Deconstructing the Sanctity of Science and Modern Mass Education

The best way to colonize the mind of a people is through mass education that permits the teaching of metaphysical faith as eternal complete knowledge.

Antony Kagirison

How is new knowledge created or acquired? How is knowledge verified? Who verifies knowledge? Does the person or entity that verifies knowledge acquire power over the minds of the people? How is knowledge related to cult and culture? What is a regime of knowledge? How is a regime of knowledge established? Is academia a regime of knowledge? Is religion a regime of knowledge? How is an existing regime of knowledge disestablished? How is mass education used to establish and disestablish a regime of knowledge? Can mass education be used to convert propaganda into a regime of knowledge? Is science and rationality a regime of knowledge based on metaphysical faith? Can science and rationality be deconstructed and their fundamental flaws exposed? Is there a better regime of knowledge than science and rationality? Which regime of knowledge is best suited for engaging with reality? This post answers these questions.

last supper gnosophia org

Metaphysical Roots of Science and Mathematics

Science is facing a crisis of legitimacy. In Anti-Foundationalism, Non-Foundationalism, and Post-Truth Christianity, I explained that efforts to prove that mathematics was complete, consistent, and decidable resulted in proofs that mathematics is incomplete, inconsistent, and undecidable. The ultimate goal of empirical science was to divorce science from metaphysics by elevating science into a consistent and decidable body (or corpus) of knowledge that commands more legitimacy than metaphysics which is inconsistent and undecidable thus resulting in metaphysics being an unstable body of knowledge. However, the works of Bertrand Arthur William Russell, Alan Mathison Turing, and Kurt Friedrich Gödel proved that mathematics is inconsistent, undecidable, and incomplete; and this shows that mathematics has not transcended its metaphysical roots. As expected, I concluded that: “the foundation of mathematics is metaphysics. Metaphysics cannot be subjected to empirical testing, and thus mathematics is based on non-empirical metaphysics”. This was disconcerting for me.

In Introduction to Numbers, Energy, and Metaphysics, I stated that “energy is an unconditioned reality that is transformed into a conditioned reality by mathematics”. I used the standard Aristotelian definitions of conditioned and unconditioned realities. Still, I recognized the metaphysical foundations of mathematics when I stated that: “on its own, mathematics is a conditioned reality based on numbers and the arithmetical logic of symbolic reasoning and visual reasoning”. This recognition also impacted my description of time. “In Time and Knowledge, I explain how time is a function of numbers, mathematical logic, and physical reality”, I stated. Consequently, this means that time is a product of metaphysics.

“Only energy and numbers were used to create our reality”, I explained in Mass-Energy Equivalence Principle. In our reality, we know that time, matter, and energy exist; and they are the fundamental foundation upon which science is established. In other words, time, energy, and matter form the ground of science. But is this ground based on formal logic that can be reduced to symbols as material reductionism and scientific reduction assert? As explained above, time, matter, and energy are based on numbers and mathematics, and mathematics is based on metaphysics. For this reason, the foundation (or ground) of science is metaphysics. “Our faith in science is still based on a metaphysical faith”, Friedrich Nietzsche aptly observed in his work, On the Genealogy of Morality.

Language and Truth

In Who is Anochi?, I started by asking the following question: “What is the greatest invention that humans have ever made? Is it fire, wheel, or language?”. I then explained that language is the greatest invention ever made by humanity. I even answered the question: was language invented ex nihilo or was it a de novo development? I explained that language is a de novo development of verbal communication through the agency of speech, names, and grammar.

With language, man sought to understand reality and truth, and this required that reality and truth be expressed in words that can be strung together into comprehensible sentences using the laws of grammar. This allowed for a body of knowledge to be created and then passed down to subsequent generations. However, language has a fundamental weakness. Any truth that cannot be reduced into words is normally outside the domain of verbal and written knowledge. Because grammar is the basis of logic, then logic cannot test the validity of any truth that cannot be expressed using language. This is the fundamental flaw of symbolic logic.

Equally, only living people can use language as the medium of learning and knowledge acquisition. Therefore, to gain knowledge, a person must be conscious. Dead people do not learn using language. So, we know that consciousness is necessary to gain knowledge. Now, what happens when material reductionist science rejects the existence of consciousness? The answer is that this science must be based on materialist paradigms. So, what happens if these paradigms are debunked or falsified?

To continue reading, subscribe here.

Discover more from Postmodern Christianity

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Discover more from Postmodern Christianity

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading