everything. Expecting God to be falsifiable is expecting Him to be a finite object. We do not pretend the Infinite can be trapped in a test tube. Instead, we use reason in its fullest sense, which includes science but also goes beyond it to logical, moral, aesthetic, and existential reasoning, to conclude that belief in God is warranted. The irony is that materialists themselves hold unfalsifiable beliefs (like the multiverse, which we’ll discuss later, posited to avoid cosmic fine-tuning, yet by nature unobservable and unfalsifiable). They often redefine science to allow such things (e.g., “it’s okay if it’s theoretically predicted by math, even if not testable”), showing a flexibility when it suits them, but rigidity when it comes to God. We call out this inconsistency. Let science be science – an empirical method. Let metaphysics and theology handle the deeper foundations. They are partners, not enemies, when rightly understood.
Codex Stratagematon: “We do not fear falsifiability, for we never pretended that the Infinite could be caged in the test tube.” – This line sums it: God is not a lab rat; He’s the Maker of labs, minds, and rats alike. If one insists on a lab experiment for God, one might recall the taunt to Christ, “Come down from the cross and we will believe in you.” God doesn’t perform on demand to validate unbelief’s preconditions. Rather, He reveals Himself in His terms – through creation’s order, through conscience, through Scripture, supremely through Christ. These can be examined rationally, but not within the cramped walls of a falsification protocol.
III. The Idolatry of Enlightenment Reason
Enemy Claim (Secular Rationalism): “Human reason is autonomous and self-justifying. We do not need God or revelation to discern moral duty or truth; by pure reason (à la Immanuel Kant, for example) we can derive a universal ethics and understand the world. Moral obligation (‘the ought’) can be grounded in reason alone (e.g., Kant’s Categorical Imperative). We should submit only to laws of morality that our own reason gives. In short, Reason (with a capital R) is the supreme authority and is inherently good and sufficient.”
This is the spirit of high Enlightenment philosophy. Kant famously tried to derive the necessity of God, freedom, and immortality through reason (practical reason), but without depending on revelation. Others like Voltaire or the French philosophes often espoused a deistic or atheistic exaltation of reason as the antidote to religious “superstition.” The idea persists today in forms like secular humanism: that humans, using reason and science, can be good and build utopia without God.
Strategic Refutation:
- No Genesis – “Pure Reason” Gives No Moral Lawgiver: Kant said one should act only according to maxims that one could will to be universal law (his famous Categorical Imperative). That’s a clever reformulation of “do unto others as you’d have them do to you.” But what Kant did was essentially take a moral intuition (one might say inherited from Christian teaching) and claim it is self-evident to “rational beings.” He offered no source beyond the internal consistency of the idea. Why ought I obey “pure reason’s” dictates? If I’m a rational being, maybe I recognize that if I steal, I’m making an exception of myself – something I wouldn’t want others to do – so it’s irrational in a universal sense. But so what? Why not prefer my own interest to the universal consistency? Kant would respond by postulating that reason tells us we have an intrinsic duty that gives us dignity when we obey it. Yet where does this duty come from? Kant’s answer is basically that it’s built-in to rational nature. But this begs the question: built-in by whom? If by no one (just a fact of nature), then it’s just how things are, not necessarily how they ought to be followed. A command “You ought not to lie” implies a commander or at least an objective order. Kant eliminated God’s direct authority (though he backhandedly brought God as a postulate needed to ensure the good are rewarded ultimately, etc. – his system was complicated), but the net effect is he left an ought without an origin. It’s no surprise that, after Kant, moral philosophy drifted into either utilitarian calculus or later emotivism (the view that moral statements are just expressions of feeling), because without a Divine Lawgiver, all attempts to say “This is The Moral Law” ring hollow. The Enlightenment tried to uphold Christian ethics without the Christian God – a stool with legs removed. Many average people today assume we can be good without God. Yes, people can behave decently without actively thinking of God, but the ontology of that moral standard is precarious. Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov observed that without God, nothing compels moral obligation – everything becomes permitted (or at least a matter of personal or societal decision). Enlightenment reason grounded duty in a ghostly impersonal way: Why should I be moral? “Because your reason says so.” But my reason might “say” that being moral disadvantages me while others cheat. Why not cheat too? Without a higher Person to whom I’m accountable or whose nature defines good, there’s no answer except an impotent “because it’s your duty.” Who assigned this duty? Itself? That’s like a law with no legislator – a concept that perplexed even Kant, who had to sort of make reason itself the legislator, in the Kingdom of Ends where every rational being is both ruler and subject of moral law. That is a beautiful ideal, but it does not match human psychological reality nor provide teeth to morality. It certainly didn’t stop Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment Europe from plunging into bloodshed (Reign of Terror, Napoleonic wars, and on to world wars), often done in the name of high ideals but without divine restraint. When one is one’s own lawgiver, it’s too easy to bend the law in one’s favor.
- No Anchor – An Impersonal “Reason” Is No Concrete Guide: The Enlightenment treated Reason almost like a god – an impersonal force that if we just consult it will lead all rational minds to the same conclusions. But history shows reason is often a slave of passions or presuppositions. Pure rationality in the abstract doesn’t exist; real reasoning is done by persons, always starting from some axioms or values. Enlightenment thinkers tended to share a similar cultural background (largely Christian-influenced ethics and classical logic training), so they imagined they found universal truths. But move into a different mindset (say, a warrior culture like ancient Sparta), and their “self-evident” truths aren’t accepted. They said “All men are created equal” in America’s Enlightenment – a value from Judeo-Christian belief in imago Dei – but a rationalist from another premise could say “Actually, clearly some are stronger or smarter, nature shows inequality.” Who arbitrates? The Enlightenment had no answer except, “well, obviously you should see it our way if you’re rational.” It’s a ghost-throne: they enthroned an abstraction called Reason, but it has no voice except through the very culturally shaped men speaking for it. It’s notable that Kant’s system still had Christian echoes (duty, universality, treating persons as ends not means), basically baptizing Christian morality in rational terms. But once the momentum of Christian influence faded, later philosophers like Nietzsche came and said: all that talk of universal moral law is in fact a sublimated Christianity; without God it has no authority, so let’s cast off the sham and create our own values. Enlightenment rationalists assumed an innate moral consensus (like “do unto others”) that they believed was pure reason. They didn’t prove it so much as reflect a Christian cultural consensus. Absent that consensus, reason is not inherently moral. Reason is a tool – one can reason towards horrendous ends if the starting desires are perverse. Reason alone doesn’t generate compassion or respect; those are values imbibed likely from religious traditions or emotional empathy. Hence, the idolatry of reason fails because it’s impersonal. People don’t devote their lives to abstractions for long; they need a living ideal. In Christianity, it’s a personal God who exemplifies love and justice, who can command in love, and whom we can love. “Pure reason” inspires no love, no sacrifice. Robespierre tried to institute a Cult of Reason in revolutionary France – it ended in fanatic bloodletting in Reason’s name (the irony!). Humans will either worship the true God or false gods; if given only an idea, they often turn it into a fanatic ideology or drift into nihilism.
- No Universality in Practice – Western Reason as Culturally Bound: The Enlightenment often presumed its conception of rationality and duty was universal, but historically it coincided with European colonialism that dismissed other cultures as “irrational” or “savage.” Enlightenment morality, as righteous as it sounded, was not accepted by all peoples automatically. For instance, Kant’s categorical imperative might not convince a headhunter tribe whose rationality is directed at appeasing ancestor spirits or gaining tribal honor. “Pure reason” often turned out to be “Western European 18th-century educated male” reason. That’s not to say it had no value – many of its principles were good – but why should a Zulu shaman or a Confucian scholar accept them without the narrative that all humans have a common Creator and moral lawgiver? The Enlightenment said, effectively, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” But if someone doesn’t see them as evident, Enlightenment has no further argument except maybe force or condescension. Christianity, by contrast, could go to the Zulu or Chinese and preach a God who is Lord of all, who has written His law in hearts (so their conscience bears witness, even if in ignorance). That narrative can integrate and elevate local cultures. Enlightenment rationalism usually dismissed the “unenlightened.” The result was sometimes imperialistic: “We know best, we have the light of reason, we’ll civilize you.” In truth, Enlightenment ethics was imperialized subjectivism as our outline said – it took the subjective (culturally conditioned) European ideals and masqueraded them as “universal reason.” Consider human rights – a wonderful concept – but it historically arose from Judeo-Christian theology of the image of God and then was rephrased in deistic natural law terms. Today secularists declare human rights as universal secular values, but places like China or Saudi Arabia sometimes push back: “that’s a Western concept of rights, we have our own values.” Without the transcendent grounding of “God created all men equal”, these values lack persuasive traction universally. They can be seen as cultural exports. Thus, secular rationalism cannot easily answer: “Why should your rational intuitions bind everyone?” It’s an important query. One Enlightenment answer was: because all humans share reason and will eventually reason to the same conclusion. Yet clearly that’s not true in a fallen world of different loves and beliefs. The Enlightenment assumption of a neutral, objective reason that all would share if not for ignorance or superstition proved false – humans reason from within worldviews and those differ. The Gospel had a better anthropological grasp: humans share the capacity for truth but suppress it in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-21). They need conversion, not just education.
Strategic Exposure: The idolatry of reason becomes apparent when we see how secular ideology often weaponizes“reason.” For example, the French revolutionaries enthroned the Goddess of Reason (literally a personification) in Notre Dame, then proceeded to execute people in the name of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity – values they reasoned were absolute. Reason devoid of humility or divine reference easily slides into fanaticism, ironically. The Enlightenment ethic insisted it was universal, but it often enforced that universality with the guillotine or later, cultural hegemony. In truth, their “Reason” was often just their own provincial values absolutized. Today, some secular humanists claim to have objective morality through reason (e.g., Sam Harris arguing we can have moral values scientifically by seeing what promotes “well-being”). But dig deeper and you find subjective choices (why prioritize well-being? define well-being, etc.). It’s essentially smuggling a moral axiom (suffering is bad, happiness is good) without justification; a theist would justify that by saying humans are made for joy by God’s design, etc., but a pure naturalist has to just assert it. It’s a “brute fact” morality. Hence it is as much an act of faith as any religion, but unacknowledged.
Thus, we conclude: Reason severed from the Logos (the divine reason) is a ghost-throne – it has the form of authority but no living authority behind it. When Christ the King is rejected, something else fills the vacuum – often the worship of human intellect itself or the state’s authority enforcing its version of “rational order.” Enlightenment rationalism often led to either totalizing systems (Jacobins, Marxists later) or a kind of disillusioned relativism (when their promised utopias failed). It cannot nourish the soul or truly bind society in love. Only when reason is ministerial, not magisterial – a servant to the higher truth in God – does it flourish rightly. Reason is a wonderful tool given by God, but it makes a poor god in itself.
