Throughout the coronavirus hysteria of 2020, policymakers and their designees spoke incessantly of “following the science.” The word science comes from Latin, ‘scire,’ meaning ‘knowledge.’ When academics speak of ‘science’ they usually intend it to mean “scientific method” which is the use of empirical (i.e. “observable”) evidence to confirm or refute a hypothesis. However, being that COVID-19 was the first-ever global epidemic, there was nothing upon which or by which to assess the efficacy of countermeasures. As invoked, “follow the science” meant “trust the experts” which, in turn, conveyed an expectation to have faith in the speculative opinions of credentialed humans.
People found comfort in the idea of science because it left them with a sense of control over the uncontrollable. Just as Marx said of religion, Science became “the opiate of the masses.” Though it was unseeable and unprovable, people’s feelings made it real to them and they were able to accept Science solely on having read it or heard it. That realness increased as they heard it affirmed and reaffirmed by more and more people. The more it was repeated around them, the more true it seemed.
There are billions of believers in the one and only God of Abraham who sustain even stronger and more intense feelings of God’s realness. How is it then that those who trust in unprovable corona science should look upon Abrahamic theists with indulgent pity for their feebleness of mind!? These billions pray to God and receive miracles. These billions observe miraculous recovery that medical science cannot duplicate. Would Dr. Faucci ever speak of an observable “miracle” recovery? Nope, he would say that there are things which Science still does not fully understand about corona. Should one conclude that faith in a mute Science is more credible than faith in an invisible God? Isn’t that Science just as fickle as atheists would allege of God?
Until corona, countless learned minds would have refused to put faith in anything so ethereal. But call it ‘science’ and a concept suddenly takes on a reassuring character. If feeling is believing, what makes the feelings of the relatively fewer secularists more compelling than the feelings of the incomparably greater theists?
“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good.”
The probability of God’s existence is vastly and unquantifiably greater than the probability of cosmic happenstance. The second law of thermodynamics accounts only for a progressingly disordered universe—never an increasingly superior state of existence. Even the incomparable Stephen Hawking came to admit that the universe required a supernatural kickstart in order for every theory of space-time to stand. (see comments in his revised A Briefer History of Time).
I am not convinced that the God-averse actually belief their rhetoric if they did, they would not fight corona. If they truly believed in survival-of-the-fittest, they would stand back and marvel at the power of their god Natural Selection. But no, they live in fear of their own beliefs! They maintain that one science can battle with another science. They are science polytheists believing that this science will save them from that science.
1 Kings 20:23, 28
“And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him, ‘Their gods are gods of the hills therefore they were stronger than we but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they.’ And there came a man of God, and spake unto the king of Israel, and said, ‘Thus saith the LORD, Because the Syrians have said, The LORD is God of the hills, but he is not God of the valleys, therefore will I deliver all this great multitude into thine hand, and ye shall know that I am the LORD’.”