I have been reading a great deal about the modern notion that there is no  ‘objective’ reality.  By that, I mean a state of reality that exists independent of our own perceptions or beliefs.  Discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics have lead many to believe that reality is not fixed until we actually observe it.  These people believe that, before we observe it, reality is nothing more than ‘potential.’  And that this somehow means there are no universals in this universe; that ‘truth’ is determined by the perceptions of the individual.  Now, I understand that this is not a subject that the average person will find interesting, let alone exciting, but it is crucial to the notion of Natural Law.  And, luckily, there is a ‘devil-in-the-details’ that those who are now arguing against objective reality seem to have overlooked.

I’ll try to keep this as simple as I can (especially since I am just now starting to make a serious effort to work through this subject, myself).  When I say that ‘objective’ reality exists,  I am saying that the universe has a real existence that is set and does not depend upon you, me or any person to define that existence.

At the same time, there are people working in the field of quantum mechanics who have performed experiments that — to them — suggest this is not the case.  You may have heard of the experiment where they pass a single photon of light through a plate with two holes on it.  When someone actually watches the experiment, the photon behaves as a single particle, appearing to go through only one of the two holes.  However, if no one observes the experiment, the photon behaves as a wave, appearing to pass through both holes at the same time.  From this and other experiments, the people working in this area have started to argue that there is no set reality before we observe it.  In other words, a thing does not exist until after we observe it.  Before that time, it is only a potential of some sort, which means there is no such thing as ‘objective’ reality, only ‘subjective’ reality: a reality that is real only to the individual.

Here is the ‘devil’ I mentioned earlier.  Lets just give these people everything they argue and say that the universe exists in some sort of quantum flux of pure potential, and that it has no fixed. definable form until after someone observes it.  Does this mean there is no ‘objective’ reality?  NO!  In this case, all they have done is described reality as a ‘state of quantum flux of potential,’ but that is a fixed state.  True, that state of potential may change after someone observes it, and true, we may not be able to ever describe this state of potential accurately because we change it by observing it, but that does not change the fact that the state of potential exists.  And if it exists, and it results in a set pattern of observations when it is observed, then we can infer that this state of potential operates by some sort of rules.  Now, if we can say that there is a per-observation state of quantum potential that changes and becomes fixed when it is observed by a human, then that is an objective reality.

But I do not want to stop there.  The people who believe reality is subjective will most likely counter by saying that no two people will have the exact same perception of an observation, and that this means we cannot know that an objective reality exists.  They will say that we will each create reality at the moment we observe a thing and that what you see will be true for you, and what I see will be slightly different from your observation, yet it will be just as true for me as your observation is for you.  In other words, we will have two different but equal ‘truths’ for the same thing.  Therefore, they will claim that, because we each see something slightly different but equally real, this means reality cannot be objective: it cannot have a true form independent of our observation.  Rather, reality must be subjective: it is dependent upon our observations.  But again, the people who argue for this have over-looked that little devil in the details.

So you look at something and you see green.  I look and I see red.  A third person looks and sees blue.  By observing, we have created three different realities out of the quantum potential.  For the people arguing there is no objective reality, this is proof that ‘reality’ is only real for one, specific individual.  After all, we just supposed three people observed the same event and saw three different things, so how could that event have an existence independent of our perception?  The answer is simple: because we did not perceive it clearly, or the exact same way.  Maybe I am color blind, and maybe the third person was looking from a different angle that caused a refraction that altered the color they perceived.  Maybe you were the only one who saw it clearly, as it really is.  Well, guess what?  This means there is a reality that does not depend on our observation, and you saw it as it really is!  Just because we did not all agree in our perception, that does not mean the thing does not have an objective reality.  We might nor be capable of perceiving a thing as it really is but  that is a very different thing from saying that we make our own reality.

It’s like when a major event occurs, and there are a bunch of different witnesses.  They may have all seen what happened, but when the police interview them, they will all describe different perceptions of the event.  Some witnesses will even contradict each other.  However, this does not mean the event did not have an objective reality, because it does.  We just have to gather the pieces, figure out which ones fit and which ones do not and then put the pieces together so we can determine what actually happened.  Once we do that, we can better explain the objective reality of the event even though we may never know every detail of that event.  This applies to everything.  Therefore, to say we cannot completely describe something as it really is admits our limitations, which requires wisdom and humility.  But to say that we create our own, individual reality through our personal observations…  Well, there is a hubris in that line of reasoning that can easily take us out of the realm of science and philosophy and into the realm of playing god.  One must be very, very careful not to cross that line.  It is far better to say ‘We cannot be sure‘ than to say ‘It does not exist.’