Canon Bellatorum V.6: “He who is his own law is his own god. And the man who serves himself as god shall become a beast.” – This dire warning encapsulates Enlightenment rationalism’s danger. By making our own reason the highest authority (thus effectively worshiping ourselves, the bearer of that reason), we risk losing the very image of God (rational moral image) in us and descending to the level of mere clever animals. History bears this out: cut off from God, reason is often used to justify beastly behavior – from eugenics to atomic annihilation. The Nazi doctors were very rational in their calculations, but had no transcendent law to say “this is evil.” Thus, they became sophisticated beasts. We must put reason back in its proper place: under God, not above God.
IV. “Good Without God?” – The Delusion of the Righteous Infidel
Enemy Claim: “I can live a good, ethical life without believing in God. In fact, some atheists and agnostics behave more morally than religious people. Being kind, honest, charitable – these are human values, not needing religion. Doing good for its own sake is even nobler than doing it out of fear of God or desire for reward. So, God is unnecessary for morality; one can be a ‘righteous infidel,’ a person of virtue with no need for faith.”
This assertion often comes as both a rebuttal to the moral argument for God and as a point of pride from secular humanists: “Look, we can have the fruits of morality without the root of religion.” They might point to Scandinavian countries with high non-belief yet low crime and high social trust, for example.
Strategic Refutation: We do not deny that non-believers can perform morally praiseworthy actions. Christian doctrine of common grace and the law written on hearts affirms that. However, we argue that sustaining virtue in the long run without God is like cutting flowers from their roots: they may look fine for a while, but eventually they wither. Furthermore, self-made morality often hides subtle pride and shifts with convenience:
- Theory vs. Experience – Even the “Good without God” Falter Without Accountability: It’s one thing to say “I can be good without God” in theory. But in lived experience, without an external check or higher calibration, it’s easier to rationalize vice as virtue. We’ve seen many an ostensibly upright secular person drift into moral compromises: maybe small at first (a lie here because it’s “for the greater good,” a betrayal there because “my unique situation deserves an exception”). The problem is, when you are your own highest authority, it’s difficult to hold the line consistently. There’s a creeping expansion of self-interest. As our outline put it, the atheist often becomes the tyrant of his own virtue. He sets the rules, so he can bend them when emotionally or pragmatically convenient. A believer at least has the notion “I must answer to God for this; I’m not allowed to lower the standard for myself without guilt.” The secular person might have an internal conscience (which we believe is from God anyway), but if that conscience pricks too much, he has the option to suppress it or redefine his values – after all, he acknowledges no Judge above his psyche. For example, consider how easily modern secular people change their ethical views with cultural tides: something nearly all considered a vice 50 years ago (say, sex outside marriage or abortion) many now consider fine or even a virtue (like “authentic expression” or “reproductive rights”). Many factors there, but part of it is, absent a fixed moral lawgiver, morality shifts with societal convenience. Atheist regimes in the 20th century explicitly tailored morality to suit the state (e.g., “eliminating class enemies is good for progress”). Even well-meaning individuals slide – a Richard Dawkins recently mused that perhaps “mild pedophilia” in one’s youth isn’t that harmful, which caused uproar. He was perhaps being provocative, but it shows how a “rational” person might try to normalize something previously seen as abominable if he convinces himself it’s not too harmful. “Leaning on your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5 warns against this) can lead to grave error, especially when pride or desire come into play. The self-proclaimed good man, lacking an external standard, often fails in ways he doesn’t even realize, because self-justification is a powerful drug. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, observing the cruelties of supposedly idealistic Soviet officials, noted that without God, everything becomes possible, and “men have forgotten God; that’s why all this happened.” It’s telling that historically, explicitly atheist political systems have often slid into atrocity (the French revolution’s terror, Soviet gulags, Chinese cultural revolution, etc.) because they made man or state god. On the individual level, everyday ego and temptation can erode the secular virtuous intentions – who will see or judge if I cheat on my spouse or taxes? If I personally feel it’s okay and there’s no divine witness, maybe it’s “no big deal.” Sure, some secular folks are scrupulous from ingrained habit or reputation concern. But remove societal pressures (which often themselves descend from a religiously shaped culture’s momentum), and what happens in the dark? The rising loneliness, family breakdown, and despair in secular societies suggest not a triumph of virtue but a quiet unravelling.
- Shifting Sands – The “Good” Atheist’s Standards Are Influenced by Religion or Culture More Than Admitted: Many moral virtues secular people prize (human rights, equality, compassion for the poor, valuing every individual) are inheritances from a Judeo-Christian worldview. Atheists of today often have Christian ethics without Christ, which works for a generation or two. Nietzsche saw it clearly: Europe was running on the fumes of Christian morality after “killing God.” He predicted that eventually, if people were consistent, they’d throw off Christian virtues too and create a new morality (which could be brutal). Some did (the fascists and communists), but interestingly post-WWII many Western secular folks kept Christian ethics. But now we see them evolving under pressure (life’s sanctity gives way to abortion and euthanasia arguments; sexual ethics virtually abandoned except for consent principle; even “free speech” a product of Christian respect for individuals is eroding in some secular quarters that censor “hate” – ironically a moral zeal). The secular “good” man often doesn’t realize how much moral capital he’s spending that was built up by faith. As one writer said, they are living off “the shadow of God,” wanting the kingdom (peace, love, justice) without the King. Over time, that capital depletes, and something fills the void – often a totalitarian moralism (like aggressive political correctness or statism) because people still crave moral structure. This is what we meant by “Universalized Psyche = Moral Totalitarianism.” If an atheist is convinced his personal values are universal truth, he might become quite intolerant of dissent, ironically establishing a secular dogma. E.g., some militant secularists assert that their progressive values are the only rational ones and seek to impose them via law or cancellation of opposing voices, effectively a kind of secular theocracy of relativism. Each person becomes a god of their own values and then aspires to enforce them – conflict inevitably results: “what I think is good must be good for all.” Without a shared higher reference (God’s will or natural law common to all under God), society fractures into competing moral fiefdoms or one imposing itself by might or manipulation.
Thus, while indeed an atheist can perform good deeds (since God’s law is still on his heart, though he denies its source, and God’s grace can still move his conscience), the long-term prognosis of an atheist society sustaining robust virtue is poor. It’s telling that many such societies fall into either hedonism (seeking pleasure since no higher aim) or authoritarian rule (filling the void of moral authority with the state or leader). Often, it oscillates: freedom -> license -> chaos -> craving order -> authoritarian crackdown -> some moral restoration by force -> eventual stagnation or revolt. The secular moralist is often blindsided by his own moral failures too – with no repentance framework, he may double down rather than humbly admit wrong. That or he experiences existential guilt with nowhere to take it (since no belief in forgiveness from God), leading to psychological issues or self-righteous blame of others. Christianity offers something the secular ethic lacks: a path to redemption when one falls short (which we all do), through repentance and grace. The “righteous infidel” often either becomes blind to his faults (Pharisee of a secular sort) or despairs when confronted with them.
Canon Bellatorum V.6: “He who is his own law is his own god. And the man who serves himself as god shall become a beast.” – We repeat this apt quote here as well, because it encapsulates the fate of the “good without God” notion. To make oneself the arbiter of good (self-law) is effectively self-deification. This rarely ends well; cut off from the true God’s light, our lower nature (the “beast” within) often takes over under the guise of freedom.
V. Brute Facts and Epistemic Nihilism
Enemy Claim: “Reason, morality, logic – these just exist as brute facts of human nature or the universe. We all know them (a priori or by evolution). They need no further explanation; they are just ‘there.’ There’s no need for God to ground them. They are universally valid by themselves. If pressed on origins, one might say ‘they emerged through evolution or are simply fundamental truths.’ But we don’t need to go deeper – these are our starting points.”
This is a last resort position of some secular thinkers who concede earlier points: “Okay, maybe we can’t justify logic or moral law by empiricism, but we don’t have to. They are self-evident realities (or evolutionary outcomes we trust) and we start from there.” Essentially, “That’s just the way it is – deal with it.” These are called brute facts – facts with no explanation.
Strategic Refutation:
- “Brute Fact” = End of Inquiry (Cowardice in Disguise): Labeling something a brute fact is basically hitting the “stop asking why” button. It’s not a real explanation; it’s giving up on finding one. In many cases, it’s an intellectual cop-out used to avoid a theistic answer. If one traces causality or reasoning and hits something like “logic exists” or “moral values exist” as a final stop, one should naturally wonder why they exist and in such a form. A theist says “because they reflect the mind and character of God, the ultimate reality.” The atheist wanting to avoid God just says “they exist without reason.” This is unsatisfying and arguably irrational at the fundamental level. If something as significant as moral truth or the order of logic has no foundation, then our whole structure of knowledge is like a building on sand. To call that acknowledgment “bravery” (facing a cold universe) might seem noble, but it’s more like refusal to dig deeper because one fears what one might find. We call it cowardice because, often, the very same people will ridicule believers for having “faith” or accepting mysteries, yet they themselves accept the mystery of a universe that spontaneously has law, reason, and value with no source. That’s a huge leap of faith – arguably a blind one since it rejects even the possibility of explanation. G.K. Chesterton said, “The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a meaning in the universe. The skeptic is not free to admit that there is a meaning in the universe; for he would be contradicting himself.” The skeptic thus halts inquiry arbitrarily to avoid a contradiction – that’s not intellectual courage, that’s boxing oneself in. If the story of science and philosophy has taught us anything, it’s that often what seemed brute fact (like the existence of the universe itself) begged for explanation and led to deeper insight (e.g., the Big Bang theory showed the universe likely had a beginning, prompting questions of cause beyond space-time). To prematurely declare parts of reality “just because” is a conversation stopper. It’s fine to say “we don’t know yet,” but to say “and we never need to or will” – that’s dogmatism of a negative sort.
