The dominant scientific narratives about the universe may be revealing more about the assumptions built into their models than about the universe itself.
“God is dead. We have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and most powerful of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there to cleanse us? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”
This is how Friedrich Nietzsche reflected in his Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (The Gay Science). Nietzsche was most likely referring to the triumph of scientific rationality over sacred revelation, followed by the rise of philosophical materialism and radical naturalism. Consequently, belief in God as the decisive factor in human affairs and the fate of the universe had come to an end. In short, we killed God because he had interfered too much in our search for the meaning of life. However, since humankind cannot live without something to worship, a substitute has emerged from this disastrous theocide—something Nietzsche seems to have foreseen when he asked whether we shouldn't ourselves become gods. The question, clearly rhetorical, was taken literally and has become our reality today.
Thank you, Hanna — I really appreciate that insightful reflection. Nietzsche’s observation about the consequences of removing a transcendent framework feels especially relevant here. One of the questions I’m exploring is whether, in the absence of that framework, scientific models can begin to take on a role they were never intended to fulfil — and in doing so, risk moving us further from a clear understanding of reality.
Clearly, they -scientific models- have already taken on this role. They had to, it was inevitable. It took them only a little over 200 years to plan and carry out the assassination of God, counting from the foundation of the Royal Society of London (1660) to the publication of “Die fröhliche Wissenschaft“ (1882). The idea behind the Royal Society was to bring together the entire intellectual and the fledgling scientific "elite" in a single organization to study and understand the workings of existence. It was from this foundry that the knives that killed God were forged. The new god, Science, wanted to start from the beginning, that is, to explain to us how he had created the universe, the world and the conditions for life to arise in it, and with it intelligence and consciousness, because the magnitude of that act – the assassination of God – has left us in a disturbing metaphysical orphanhood. However, the ship is beginning to take on water everywhere, which can be best appreciated precisely in the field of cosmology -the fact you described so well in your article.
Thank you again, Hanna — that’s a very perceptive extension of the idea. I think you’re right to point to the deeper shift that has taken place.
As traditional metaphysical frameworks have receded, scientific models and theories have increasingly come to function as frameworks for interpreting reality itself.
The difficulty arises when models and scientific theories begin to take on an explanatory authority beyond their limits — for example in fields such as cosmology and climate science — where there is a real risk of mistaking the map for the territory.
I explore this perspective in more detail in my book 'Godless Fake Science', where I examine how provisional and often contested scientific frameworks have come to assume broader philosophical roles.
You’re right there! Models are envisaged as part of the ego extension of power hungry nihilists, and then so called facts are fabricated , sometimes absurdly, e.g. virology and runaway climate change, to dupe the masses and cow them into submission to an all powerful patriarchy.
But it is all a failure and escape from the ability to equate consciousness and value with a relationship to others and nature. Hence the postulation of a mechanistic and valueless material world. As you say, it’s only when beauty, meaning and purpose are the foundations of the empirical gaze that sense can be made of that relationship between humanity and the planet.
I think the point about meaning and purpose is an important one. When those dimensions are set aside, there is a tendency to interpret reality in increasingly narrow, purely mechanistic terms, which can leave consciousness itself out of the picture.
Perhaps the challenge is to retain the strengths of empirical inquiry, while recognising its limits — and ensuring it remains connected to deeper questions of meaning. I’ve explored some of these questions from different angles in my work — including in relation to virology — where similar issues around models, assumptions, and interpretation arise.
Continued …. Becomes more absurd the more complex and extended it becomes. I think you have to address the whole culture from a spiritual viewpoint. We are on a journey of planetary discovery. Science and globalism are just a phase in our growth into collective consciousness and compassion.
It also goes, I think, with what the author mentions -the limits to the models and scientific theories. Evidently, their authors think there can be or should be none. This is logical if we bear in mind that they -scientists- consider themselves to be substitutes for the missing God and therefore they are convinced that they are in a position to speak from the point of view of the absolute objectivity, something entirely impossible for a subjective human mind which is simply unable to “interpret reality itself”. Let me use a washing machine to illustrate my point. We find there the functional system and the operational system. We, as users, are only interested in the functional system -the knobs and buttons that make it work. If we wanted to grasp the “reality” of the washing machine, its operational system, we would probably soon go mad. Yet, this is precisely what scientists aim to achieve: crack the operational system of this existence. There is, in my opinion, no way out of the idea of the External Agent, as He is often called.