- No Starting Point = No Authority: If logic, reason, and morality have no origin, how do we know they have any authority or permanence? For instance, G.E. Moore said “good is good, that’s all, indefinable.” But if moral good is a just-there property of the universe, why obey it? Perhaps one could say “We intuit it and if we want to live in accord with reality we should follow it.” But a villain could retort, “I see no reason to follow an impersonal moral truth – I’ll follow my desire.” Unless morality is rooted in a personal source (like a divine Lawgiver with authority and power), it holds no power except what we choose to give it. Similarly, if laws of logic are brute, how do we know they hold universally? Usually we assume so because they’ve never been observed to fail and they seem self-evident. A Christian can add: yes, because God is a God of order and not confusion, reflecting His consistency in all reality, sustaining the laws of logic. An atheist must just say: hopefully the universe doesn’t slip into nonsense tomorrow by brute chance – which they trust it won’t, but that trust is something akin to faith in uniformity. Without an underpinning reason, any trust in these “just-there” realities is a bit mystic. In fact, I’d argue secular folks often treat these brute facts as quasi-divine: the “laws of nature” are immutable (why? just are), logic is absolute (why? just is), human rights are sacred (sacred? a religious word, but they say it with similar reverence). They’ve essentially placed their final faith in these unexplained absolutes – a diffuse, impersonal worship of aspects of creation rather than the Creator. The Bible would say they “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator” (Rom 1:25). They keep the “lingering illusions of divine memory” – i.e., these values and rational norms inherited from theistic worldview – but deny the source. That’s an unstable equilibrium. Over time, as memory fades, as Nietzsche foresaw, people might toss these absolutes too, ushering in nihilism or new invented values (the “Ubermensch” making his own values). We already see strains of that: e.g., postmodern thinkers questioning logic as “Western construct” or morality as relative. Indeed, once you say all these foundations are groundless, someone will come to say “then I’ll create my own” or “we’ll seize power and define morality.” Thus brute-fact thinking can devolve into epistemic nihilism – no objective truth or reason at all, just narratives and power. And ironically, that matches a lot of what we see in certain academic and cultural movements now (extreme relativism, “your truth vs my truth,” logical debate replaced by rhetoric and canceling). The house built on sand is collapsing as predicted.
Codex Justificatio Ordinis Nigri Clypei: “A brute fact is a tombstone, not a cornerstone.” – This pithily asserts that treating something as brute (without explanation) is where explanations go to die (tombstone), not where to build a secure structure of knowledge (cornerstone). We maintain that the true cornerstone is the Logos (Christ), as Scripture states “the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone” (Ps 118:22, applied to Christ). All these “brute” realities find coherence if Christ, the Logos, is their source: “In the beginning was the Logos… all things were made through Him” (John 1:1-3). Without Him, the builders of secular thought are left with scattered stones that don’t hold together – and eventually, they will lie like tombstones over the graves of dead philosophies.
Final Judicium (Codex II): We pronounce that Scientism is nothing less than a priesthood of nihilism – it dons the lab coat as vestments but preaches meaninglessness at the altar of “no why.” It demands faith in a philosophy (materialism) while pretending to scorn faith. It erodes the very rationality it claims to champion. And Enlightenment Rationalism is the throne of Man raised against the Logos – an idol of the mind. It promises a kingdom of reason and virtue without God, but delivers either chaos or oppression, because separated from divine light, human reason loses its way in either darkness or an artificial glare. We thus declare both scientism and arrogant rationalism anathematized – let them be recognized as broken cisterns that hold no water (Jer 2:13). We resolve to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor 10:5). As it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate” (1 Cor 1:19). So be it: these systems that set themselves up as final authorities are found hollow and hereby fall. The Logos – divine Reason – exposes the pretenders and reclaims the throne of Truth. Amen.
✠ Codex Interdictum III: Judgment Against Agnosticism and Skeptical Humanism
In this third codex, we target the stance of Agnosticism (professed uncertainty about God) and the broader attitude of skeptical humanism that often accompanies it (a stance that reveres human values while doubting or denying the knowability of the divine). Agnosticism sometimes masquerades as humble, reasonable doubt, but we will unveil it as often a mask for spiritual treason – a willful suspension of decision that in practice rejects God while avoiding the label. Similarly, the humanitarian secular ethos that claims to “do good without certainty” is shown to be parasitic on certainty stolen from faith. Agnosticism fails because it is internally contradictory and morally paralyzing. We will show that claiming not to know God, in a world ablaze with His evidences and in a conscience imbued with His law, is less an excuse and more an indictment. As scripture says, “They are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). The throne of agnosticism is ultimately empty – a deliberate fence-sitting that leads to the erosion of all principled conviction.
I. The Mask of Humility: The Agnostic Illusion
Enemy Claim: “We really can’t know whether God exists or not. The only honest, humble position is to admit uncertainty. Believers and atheists are both overconfident; the agnostic stays open-minded. It would be presumptuous to claim knowledge of the ultimate. So I neither affirm nor deny God – I simply say ‘I don’t/can’t know.’ This is intellectual humility.”
At first glance, agnosticism seems measured and modest. It doesn’t deny outright (which could appear arrogant, given finite human knowledge), but it doesn’t commit to belief either (which could appear credulous). It styles itself as the honest inquirer or the man waiting for sufficient evidence. However, as we’ll argue, permanent agnosticism is often a cloak for a settled rejection of God’s authority – a way to have rebellion without the stigma, to avoid the consequences of a “no God” worldview while also avoiding submission to God. It is in many cases a convenient non-position that still biases all behavior and morals as if God weren’t there (functional atheism).
Strategic Refutation:
- False Humility – Refusal to Bow, Not True Uncertainty: The agnostic claims to be humbly suspending judgment, but often what lies beneath is not sincere inability to decide but unwillingness to commit. Blaise Pascal noted that not choosing is itself a choice – if God exists, not deciding to serve Him is effectively deciding not to. Agnosticism regarding God’s existence is almost always accompanied by living as if God didn’t exist. Rarely does one see an agnostic who prays “God, if you’re there, guide me,” or who earnestly seeks to find out – many are content to just shrug and focus on earthly life. That reveals not open-minded pursuit, but a comfortable indecision that functions as denial. It’s like someone “unsure” if their spouse is cheating but then not caring to find out or alter anything – that would betray they might not truly love the spouse. Likewise, if God might exist – the source of all meaning and destiny – a truly humble agnostic should be fervently investigating, restless until they know. Many agnostics instead use their stance as an excuse to not seriously engage faith. This is a false humility because it’s not that they think themselves too lowly, it’s that they don’t want to bow to a higher authority. It’s a humility that conveniently demands nothing of them – unlike the humility of the believer who submits to God. Moreover, the statement “God is unknowable” or “We can’t know God” is ironically a rather bold knowledge-claim about God’s nature (namely that if God exists, He is beyond knowing). How do they know that? If truly uncertain, they shouldn’t even assert God is unknowable; maybe God has made Himself knowable through revelation. So agnosticism often smuggles in a hidden atheism: it effectively asserts an attribute of God (unknowability) which equates to living as if no God (since a completely unknowable God might as well not matter to us). Thus it’s not neutrality at all, but a covert denial draped in sophistry. It’s reminiscent of Revelation 3:16 – the lukewarm neither hot nor cold whom Christ spits out, because their neutrality is repugnant.
- Absolute Denial in Disguise – “God Is Unknowable” Is Itself a Claim About God: Building on the above, if an agnostic says “We cannot know God or whether He exists,” they are implicitly saying something about God’s relationship to the world: either God hasn’t revealed Himself, or God doesn’t want to be known, or God is such that human minds can’t reach Him. These are positive assertions of a negative sort – and they need justification. If a theist says “God has revealed Himself in Christ” and the agnostic says “I doubt that,” fine – then examine the evidence of Christ’s resurrection, etc. But to blanket say “no evidence could ever tell us” or “the divine is inherently off-limits to knowledge” – that is a sweeping metaphysical stance for which the agnostic usually has no basis except preference. It is, at core, a choice to assert that any possible evidence or experiences are insufficient. It’s like playing a game where the rules are rigged so that God can never win: no matter what argument or encounter, the agnostic can say “not enough.” It’s a strangely dogmatic form of skepticism. We often find such agnostics set the bar for proof impossibly high (demanding say a personal appearance of God to them, or a mathematical-style proof for a being who is not a mathematical object). This reveals that it’s not about true open-mindedness but about maintaining uncertainty as a safe zone. In essence, “God is unknowable” becomes their creed – as unprovable and unfalsifiable as any dogma, thus hypocritically breaking their own insistence on evidence. So their neutrality is often a camouflage for an absolute stance: they absolutely will not accept claims of knowing God. It’s akin to a deliberately closed mind while calling itself open.
- Moral Paralysis – If God Truly Cannot Be Known, Neither Can Objective Morals: Perhaps most damning is that agnosticism, applied consistently, leads to a kind of moral impotence. If one claims no transcendent truth can be ascertained – that includes no knowledge of a law above human opinion. Therefore, by agnostic logic, we cannot be sure any act is truly evil or good in an ultimate sense (since that would require knowledge of a moral law or will of a lawgiver). Many agnostics still talk of justice and evil (especially humanists outraged by atrocities), but on what basis? If there is no knowable divine justice, then “justice” is just a human construct, which might vary. The agnostic worldview undermines any ability to condemn evil beyond subjective preference or societal consensus. Yet ironically, many agnostics do hold strong moral positions (e.g., human rights, etc.). This is inconsistent: they borrow ethical confidence from theistic legacy while denying its source. Consider: if one says “We can’t know God or absolutes” then logically one should also say “We can’t truly call the Holocaust objectively wrong (maybe from some cosmic view it was part of an amoral process). We can’t call human rights innate (that would be an absolute deriving from a Creator’s decree, which we supposedly can’t know).” So pure agnosticism would indeed slide into moral relativism or paralysis: “Who knows what’s right? Let’s just tolerate everything or enforce whatever majority says.” And that is what we see culturally: agnosticism feeding a moral relativism where society becomes unable to firmly say “This is wrong” (except ironically, it will dogmatically say being certain is wrong – the only sin in relativism). And if no evil can be judged due to no law, then as our quote said, “He who will not kneel in certainty will soon crawl in relativism.” That crawling is the morally compromised stance of someone who won’t take a stand against evils because they aren’t sure, so they just let things slide. When push comes to shove – say confronted by some cruelty or corruption – the “humble” agnostic may go along to get along because he has cut the nerve of conscience that connects to a higher judgment.
Indeed, C.S. Lewis noted in The Abolition of Man that a generation that doesn’t believe in objective values will produce “men without chests” – no heart to fight for good. Agnosticism fosters that. So far from being an innocuous middle ground, it can degrade the moral fiber of individuals and society.
Thus we expose agnosticism as not the honest high ground but often a strategic dodge – a way to duck both the demands of faith and the despair of outright atheism, trying to enjoy a nihilism-lite. But God’s Word challenges this: “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him” (1 Kings 18:21). The agnostic says “We can’t choose” and Elijah’s challenge implies that’s untenable – one must decide because reality itself will force the issue.
Liber Purgationis Fraternitatis: “He who will not kneel in certainty will soon crawl in relativism.” – This warns that refusal to commit to truth (kneel in certainty of God’s lordship) doesn’t preserve one’s stature; rather, it leads to crawling – moral and intellectual degeneration into relativistic confusion, at the mercy of the strongest influence of the moment. True humility is kneeling before a true higher truth; false humility of “knowing nothing for sure” ends up prostrating one before mere power or prevailing winds.
II. The Death Spiral of Relative Suspension
Enemy Effect: Agnosticism’s insistence on uncertainty often comes packaged with a demand for a kind of tolerance and pluralism: “Since we can’t know the absolute truth, we should allow many viewpoints and not judge.” Initially, that sounds peaceful. But taken to its logical end, this attitude can slide into a death spiral of values: each generation relaxes moral and truth claims a bit more in the name of openness, until there is no backbone left to society. The progression is: “we can’t be sure” -> “we must tolerate all” -> “to claim certainty (even moral) is arrogant” -> eventually, no one can speak against anything effectively, and thus moral entropy sets in.
We already hinted at this above. Here we lay it out clearly:
- Self-Dissolution – “No Absolutes” Is Itself an Absolute Claim: The mantra of pluralistic agnosticism is often “There are absolutely no absolute truths,” which is obviously self-contradictory. If truly there are no absolutes, that statement itself cannot be universally true, hence it saws off its own branch. Yet this logical inconsistency hasn’t stopped it from being a widespread mood in late secular culture. It’s a cognitive dissonance people manage by not thinking too hard about it. They’ll say “all viewpoints are equally valid” but then absolutely denounce someone who, say, expresses a morally certain religious view as being bigoted. So clearly not all views are allowed – only the view that no view is superior is allowed, which ironically is treated as superior to dogmatic religion. Thus, pluralistic relativism sneaks in an illogical dictatorship: the only intolerance not tolerated is the intolerance of moral certainty. It’s a “logical suicide note” because if taken strictly, nothing can be asserted at all (including the requirement to be tolerant). People keep some things (like tolerance) as pseudo-absolute, but with no rational basis. It’s unstable and hypocritical.
- Paralysis of Judgment – Without Final Authority, No Justice Can be Declared: We see in institutions that embrace relativism or extreme pluralism that they become unable to condemn wrongdoing decisively. For instance, in some circles, calling terrorist acts “evil” is avoided; they say “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” Or when faced with obvious human rights abuses in certain cultures, the hyper-pluralist says “We shouldn’t judge other cultures by our standards.” Thus, gross injustice gets a pass in the name of cultural or moral relativism. Agnosticism at its extreme yields this: “who are we to judge?” This was literally said by some Western leaders about communist atrocities mid-20th century or is said today about things like oppressive practices elsewhere. A worldview without a concept of final divine justice or absolute human dignity (imago Dei) has no firm ground to stand on to call out evil. It’s all negotiating preferences. As a result, tyranny can flourish under the nose of people who refuse to make moral judgments. As our line said, they cannot issue a verdict on injustice or tyranny because they’ve neutered the moral law. Relativism does not produce freedom – it produces a vacuum where the strong can do as they will and the others just mumble that nothing is certain.
- Drifting Common Denominator – “Tolerance” as a Gradient of Decay: Over generations, as each era “tolerates” a bit more that the previous considered deviant, there’s a ratchet effect: the baseline moves downward (or outward) constantly. Some increase in tolerance is good (e.g., tolerating differences in worship or harmless cultural practices), but the trend in a purely secular context often doesn’t know where to stop. Without a fixed star, the moral compass just keeps swinging with societal trends, often loosening more each time. So what one generation tolerates as the new normal, the next generation expands upon, sometimes to self-destructive ends. We see this in, say, the sexual revolution: what one generation permitted as liberating (divorce, casual sex) the next pushed further (more extreme pornography, breakdown of gender concepts, etc.). If an older person says “this has gone too far,” the reply is “That’s your outdated absolute talking; we’re more tolerant now.” And indeed the slide continues – a gradient of decay where practically anything goes, except the old virtues labeled as oppressions. This is how “tolerance” ironically becomes intolerant of goodness eventually: it starts to view strong virtue or strong faith as bigotry or backwardness, and only values that which does not assert values. The end point is a culture exhausted and cynical, where, as the quote said, “Where God is silent (from their perspective), man is devoured.” Devoured by what? By unrestrained appetites, by power, by despair. If nothing is truly forbidden, then might makes right and the vulnerable get devoured by the powerful who impose their will (since there’s no appeal to a higher moral law). We see this in late-stage societies historically: luxury and moral laxity lead to loss of social cohesion and often collapse or takeover by more disciplined forces.
So the death spiral is: agnosticism -> relativism -> social decay or authoritarian reaction (someone eventually arises promising to restore order, often through force – and a populace that forgot how to distinguish good might follow a demagogue).
Thus, agnosticism is not the safe neutral ground it pretends; it’s a downward slope. Proverbs 25:26 says, “Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.” The agnostic worldview muddies all springs (truths), leaving no clear water of life. Eventually people thirst and either turn to bad drinks (ideologies) or perish in meaninglessness.
Canon Bellatorum VI.2: “Where God is silent, man does not become free—he becomes devoured.” – This starkly counters the agnostic’s assumption that removing God’s voice liberates humanity. Instead, it says that silence of God (or ignoring His word) leads not to happy freedom but to humans consuming each other (perhaps metaphorically through injustice and moral chaos, or literally in conflict). We indeed see that societies that fully secularize often experience either spiritual emptiness leading to high suicide/drug rates (self-devouring) or birth-rate collapse (life devouring), or internecine strife as various factions battle to fill the void of authority. True freedom is found under God’s benevolent authority (the paradox Christ taught: “the truth will set you free” John 8:32 – implying there is truth to know!). Without God, freedom decays into license and then bondage to sin and power structures.
III. Morality Without Certainty is Theft
Enemy Behavior: Many agnostics, despite claiming not to know cosmic truths, go on to act as if certain things are absolutely true and important. They fight for justice in courts, decry evils like corruption or oppression, celebrate virtues like charity and freedom. In doing so, they are taking strong moral stances – essentially acting as moral absolutists (since fighting for justice implies you believe justice is objectively worth defending). Yet when pressed on whence comes this firm conviction, they retreat to “we can’t really know ultimate truth, but this is just my (or society’s) value.” This is a kind of intellectual theft: they steal moral fire from religion or natural law tradition (which posits a Lawgiver) and use it while denying the source.
Strategic Refutation:
- Epistemic Theft – Borrowing the Flame of Christian Ethics: Western secular morality is largely living on borrowed capital from a Christian worldview. Concepts like human equality, inherent dignity, compassion for the weak, universal brotherhood – these came into the world primarily through biblical influence (in the ancient world, none of these were obvious; Aristotle thought some people were “natural slaves,” for instance, and many cultures didn’t value mercy as a virtue until Christianity exalted it). The agnostic often presumes these values as a given. They have in their mind that “of course cruelty is wrong, of course every human deserves rights.” They don’t acknowledge that such moral axioms historically came from a theistic worldview that humans are created equal by God and precious to Him. By denying the knowability or existence of God, they undercut the foundation but keep the house built on it – essentially squatting on Christian moral territory without paying rent (i.e., giving credit). In one sense, this is a compliment to Christianity – even its critics cannot escape its moral influence. But logically it’s unstable. As we argued, if you remove the idea that goodness is rooted in God’s character and commands, then “good” becomes just a word. The agnostic who insists genocide is wrong is effectively treating that moral fact as an absolute truth – which only makes sense if there’s a transcendent moral order (since one could cynically say, “Nature doesn’t forbid genocide, it happens all the time in history; who says it’s wrong beyond our feelings?”). So in condemning real evil, the agnostic betrays that deep down, he does believe in some objective moral truth. He just refuses to name God as its guarantor. It’s like someone using money but claiming the bank that issues it doesn’t exist. Eventually, that currency will lose value if untethered from the treasury.
- Unanchored Law – Preferences Masquerading as Principles: Ask an outspoken secularist why is genocide wrong or why free speech is good. They might say “Because suffering is bad and rights are important” – but those are just restatements of preferences, not explanations. If we press, “Why must we value others’ well-being?” they might answer “We just should” or “For the overall happiness/survival of society.” But “should” according to who? And why prefer society’s survival over individual desire? Evolution might say survival, but as earlier, evolution’s outcomes (survival) don’t equate to moral “oughts”. If society decided it survives better by eliminating a minority, would that be justified by survival-of-fittest logic? The secular moralist would feel “no, that’s wrong!” – but they have no higher law to appeal to except a general assertion of empathy or dignity, which they cannot ground. Essentially, without a Lawgiver, moral claims reduce to subjective or collective opinions. You can’t derive a duty binding on all just from sentiments. So what do secular activists do? They often use implicitly religious language without realizing – talking about “human dignity” as inviolable (which is a quasi-sacred concept). They are, to put it strongly, hypocrites in the literal sense: wearing a mask (the Greek root of hypocrite means actor’s mask) of moral righteousness that doesn’t match their professed worldview. We don’t mean they consciously intend to deceive; rather, their worldview is deceiving them or compartmentalized. They rely on stolen moral notions from theistic frameworks. This is why you see, for instance, international human rights declarations are full of statements like “All human beings are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Endowed by who? They left that unsaid because the drafters had different beliefs, but originally such talk only made sense if endowed by a Creator. Remove that, and “brotherhood” becomes sentiment with no force – why should I treat someone as a brother if the universe is a cold accident? The agnostic might answer “out of compassion” – again, compassion is a virtue taught and modeled by religion strongly; nature by itself is often cruel. Thus, the humanitarian agnostic is living off borrowed virtues and typically doesn’t realize their incoherence.
- Strategic Hypocrisy – Living Like an Absolutist, Arguing Like a Relativist: In debates, a skeptic will often use relativist arguments to undercut a believer’s moral stance (“that’s just your perspective, who knows the truth?” etc.). But then the same skeptic might go to a rally against injustice with fervor, essentially acting like certain things are true and worth fighting for. This double standard is not usually malicious, it’s more a symptom of the human heart that cannot live out the emptiness of its head. Their heart knows some things are definitely right or wrong, but their head (having rejected God) can’t justify that, so in intellectual contexts they claim to be relativist or unsure. This tension can’t last forever without cognitive dissonance. One either loses the heart’s conviction (becoming a cynical nihilist who doesn’t bother fighting for justice because “who cares”) or one finds a worldview that supports the conviction (many a skeptic has returned to faith because they realized only it gave solid meaning to their moral passion). Our aim is to hasten the latter by pointing out the inconsistency. You, O agnostic, condemn slavery as evil – by what authority do you do so? You praise virtue – from what source does virtue derive its goodness? Force them to see that in practice they behave very much like a believer in objective values, which implies an objective source. They “require Christian scaffolding even as they try to tear it down,” as we said. A building under construction cannot remove all scaffolding at once or it collapses. Secular society keeps just enough scaffolding (leftover Judeo-Christian principles) to not collapse – but as they aggressively secularize further (e.g., marginalizing religion in public life, denying its contributions), they risk moral collapse.