“God is dead. We have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and most powerful of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there to cleanse us? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”
This is how Friedrich Nietzsche reflected in his Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (The Gay Science). Nietzsche was most likely referring to the triumph of scientific rationality over sacred revelation, followed by the rise of philosophical materialism and radical naturalism. Consequently, belief in God as the decisive factor in human affairs and the fate of the universe had come to an end. In short, we killed God because he had interfered too much in our search for the meaning of life. However, since humankind cannot live without something to worship, a substitute has emerged from this disastrous theocide—something Nietzsche seems to have foreseen when he asked whether we shouldn't ourselves become gods. The question, clearly rhetorical, was taken literally and has become our reality today.
Thank you, Hanna — I really appreciate that insightful reflection. Nietzsche’s observation about the consequences of removing a transcendent framework feels especially relevant here. One of the questions I’m exploring is whether, in the absence of that framework, scientific models can begin to take on a role they were never intended to fulfil — and in doing so, risk moving us further from a clear understanding of reality.
Clearly, they -scientific models- have already taken on this role. They had to, it was inevitable. It took them only a little over 200 years to plan and carry out the assassination of God, counting from the foundation of the Royal Society of London (1660) to the publication of “Die fröhliche Wissenschaft“ (1882). The idea behind the Royal Society was to bring together the entire intellectual and the fledgling scientific "elite" in a single organization to study and understand the workings of existence. It was from this foundry that the knives that killed God were forged. The new god, Science, wanted to start from the beginning, that is, to explain to us how he had created the universe, the world and the conditions for life to arise in it, and with it intelligence and consciousness, because the magnitude of that act – the assassination of God – has left us in a disturbing metaphysical orphanhood. However, the ship is beginning to take on water everywhere, which can be best appreciated precisely in the field of cosmology -the fact you described so well in your article.
Thank you again, Hanna — that’s a very perceptive extension of the idea. I think you’re right to point to the deeper shift that has taken place.
As traditional metaphysical frameworks have receded, scientific models and theories have increasingly come to function as frameworks for interpreting reality itself.
The difficulty arises when models and scientific theories begin to take on an explanatory authority beyond their limits — for example in fields such as cosmology and climate science — where there is a real risk of mistaking the map for the territory.
I explore this perspective in more detail in my book 'Godless Fake Science', where I examine how provisional and often contested scientific frameworks have come to assume broader philosophical roles.
You’re right there! Models are envisaged as part of the ego extension of power hungry nihilists, and then so called facts are fabricated , sometimes absurdly, e.g. virology and runaway climate change, to dupe the masses and cow them into submission to an all powerful patriarchy.
But it is all a failure and escape from the ability to equate consciousness and value with a relationship to others and nature. Hence the postulation of a mechanistic and valueless material world. As you say, it’s only when beauty, meaning and purpose are the foundations of the empirical gaze that sense can be made of that relationship between humanity and the planet.
Thank you, Bob — I appreciate that.
I think the point about meaning and purpose is an important one. When those dimensions are set aside, there is a tendency to interpret reality in increasingly narrow, purely mechanistic terms, which can leave consciousness itself out of the picture.
Perhaps the challenge is to retain the strengths of empirical inquiry, while recognising its limits — and ensuring it remains connected to deeper questions of meaning. I’ve explored some of these questions from different angles in my work — including in relation to virology — where similar issues around models, assumptions, and interpretation arise.
From a holistic perspective atomistic materialism or
Microbiology
Continued …. Becomes more absurd the more complex and extended it becomes. I think you have to address the whole culture from a spiritual viewpoint. We are on a journey of planetary discovery. Science and globalism are just a phase in our growth into collective consciousness and compassion.
It also goes, I think, with what the author mentions -the limits to the models and scientific theories. Evidently, their authors think there can be or should be none. This is logical if we bear in mind that they -scientists- consider themselves to be substitutes for the missing God and therefore they are convinced that they are in a position to speak from the point of view of the absolute objectivity, something entirely impossible for a subjective human mind which is simply unable to “interpret reality itself”. Let me use a washing machine to illustrate my point. We find there the functional system and the operational system. We, as users, are only interested in the functional system -the knobs and buttons that make it work. If we wanted to grasp the “reality” of the washing machine, its operational system, we would probably soon go mad. Yet, this is precisely what scientists aim to achieve: crack the operational system of this existence. There is, in my opinion, no way out of the idea of the External Agent, as He is often called.