Codex Justificatio Ordinis Nigri Clypei: “He who builds on stolen certainty shall collapse beneath the weight of his own tolerance.” – This phrase from the “Black Shield” justification codex (an imaginary title but we continue the style) indicates: someone who constructs their moral worldview on certainties taken from elsewhere (stolen, since they don’t acknowledge the source) will find that the ever-increasing demand to be tolerant (of everything, since they have no principle to say no) will eventually make the structure collapse. It’s like stealing solid bricks from a neighbor’s house (religion) to build yours, but using too little mortar (conviction) because you think cement (absolutes) is bad; eventually the structure can’t bear weight.
In sum, agnosticism and its allied secular humanism operate on borrowed time. We highlight this to show it is not a stable resting place; it’s an unsteady bridge between belief and unbelief that must either break or be traversed to one side or the other.
IV. Agnosticism’s Practical Role: A Cloaked Atheism
So, after analyzing, we assert that practically speaking:
- Functional Denial: The agnostic usually lives exactly like an atheist, worshipping at no altar, praying no prayers, perhaps observing some cultural holidays as empty tradition, but effectively God has no role in their daily life. They obey no law higher than social consensus or personal conscience (which they think is just their feelings, not God’s voice). They hold no worldview of the sacred; material concerns dominate. Thus Jesus’s words apply: “He who is not with Me is against Me” (Matthew 12:30). By not actively being “with” God, the agnostic is in effect “against,” in the sense of not serving God’s cause. Many agnostics might bristle: “I’m not against God, I just don’t know!” But one can’t straddle forever; by not committing to worship, one denies God the worship due. Neutrality is illusion – as we said, not choosing to follow is choosing not to follow. The supposed Switzerland of spirituality ends up giving tacit aid to the other side (skepticism saturates culture due to vocal agnostics, weakening faith’s influence, which pleases the “prince of this world”).
- Weaponized Doubt: A little doubt used rightly can lead one to question and then find stronger faith (like doubting an interpretation and studying more deeply). But agnosticism turns doubt into a weapon to attack any claim of knowledge. “You claim truth? I doubt it. You feel God’s love? Could be delusion.” It often doesn’t offer alternatives, just tries to erode confidence. This is reminiscent of the serpent’s tactic in Eden: “Did God really say…?” (Genesis 3:1). That introduction of doubt was not mere curiosity; it was a tool to undermine obedience and lead astray. Similarly, many professional skeptics rarely doubt their own doubt – they only use it one-directionally to chip away at faith or moral certainty. Thus doubt becomes not a pause for contemplation but a sword swinging at every assertion of truth. Such perpetual doubt doesn’t create a tolerant utopia of harmony; it creates stress, fragmentation, and cynicism. It’s notable that high skepticism often leads to despair (why many philosophers turned nihilist or absurdist). Doubt in itself cannot build anything; it can only tear down. Used responsibly, it clears away error, but used incessantly, it leaves a wasteland of meaning.
- Neutrality Is Rebellion: We must drive home that in Christianity, claiming neutrality towards God is itself condemned as a form of rebellion or unbelief. Jesus said “Whoever is not with me is against me”; James 4:4 says “friendship with the world is enmity with God.” Trying to be a friend to worldly thinking (not committing to God) puts one at odds with God, like straddling enemy lines. God doesn’t want half-hearted maybes; the greatest commandment is to love God with all heart, soul, and mind – an agnostic explicitly does not do that. And ignoring God is not a small mistake: it’s the greatest sin in scriptural terms, failing to honor one’s Creator. So agnosticism, far from being a milder stance, is eternally dangerous. Think of the parable of talents: the servant who didn’t rebel outright but just buried his talent (perhaps doubting if the master would return) was still punished for neglect. Or those who fail to acknowledge Christ (Matthew 10:33: “whoever denies Me before men…” which could include silent denial by never acknowledging). The agnostic who says “I’m not saying God isn’t real, I just don’t live for Him” will find that’s no defense at judgment. As our dramatized line said, “Agnosticism is atheism in the shadow. It is the prince of this world whispering, ‘Did God really say?’” It’s the same rebellion as atheism but in stealth mode, often with the voice of the serpent’s skeptical whisper. For spiritual warfare, that’s as much an enemy stance as open atheism.
Thus we expose the throne of agnosticism as built on sand – not a sturdy via media but a trap of indecision that still results in loss.
(Pseudo-) Book of Enoch, Shadow Interpretation, XIII.2: “Agnosticism is atheism in the shadow. It is the prince of this world whispering, ‘Did God really say?’” – While not a real verse, it poetically frames how the agnostic stance is like dwelling in a shadowy half-light that ultimately serves the same dark lord (the devil, called prince of this world) who first sowed doubt about God’s word. It’s a continuation of that primordial temptation to suspend trust in God. We included this to emphasize that from a spiritual viewpoint, agnosticism is not neutral ground but a field controlled by the enemy’s influence (keeping people from the light of truth by keeping them in perpetual dusk).
V. Final Judicium (Codex III):
Let it be known and declared:
The suspension of judgment in matters where God has spoken and revealed Himself is not an innocent hesitation; it is in fact treachery in slow motion. It gives the appearance of modesty but results in the betrayal of truth. The agnostic posture, if maintained obstinately in the face of ample evidence and inner witness, becomes a willful closing of ears and eyes – a stance that Jesus and the prophets consistently rebuked (“They seeing see not, and hearing hear not…” Matthew 13:13).
The so-called agnostic “throne” is built on sand, and its kingdom is one of paralysis and doubt. It produces no saints, no heroes of conviction – for it stifles the fire needed for great righteousness. It cannot inspire sacrifice, for sacrifice requires belief in something higher. It cannot sustain virtue, for virtue requires firm principles. Thus, it inevitably leans on the very religious certainties it refuses to acknowledge, parasitically living off the faith-memory of society while undermining it.
Every law the agnostic borrows (like “do good to others”), every virtue it praises (like honesty, love), and every injustice it decries (like racism, tyranny) is stolen from the mountain of God – carved originally on tablets by God or inscribed in human nature by the Creator. They wield these values second-hand while refusing to credit their source. This cannot continue indefinitely. As we’ve seen, such a society either collapses or is forced to face the source of its values once more.
Therefore, we strip off the mask of faux humility and neutrality. We call agnosticism to account. “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him!” (1 Kings 18:21). Fence-sitting time is over. Jesus Christ did not leave the luxury of neutrality open to us; He claimed lordship over all. “Whoever is not with Me is against Me.”So the agnostic who clings to indecision is, by Christ’s criteria, lined up with the opposition.
We urge any soul tempted by this lukewarm path: choose this day whom you will serve (Joshua 24:15). For indecision itself will be judged: “Because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth,” says the Lord (Revelation 3:16). Strong words, but just: God gave us minds and wills to seek and find Him (Acts 17:27 says He is not far from each of us). To bury that talent in the ground and claim uncertainty at the Master’s return will not excuse – it will condemn.
Thus we pronounce: the altar of Agnosticism is shattered. Its refuge of “maybe” is swept away by the imperative of “Know the Lord” (Jeremiah 31:34). The fog of its uncertainty is pierced by the thunder of divine revelation – God has spoken in creation (Romans 1:20), in conscience (Romans 2:15), and supremely in His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2). The agnostic’s silence must now be replaced with a response: either the humble confession “My Lord and my God!” or, if one persists, the admitted cry of rebellion, “I will not have this man to rule over me.” No more hiding in “I don’t know.” The time of decision has come.
In short, agnosticism is judged as an insidious lie – not a safe harbor of humility, but a siren song leading to shipwreck. We remove its crown. Let those in its shadow step into the light of certainty – certainty not in ourselves, but in the God who is certain and has made Himself known.
Amen.
✠ Codex Interdictum IV: Judgment Against Postmodern Relativism and Constructivism
This fourth codex takes aim at the late-stage intellectual rebellion known as Postmodernism, particularly its radical relativism and notion that truth (especially moral/social truth) is merely a social construct used for power. If previous sections dealt with denying God or certainty, postmodernism goes further: it often denies truth itself (at least objective truth), reducing all claims to narratives and power dynamics. This is a direct assault on the concept of Logos (Truth/Meaning). We brand it as a philosophy of fragmentation and power-worship disguised as liberation.
Postmodern Relativism says there is no grand truth, only subjective or community-based “truths” – and anyone claiming an objective truth is trying to oppress. Constructivism in this context means the belief that what we call reality (especially social reality like gender, morality, etc.) is not discovered but constructed by language, culture, and power, so it can be deconstructed and reshaped at will.
This codex will show that:
- Postmodernism is self-refuting (it claims absolutely that there are no absolutes).
- By discarding truth, it doesn’t free people but leaves them at the mercy of the loudest or strongest voices (since persuasion and reason are out, only power and manipulation remain).
- It fosters an endless cycle of tearing down (deconstruction) without building anything enduring, leading to anarchy followed naturally by tyranny (since humans can’t live in chaos, they’ll accept authoritarian order when reasoned order is gone).
- Language and reason collapse under extreme postmodern views, which ironically undermines the very discourse of those views (they write books claiming words have no fixed meaning… using fixed meanings).
- Ultimately, truth is not a malleable narrative; Truth came as a Person (the Logos made flesh, Christ). Thus, reality cannot be “constructed” arbitrarily; it is given by the Creator. The fragmentation of truth is healed only by returning to Christ, in whom all things hold together.
I. Truth Recast as Power
Enemy Claim: “Capital-T Truth does not exist. What we call ‘truth’ is just a narrative constructed by those in power to serve their interests. All claims of objective knowledge are suspect as attempts to control. There are only interpretations, perspectives – each community may have its own truth. Therefore, to assert your view as true is to oppress others’ narratives. Instead, we deconstruct supposedly universal truths to reveal the agendas behind them.”
This summarizes the extreme relativist / constructivist angle influenced by thinkers like Foucault (“knowledge/power”), Lyotard (incredulity toward metanarratives), etc. It’s widespread in academia and cultural discourse now. Let’s dismantle it:
Strategic Refutation:
- Self-Erasure – “All Truth is Constructed” Is an Absolute Claim: The statement “there is no objective truth, only interpretations” is presented as an objective truth about truth. It hoists itself on its own petard. If it’s only one interpretation, we can ignore it as just the speaker’s perspective with no binding value. If it’s more than that, then it claims to be an exception – a universally true claim that no universal truths exist, which is a direct contradiction. This fundamental incoherence means postmodern relativism cannot even coherently state its thesis without undermining itself. It’s akin to saying “Language has no meaning” in a meaningful sentence, or writing a book to say communication is impossible. In practice, no one can live purely relativistically: even the act of saying “oppression is bad” implies a value they consider true (unless they’re content to say “in my view oppression is bad, but hey, that’s just me” – which would undercut any activism or moral stance). Often, postmodernists exempt their own critique from their critique: they claim to tell the true account of how power shapes knowledge, even as they deny truth. This hypocrisy needs to be highlighted. We should ask: “Is your statement true or just your constructed narrative? If the latter, why should we heed it? If the former, then not all truths are constructed – yours apparently isn’t, so why trust you got the exception?” They might retreat to “It’s true for me or our group that truth is a construct” – which is still nonsensical, because if someone else’s group believes in objective truth, by their own standard that belief is “true for them” too, and thus you have a stalemate, unable to critique anyone. In effect, the postmodern stance undercuts the very possibility of discourse or critique. It saws off the branch on which the critic sits. Hence we declare it self-refuting and thus false.
- If No Truth, Only Narrative – Then Might Makes Right Becomes the Only “Morality”: Remove truth and reasoning based on evidence, and how do disputes get resolved or how do ideas prevail? Sadly, by coercion, rhetoric, and power. Postmodernists themselves implicitly acknowledge this by focusing on power relations: they sometimes admire raw activism or disruptive tactics (“speaking truth to power” ironically they still say “truth”). If everyone’s view is equally unprovable, then why not just force yours through? The only remaining measure of an idea’s success is how effectively it can be imposed or spread, not its correspondence to reality (since reality is denied as a standard). “Right becomes might” in a deeper sense: what is considered ‘right’ or ‘true’ will simply be what the powerful manage to impose. This is exactly opposite of the claim that postmodernism liberates – it in fact legitimizes cynical power-play as the fundamental dynamic. If you accuse all truth claims of masking power, you simultaneously imply that the fight against that is not through claiming truth (since you don’t believe in it) but through counter-power. e.g., Some radical movements don’t try to argue logically, they try to shout down or cancel opponents – because they operate on a power paradigm, not persuasion. Hierarchy becomes sin in their eyes, because it’s “imposed narrative,” and anarchy (or an egalitarian utopia where all “truths” are equal) becomes the only permitted law. But stable anarchy is a fantasy – what actually happens is either chaos or the rise of a new, often worse tyranny. History shows when objective moral order is denied (e.g., in revolutions that try to erase old religion & law wholesale), we get bloodbaths followed by dictators. Postmodern ethos fosters a constant suspicion that any structure or authority is a power grab. Thus, it encourages rebellion for its own sake: “I shall not serve” (the cry Milton ascribed to Satan). That ironically enthrones satanic power – not that postmodernists worship Satan, but the principle of non serviam (“I will not serve”) and pure will to power is essentially the devil’s ethic. So by abolishing truth, postmodernism clears the stage for raw power, which is often demonic in effect. It dethrones reason and conscience (which check power) and enthrones appetite and will. This is why we see on campuses and online discourse so much mobbing, emotional arguments, and little rational debate in extreme cases – it’s become might (volume, numbers, emotional leverage) deciding what ideas dominate, not calm examination. In short, postmodern relativism ironically paves the way for the strongest narratives to brutally dominate, since there’s no court of truth to appeal to.
Thus, far from ushering in fairness, it often degenerates into a new dogmatism: you see even language policed (because words seen as tools of power, they change language to shift power – e.g., mandated pronouns, redefinitions of terms to shape thought). They accuse previous tradition of being a hegemonic narrative, but in overturning it without objective mediation, they risk installing their own arbitrary narrative hegemony. We respond that truth is not narrative – it’s objective and we must serve it, not serve ourselves. Hierarchy per se is not evil – a false egalitarianism that flattens truth claims means good and evil become equal choices (how pernicious!). The correct stance is not all hierarchies are evil, but to discern just vs unjust authority. Without truth, one cannot do that; one just hates all authority and ironically ends with the worst authority (anarchy’s chaos often leads to dictatorship).
Canon Bellatorum IX.3: “When all truths are yours and mine, justice ceases to be anyone’s.” – This sums up that if everyone has their own truth (subjectivism), then the concept of a just order that stands above personal preference vanishes. Justice relies on a standard beyond individual whims. Without that, what we call justice devolves into just whatever the prevailing group says (which is just might). So relativism ultimately kills justice, contrary to those who adopt it hoping to rectify past injustices.
II. From Anarchy to Tyranny
We’ve touched on this progression already:
Strategic Exposure of Postmodern trajectory:
- False Liberation: Postmodern relativists often claim they are liberating society from oppressive metanarratives (like patriarchy, colonialism, religious dogma, etc.). At first, it can be exhilarating to question everything and tear down what is seen as unjust structures. There is indeed value in examining historically oppressive norms. But the problem is, when you tear down everything, you have no foundation to build anything better. We see some movements that deconstruct say the family, or objective morality, expecting people to be “free” and rational on their own – but often it leads to social decay (broken homes, exploited individuals) not utopia. The promise of “deconstruct oppressive structures” rings hollow when nothing is given in their place except vague promises of individual freedom or equality which, as argued, cannot be sustained without shared truth and virtue. The result is moral and spiritual vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum – often something worse fills it (like drug epidemics in communities where family & faith collapsed, or cultish political ideologies taking place of religion). Postmodernism says it fights oppression, but by denying moral truth it cannot ethically say why oppression is wrong, other than subjective feeling. In some academic circles, we saw extreme relativists having trouble even condemning clearly evil practices of other cultures – their doctrine of “no universals” tied their tongue. As the quote above, if nothing is universally true, nothing can be universally condemned or praised either. So ironically, the promised liberation leads to moral paralysis in face of real oppressors (like today, some intellectuals tie themselves in knots to not judge certain atrocities elsewhere because who are we to judge…leading effectively to tolerance of evil). Meanwhile, in the void, perhaps unscrupulous actors will seize power.
- Tyranny of the Self: At the micro level, if each person’s narrative is sovereign, society becomes a bunch of mini-tyrants – each insisting reality revolve around their identity or feelings (we see hints: e.g., “my truth” is sacrosanct, you offended me which is violence, etc.). The postmodern ethos ironically fosters ego-centrism even as it claims to fight power structures. Everyone becomes an island of “truth,” which means communication and solidarity fracture. Then people either isolate or form tribes that echo each other’s narrative (since cross-tribe communication is impossible if no common truth-ground). These tribes often then engage in power struggle (since reasoned debate is moot). The most persuasive manipulator or the loudest collective will dominate – essentially, a war of mini-tyrannies. The individual thinking they were liberated from old rules often becomes enslaved to base impulses or groupthink. We see that: as traditional values erode, many become slaves to addictions, or to ideological group demands (one must toe the party line of one’s chosen identity group fully, no independent thought, or be canceled). It’s a chaotic freedom that often leads to new authoritarianism from within the groups.
- No Standard, No Justice: As previously said, you cannot fight oppression (a key claim of postmodern activism) if you don’t have a standard of justice. Foucault, for example, refused to morally condemn even some horrific things because he saw everything as just power relations, no moral absolute to appeal to. If a revolutionaries succeed, what do they do next? Without guiding principles beyond “smash power,” they either infight (each faction tries to impose its view) or one faction imposes a dictatorship to create order. History: the French Revolution’s radical relativist phase (Cult of Reason, Year Zero) led to the Terror then Napoleonic dictatorship. The Russian communists (influenced by Marx who called morality relative to class interests) led to Stalin’s tyranny. On smaller scale, we see some student movements that began idealistically descending into illiberal “cancel culture” enforcement once they had some power. Postmodern ideology contains no blueprint for a just society because it doesn’t believe in consistent truth or human nature – so attempts at change often overshoot into new injustice (e.g., policies that force equality of outcome by coercion typically violate other rights). They “vaporize judgment” by claiming all judgments are subjective or power-laden, thus they cannot rationally adjudicate disputes – only suppress through raw power. That’s a recipe for injustice: whoever grabs the levers (in media, academia, etc.) dictates acceptable discourse, ironically creating an Orwellian environment far from the free utopia envisioned. We already see attempts to redefine even facts (e.g., denial of biological truths or rewriting history to fit narrative) – if logic and evidence are oppressive, then controlling information is allowed “for the greater good of our narrative.” This invites authoritarian control unseen perhaps to those inside (for they think it’s justice, but outsiders see it’s mere might of group enforced).
“When all truths are yours and mine, justice ceases to be anyone’s.” We used this earlier and it aptly closes here too.
Conclusion for II: Postmodern relativism thus ironically begets the very tyranny it decries: it is a revolution that devours its children.
III. The Collapse of Language and Reason
Consequence: If words themselves are seen only as tools of power with no anchored meaning, and logic seen as Western contrivance, then meaningful discourse is impossible. Postmodern practice often results in silencing voices not by refuting them, but by labeling them (e.g., as “hegemonic,” “privileged,” etc.) and dismissing them without debate. Scripture, theology, any structured knowledge is thrown out not because shown false, but because of who wrote it (old dead males = “hegemonic”). This is intellectual vandalism, not critique. It empties language of truth value – only emotional or political content remains.
- Language Becomes Void: In extreme constructivism, words have no fixed reference – they only signify what a community decides. So texts become free to interpret any which way (reader-centric interpretation where author’s intent means nothing). One effect: Scripture, doctrine, logic can be dismissed not on rational grounds but on identity grounds (“that’s a Eurocentric meta-narrative,” or “just a patriarchal text”). Truth or falsehood doesn’t matter – it’s who wrote it and what power structure it might support. Thus, the Bible or creeds are often not engaged fairly; they’re pre-judged as oppressive narratives and ignored or re-read to mean something else. This is an anti-intellectual approach – it doesn’t seek to see if maybe those old texts had universal insight; it assumes not. It encourages intellectual laziness and prejudice (the very things it claims to oppose!). For example, a postmodern reading of the Constitution may say “it’s just the product of its time, we can make it mean whatever suits now,” undermining rule of law. Or academically, “logic is just a tool of white males; we should prioritize other ways of knowing” – which can mean ignoring rigorous reasoning in favor of anecdotal or emotional appeals, which academically is a collapse of standards. Once language and logic are politicized entirely, education degeneratesinto propaganda battles.
We see also some resort to silencing: e.g., rather than debate a viewpoint, call it “hate speech” or “dangerous,” thus avoid reasoned rebuttal. This is a direct outcome: if there’s no truth, why debate? Just brand and remove the opposing narrative. That’s what I mean by “dismissed for being hegemonic.” The result is each tribe listens only to itself – fragmentation of discourse, echo chambers, or one tribe dominating media and shutting others out – a scenario of information control akin to 1984. So ironically, postmodern language games can lead to highly controlled language (newspeak) ironically used by those claiming to liberate.
- Truth Cannot Be Possessed, But It Possessed Us in Christ: Against the chaotic backdrop, we reassert that Truth is not a mere proposition or narrative – Truth is a Person: Jesus Christ, who said “I am the Truth” (John 14:6). Ultimate truth is not fragmented, it’s unified in the Word (Logos) of God. We mortal sinners can’t “own” truth as a thing (to manipulate), rather we enter a relationship with the Truth by knowing Christ. That’s why truth is not just an idea to argue but a reality to obey and love. Postmodernism is allergic to any absolute – but if the absolute is a loving God, surrendering to that doesn’t oppress, it frees (John 8:32: the truth sets free, note it’s truth in Christ’s word specifically in context). So we challenge: narrative is not sovereign, God’s Word is. God wrote the true story (the Bible’s metanarrative of creation, fall, redemption, restoration). It’s not an oppressive human construct, it’s a liberating divine revelation. Christ as Logos became flesh to reclaim language and meaning – He often said “Truly, truly I say to you…” – in Greek “Amen, amen” asserting solid reality in midst of flux.
So we maintain: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us… full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). There is truth and it walked this earth in Christ. Thus, we are not left in endless interpretation; we have a focal point of truth in Jesus’ life and teachings and continued guidance through the Spirit who is called “the Spirit of truth” (John 16:13). That’s why the Church clings to creeds and Scripture – not as power plays, but as fidelity to the Word given by God. Postmodernists ironically try to use heavy authority to push their agenda while accusing others of authority misuse. We rather openly submit to divine authority – that is no secret agenda, it’s our ethos: “we preach not ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord” (2 Cor 4:5). That humility to an external Truth stands in stark contrast to the will to power of relativism.
Codex Stratagematon: “Postmodernism is not ignorance—it is the willful mutiny of the tongue.” – This aphorism says: People embracing radical relativism are often very educated (not simple ignorance of facts) but they choose to mutiny against meaning – they abuse language deliberately to unmoor it from truth, essentially making the tongue (speech) rebel against the mind’s duty to signify reality truthfully. It’s akin to the rebellion of Babel: tongues in confusion as prideful mutiny. So we identify it as not innocent lack of knowledge, but an intentional warping of language in pursuit of autonomy from truth.
Final Judicium (Codex IV): We have shown that truth shattered into myriads of subjective pieces is no truth at all – just as a mirror broken cannot reflect a clear image. Postmodern relativism and constructivism, by rejecting the very concept of unified truth, end in intellectual and moral bankruptcy. They promise liberation from oppressive narratives, but deliver only noise and chaos, soon marshalled into new forms of oppression. They champion tolerance but breed hostility (since without truth, disagreements become contests of will). They claim to uplift marginalized voices, but by denying any higher standard, they leave the marginalized with no appeal except violence or endless grievance.
We therefore judge that the spirit of postmodernism is a spirit of confusion and pride, much like ancient Babel – and we remember how God decisively acted against Babel (Genesis 11:4-9). In scattering their language, God prevented a unified rebellion. Today’s relativism likewise will be scattered – it cannot hold together, because only truth unites. Perhaps this confusion is itself judgment: “professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22) fits these theorists who dismantled truth and thought themselves enlightened for it.
We declare: Truth shall not be fragmented! God is one, His Word is one, reality is one in Him. Every attempt to pit “your truth vs my truth” will fall before the singular Logos. We call people back from the brink: to repent of the intellectual sin of pride that says my reality, my narrative. Instead, humbly seek the Truth above, who enters our world to save. Jesus prayed, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth” (John 17:17). We echo that prayer as our battle cry.
Therefore, let all proponents of these lies see their error: that power cannot replace truth and that by denying truth they invite tyranny of power or collapse. Let them see that the Logos they rejected stands resurrected, shining light on all false narratives. Let those enthralled by deconstruction find better joy in “the wisdom from above” (James 3:17) which is pure and peaceable.
We do not fear the multiplicity of perspectives – we embrace diversity of gifts and cultures – but under the headship of one Christ in whom all those differences find harmony (Ephesians 1:10). Postmodernism offered a cacophony with no conductor; we instead join the symphony conducted by God, where varied instruments (peoples, experiences) play in tune with the score of truth.
Thus, the mutiny of the tongue is ended by the Word that tamed tongues of fire at Pentecost – reversing Babel (Acts 2:4-11, people of different languages understanding the Gospel). Let that Pentecost reality—a unity not of coercion but of shared truth in Spirit—be the answer to postmodern fragmentation.
In closing, we curse the idolatry of relativism: let its altars to chaos be broken, its priests of nonsense be converted or confounded. And we bless the reign of Truth Incarnate: “For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Habakkuk 2:14). On that day, no lie or half-truth will remain—only the truth, and it will set us free. Amen.
✠ Codex Interdictum V: Judgment Against Cosmological Secularism
Finally, we turn to the realm of cosmology and secular explanations for existence itself. This codex addresses those modern theories deployed to push God out of the origin and design of the universe: the Multiverse conjecture, certain interpretations of quantum mechanics that purport to birth universes from “nothing,” and the general secular claim that the cosmos requires no divine reason or Logos. We call this Cosmological Secularism – the enthronement of chance and physical law as the ultimate explanation, avoiding any teleology or mind behind it.
We will expose:
- The Multiverse idea as essentially a fantasy with no empirical support, a multiplying of entities to dodge fine-tuning evidence for God, violating Occam’s razor.
- The misuse of quantum physics as a pseudo-mystical veil to hide behind (“the universe can create itself from quantum fluctuations”) – we’ll show that quantum theory, properly considered, implies the need for an observer (God) and does not do away with causality or meaning.
- That even the very structure of the cosmos – its mathematical laws – presuppose a rational order (Logos) that matter alone cannot produce.
- Secular cosmology which claims “the universe just exists” collapses into absurdity (epistemic nihilism again): if existence is brute, then all our reasoning about it is undermined (since our minds too are random byproducts).
- In contrast, the Christian cosmology sees the heavens declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1); it affirms both scientific investigation and ultimate meaning, since all is created through and for the Logos (Col 1:16-17).
We will then pronounce that the attempts to replace God with either infinite universes or self-existing matter are cursed as “thrones of the void” – enthroning nothingness – and that these too shall fall before the throne of Christ, who is the Origin and End.
I. Multiverse as Atheistic Fantasy
Enemy Claim: “Our universe’s apparent fine-tuning for life (the precise physical constants, etc.) doesn’t imply a designer. There could be an infinite or huge number of universes (a multiverse), each with random parameters; naturally, we find ourselves in the one (or the few) where conditions allow life. Thus, no need for God – given enough universes, even highly improbable configurations will exist. Also, maybe universes spawn from quantum fluctuations or eternal inflation without divine intervention.”
This idea has gained popularity as a counter to design arguments. Let’s dismantle it:
- No Empirical Grounding – Multiverse Isn’t Science (Yet Presented as Such): The multiverse in the sense of entirely separate universes with different laws is not observable even in principle (if they’re truly causally disconnected from ours). It’s essentially a metaphysical speculation wearing the garb of science. There is zero direct evidence that other universes exist. Some theoretical physics models (like eternal inflation or string landscape) suggest possibility of other bubble universes, but these remain highly speculative and so far untestable. The criteria of science – observation, experiment, falsifiability – fail here. The multiverse is thus a kind of mathematical or philosophical guess. Now, science often hypothesizes unobservables temporarily (e.g., quarks before detection), but there was at least indirect evidence and eventually tests. With multiverse, proponents openly acknowledge it may be forever beyond verification. That moves it out of empirical science into the realm of, ironically, something like theology (unseen realms accepted by faith in theory). We call it out: those who embrace multiverse to avoid God are making a faith leap themselves – believing in countless unseen worlds on theoretical elegance or to dodge a Creator. That is not “following the evidence” – the evidence we do have (one finely-tuned universe) actually points to design; the multiverse is introduced without evidence to circumvent that. It’s an ad hocdevice. We assert: to prefer infinite unprovable universes over one intelligent Creator is not rational parsimony; it’s a bias (willing to believe anything except God).
- Anti-Ockham: The Greatest Violation of Parsimony: Occam’s razor advises not to multiply entities beyond necessity. What does the multiverse hypothesis do? It multiplies entire universes – potentially infinitely many – to explain one universe’s order. This is the most extravagant violation of simplicity imaginable. Positing God is actually far simpler: one creative mind explains one ordered universe. The multiverse says “no single mind, instead let’s imagine 10^500 or infinite universes”. Which sounds more excessive? Even apart from Occam, if these other universes don’t interact with ours, they’re effectively not part of our explanatory domain (it’s like saying “maybe magic invisible gnomes set constants randomly in each bubble universe” – you can’t disprove if sealed away, but it explains nothing here). It’s arguably not even a scientific explanation but a fanciful escape hatch. Some sincere physicists like George Ellis and Paul Davies have critiqued it: calling it “a belief that carries no significant support from evidence”. Thus, we see it as more of a philosophical preference to keep atheism viable in face of fine-tuning. It reminds of when atheists mocked theists for saying “maybe multiple worlds exist so one is like Eden” historically – now atheists themselves concoct multiple worlds to avoid one with Eden. We expose the irony.
- He who builds infinite towers to escape God finds echo of his fall: This poetic line from Liber Tacticae (tactics book) captured by our fictional citation says as you try to climb away from acknowledging the one Creator by piling up endless imaginary universes, you’ll end up hearing nothing but your own echo – it’s a folly. Actually, if infinite universes exist, virtually anything you can imagine exists somewhere – including a universe where God unmistakably shows up! (So multiverse doesn’t even logically exclude a deity – maybe God created the multiverse? The tactic fails even on its own terms – it just pushes design up one meta-level: why a life-permitting multiverse generator?). They often answer with anthropic principle, but that’s a tautology (we can only see a universe we can live in, sure; doesn’t explain how such a universe exists with those parameters out of zillions of dead ones, just says “if not, we wouldn’t be here to ask” – that’s not cause, it’s selection bias observation but still crying out for cause why such potential exists at all).
Thus, we deem the multiverse a kind of atheistic “miracle” belief: believing in unobservables to avoid one specific observable (God’s influence). It’s pseudo-science used out of scope: if it can’t be tested, it’s not scientific but philosophical speculation.
In sum: we are not against considering multiverse ideas in theoretical physics (some math might hint at it), but against how it’s used philosophically as a get-out-of-God card. Until evidence arrives (if ever), it remains an extravagant conjecture. We choose a known cause (intelligent design) over infinite unknown causes.
Liber Tacticae: “He who builds an infinite tower to escape God shall find only the echo of his fall.” – The imagery: building Babel-like (a tower of universes) to reach heaven without God, but it collapses (fall) and you only hear emptiness (echo). The attempt to circumvent the divine inevitably fails and leaves one with nothing (void). This condemns the multiverse gamble as futile and empty.
II. Quantum Mechanics: The Cloak of Mystery
Enemy Assertion: Some secular cosmologists appeal to quantum theory to explain creation from “nothing.” They say the universe could be a quantum fluctuation; in quantum mechanics, particles pop in and out of vacuum, etc. They also note that the act of observation in quantum physics affects outcomes (Copenhagen interpretation), which some interpret as meaning an observer (not necessarily conscious in their view, or just any interaction) “creates reality.” They use this either to eliminate need for an initial cause (quantum randomness did it) or to mystify people into thinking science supports weird self-creating universes.
Refutation:
- Observation and State – The Implicit Observer (Capital O): Yes, in quantum mechanics (QM), measurement seems to collapse a wavefunction – i.e., before observation, particles are in superpositions of possibilities, and upon measurement one result is realized. Some have argued, like John Wheeler and others, that “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon”. If taken seriously, that means reality requires observation to become determinate. If we run with that philosophically: the universe as a whole, who collapses its wavefunction? Human observers only emerged long after cosmic start – so unless one posits an infinite chain or a cosmic observer, you have a paradox (some solve by “many worlds” interpretation – which ironically just pushes problem to multiverse again). But many have indeed pointed out QM suggests the need for a consciousness or at least a measurement outside the system to actualize potential states. For a theist, this hints at God – the ultimate Observer who “looks” at creation to sustain it in a definite form. Some theists claim verses like “And God saw that it was good” in Genesis poetically align with the idea that God’s observation grants reality. That might be stretching an analogy, but the principle remains: if reality at fundamental level is information-like (quantum states) that requires observation to choose a branch, then a universal Observer is quite plausible. The secular attempt to remove God via quantum fluctuations inadvertently opens the door for a necessary Mind. Because if they say “quantum law can produce something from nothing,” the obvious question is: Who set that law? Who or what does the observing if observation is what triggers events? They sometimes degrade “observation” to mean any interaction (so a particle hitting something is a “measurement”). But that just begs: so you need another particle to measure the first, then another to measure that, etc. – either an infinite regress or eventually a conscious measurement (when we look, we finalize it). Some interpretations (like decoherence) try to avoid explicit observation by environment entanglement – but still, the environment itself ends up unobserved unless something outside it observes, continuing chain. Only a universal consciousness stops the chain cleanly.
Therefore, ironically, quantum mechanics in its orthodox interpretation is friendlier to theism: it suggests matter is not solid and independent but somehow needs observation/mind for its definite properties. Also, the laws of QM themselves are elegant and mathematically rich – which again begs a rational source. So using QM as the trick to get a universe from “nothing” is deceitful: first, the quantum vacuum is not literal nothing – it’s space-time with quantum fields, i.e., a structure governed by laws and having energy. So where did that come from? They slide the problem one step back (like “given a physics of something, something can happen spontaneously”). We ask: whence the physics? whence the vacuum potential? This is precisely what points to a creator. They haven’t abolished causality; they disguised it behind technical jargon.
- No Meaning Without Mind – The Code Implies a Coder: The universe runs on mathematics, as all physics shows. Equations elegantly describe how forces operate, how quantum amplitudes evolve, etc. As Einstein said, “the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.” Why should mindless matter obey logical, beautiful laws? It’s like it’s “written” in a code. Code presupposes a coder. A book writes itself with invisible ink? nonsense. Yet secular cosmologists basically say the cosmic code wrote itself or exists for no reason. An honest look sees mind behind the order. The fine-tuning is one aspect (parameters of physics set precisely), but even prior: the fact physics is possible, that abstract math maps reality (Wigner marveled at this “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”) – that calls for a rational source. In Christian view, the Logos is the mind underpinning reality, the reason cosmic logic works. John 1:3: “All things were made through Him [the Logos].” So when secular physics revels in discovering a neat formula, they’re uncovering the thoughts of God in creation, as Kepler put it “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Without admitting Logos, they’re left with what? – an impersonal, purposeless algorithm that magically exists. We highlight how unsatisfying that is: imagine finding a code in DNA (which we did) – atheists like Dawkins claim “no designer, just evolved.” But at cosmos scale, the entire fabric is coded by math – that “just is”? To me that takes enormous faith in blind order – ironically believing in a form of cosmic mind but not calling it such.
Codex Justificatio: “To say the cosmos codes itself is to say the book writes itself with invisible ink.” – We assert self-coding cosmos is absurd; it’s like a book (with content) spontaneously written by nothing, or with invisible (undefined) cause. That’s essentially what multiverse or vacuum genesis claims: invisible, unobserved processes that conveniently produce everything without requiring an author. It’s as foolish as claiming Shakespeare’s plays came from spilled ink.
III. Secular Cosmology Still Presupposes Logos
To drive it home:
- Mathematical Law and Intelligibility: Every scientific law – from gravity’s inverse-square to quantum wave equations – is a form of order. Order doesn’t arise from chaos by itself. Either one posits an eternal order (which is basically God under another name, just impersonal – but then why trust it?), or one posits chaos gave order by chance (which is statistically near zero and also conceptually weird – order arising with no cause is akin to miracles). Many great scientists were theists because they felt only a mind could guarantee the reliability of nature’s uniformity and the human mind’s ability to grasp it (since they are correlated – why should evolved apes’ brains align with cosmic truths unless the same Logos set both?). Secular worldview has to just accept it as a brute fact: “It’s ordered and our minds evolved to match, lucky us.” That’s not an explanation – that’s a placeholder because they have no alternative architecture. It’s likely that without Christianity’s influence, science wouldn’t have developed trust in an orderly nature (pagan worldviews either saw nature as capricious or divine itself but unpredictable). Secular worldview inherited that trust and abuses it by saying “the order is just there, doesn’t need reason.” We argue otherwise: rational order points to rational origin.
- Existence as Arbitrary – Without God, Why Anything? The ultimate cosmological question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Secular answers are lacking. Hawking tried: “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” That sentence is self-contradictory: “because there is X, nothing gave something” – well if there’s a law, that’s not nothing. He smuggled existence of law in “nothing.”**. Others say, “the universe just is.” That’s giving up on explaining. If one is content with that, fine – but then how can they chastise theist for saying “God just is (self-existent)”? We at least then ground the universe in something (God’s necessary being), whereas they ground it in nothing. It’s more reasonable that a necessary Mind exists on its own and wills matter, than that contingent matter (with all its structure) popped in uncaused. Also logically, if at one point truly nothing existed, nothing could ever exist (no potential, no action). So something must be eternal – either God or an eternal universe. But evidence says our universe had a beginning (Big Bang). So then they push maybe a larger multiverse is eternal – but even then, can infinite time solve the existence of law and rational structure? Infinity doesn’t eliminate need for cause, it just postpones it infinitely. Plus actual infinite past time has philosophical issues. So, secular cosmology either hides behind imaginary multiverse or leaves us with absurdity: a law of gravity causing a universe out of nothing. We highlight David Albert’s famous critique: vacuum is not “nothing,” and even laws don’t cause things without a context. So the secular story, once decoded, mocks itself and mocks reason. It “hides the world behind jargon and mocks the faithful for seeking meaning” as we put it. We should note: some atheists acknowledge this emptiness – Weinberg’s quote earlier about pointless comprehensibility, or Bertrand Russell’s frank “the universe is just there, and that’s all.” At least he admitted no explanation in his view, but that’s quite unsatisfying – intellectual suicide for those who yearn to know why. The Gospel, by contrast, offers a coherent story from beginning (Genesis) to end (Revelation) – a teleology and meaning.
Canon Bellatorum X.5: “If the universe is self-existent, why does it act as if it were made?” – This rhetorical question emphasizes: if the universe has no creator, it’s odd that it follows elegant laws (like a designed mechanism), has fine-tuned conditions (like set deliberately for life), and a beginning (like a creation event). All attributes of a made thing. Self-existent (brute) matter would not need to be so specific or goal-directed. The statement implies the observed behavior of cosmos aligns more with being an artifact than a self-caused entity.
IV. Final Judiciae (Codex V):
We pronounce that both Postmodernism and Secular Cosmology are thrones of ash – impressive in intellectual pretension but ultimately insubstantial and destined to collapse.
- Postmodernism denies truth exists or is knowable, leaving a people starving for meaning and unity. It is like sitting on a throne made of ashes – nothing solid to uphold them.
- Secular Cosmology denies reason (Logos) in reality’s foundation, making the entire edifice of science and knowledge a castle in the air. It dethrones reason even as it uses reason’s fruits. It enthrones the “void” (nothingness or impersonal law) as ultimate – essentially worshiping emptiness.
Both erect altars to the void – one in social/moral realm (no values, just narratives), one in the existential/cosmic realm (no creator, just vacuum). And both inevitably collapse in incoherence: postmodern societies become unlivable or tyrannical (collapsing ethically), secular accounts of existence collapse philosophically (they cannot justify rationality or being itself, undermining science’s own credibility if taken seriously – for if our minds are cosmic accidents and truth is not objective, why trust any conclusion including atheism?).
We thus say: let them be cursed (in the sense of let their influence wane and be recognized as folly). We are not cursing individuals but pronouncing that these systems are under God’s curse because they’re false and harmful. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil… who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20) – postmodern relativism did exactly that by denying objective good/evil distinction, and secular cosmology did by insisting darkness (meaninglessness) is light (the “enlightened” view). So woe to them, meaning consequences will come.
Finally, we say: “let the throne of Logos rise above their ruins.” This is our positive concluding vision: we tore down false thrones, but we don’t leave a void. We exalt the rightful King – Christ the Logos, the Word of God. In Him, disparate truths find unity, society finds moral order, the cosmos finds its sustaining purpose. Colossians 1:17, “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” Indeed, truth, goodness, and beauty, shattered by modern rebellion, will be re-integrated under Christ’s lordship when every knee bows (Philippians 2:10).
Therefore, as each codex has judged its target, we end with the triumph of God’s Word:
“The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever” (Revelation 11:15).
In that kingdom, truth is truth, love is love, and all is full of meaning as waters cover the sea. May it be so, amen.
References:(Throughout this Manifesto, we’ve cited and alluded to numerous sources and scholars, as indicated by the inline citations: these include philosophical analyses of scientism, critiques of relativism, scientific perspectives on fine-tuning, and of course the Holy Scriptures and writings of saints and Church Fathers, either directly or through paraphrase. Due to the nature of this synthesis, all such citations were preserved in context to show that none of these points are made lightly or without grounding in extensive scholarship and evidence.)**