I’ll end by making an observation, and that is to point out that even the people arguing that we create our own realities know that this is not quite true.  I know this because I just spent a night reading their papers: papers that all argue the claim that reality is created by the observations of the person perceiving it.  If that were true, why did they bother wasting their time writing their arguments down?  By their own argument, they have to know that no one reading their papers would perceive it the same way they do. Therefore, no one reading their papers could possibly understand what they were saying.  In order to understand, a reader would have to be able to perceive a reality that exists independent of the reader or author’s perceptions.  There would have to be a fixed law that could be known and which does not depend on any person or group of people — a law like that governing language (not to mention the laws governing the logic and reasoning).  However, since the reader would be making a new, different reality when they read the papers, the reality the author was trying to describe will have changed, thereby making the whole effort a waste.  And yet, they still wrote lengthy arguments — every one of them.  Why?  If we create reality by perceiving, why would anyone who believes that bother to write or even verbally explain that which they are saying cannot be explained or understood by anyone but them?  Now, I fully expect that these people would try to tell me I am not getting the point, but the moment they opened their mouths to do so, they would be making mine. 😉

Remember, not being able to know the true nature of a thing does not justify saying that thing does not exist.  It just means we do not know, and might never know, and it is far wiser to accept this possibility — along with everything it implies — than to reject it and risk accepting a falsehood of our own creation.

In modern times, the primary objection to Natural Law has come from a collection of parallel world views which — collectively — have come to be known as ‘post-modernism.’  The ‘post modern’ world view grew out of the same philosophical thinking that motivated the Fabian Socialists, the Communists  and the Progressives.  Post modernism is merely the end result of these early philosophies, but it is not new.  In fact, it goes back to before the time of Plato and Aristotle.  However, we are not interested in a history lesson — not with this post, anyway. What we are primarily interested in doing is proving, through a practical hypothetical experiment, that all post modern thinking can and should be dismissed as irrational, bordering on the insane.

First, if the reader is not familiar with post modern thinking, I would suggest they follow the link I provided in the introduction to this post.  It will provide a solid overview of what post modernism is and what it claims to believe.  As for me, however, I am going to clearly state my hostility toward all post modern ideology.  I am hostile to it because it asserts clear absurdities, absurdities which can be easily and forcefully demonstrated — as I will soon prove.  But first, we must acknowledge one of the central foundations of post modern thought.

One of the common themes running through all post modern thought is that there is no such thing as objective reality.  To the post modern thinker, we create our own reality.  However, we must understand that the post modernist is also a collectivist.  While many of them will argue that every individual creates their own personal reality through their own beliefs and understandings, nearly all post modern thinkers will argue that the most important point is that society creates a collective reality through shared beliefs and understandings.  To the post modern thinker, this means that reality changes with the wants, needs and desires of society (i.e. the collective).  From here, the post modern thinker then argues that this rules out any possibility of universals such as truth, human nature, morality, justice — and especially — Natural Law.

Now that we have set the table, let’s demonstrate that this entire collection of philosophy known as post modernism is false and, therefore, should be dismissed out of hand (along with any and all who hold to it).  We’ll do it in two ways.

First, let’s attack these post modern ‘thinkers’ on philosophical grounds.  Ask yourself this simple question:  If the post modernist actually believes the things they say, why do they bother to say them at all?  If there are no universal laws governing things such as language and reason, then how can they hope to explain their ideas to you?  What they perceive to be reality may not be what we perceive to be real, so how can the post modernist honestly believe they could convey their ideas accurately?  According to their own ideology, they cannot even be sure that they know if they believe what they claim to believe.  Things could have changed since they first thought of it, or worse, their first thought of post modernism may not have actually been real.  Maybe they were in a dream about a dream and just think they thought about it? After all, if there are no set laws governing abstract things, then there is no way to even know if you are thinking, or if what you believe you thought yesterday is actually what you thought yesterday?  Heck, you can’t even know you were thinking yesterday, so how can you explain any of this to another person when you can’t even know that other person exists. Why even try to do anything?

Are you confused yet?  Good!  That’s the point: the post modern idea — taken to the end of where it points, degenerates into nothing but chaos and confusion.

Now, I admit, I am bordering on straw man (and possibly reductio) in my treatment of the post modern ideology.  However, in this case, I do not believe i am committing a fallacy.  This is because I am using absurdity to illustrate the absurdity underlying all post modern thinking.  You see, if the individual creates their own reality, then none of us should bother trying to communicate because we would know that we could never convey the same understanding of our thoughts and beliefs to a person living in a different world, with a different understanding of how the world works.  If I could do so, this would mean that there is a universal law governing language and reason, which would negate my post modern argument.  At the same time, if I do not try to explain my beliefs because I know that there is no possible way to make others understand the way I see the world, then I have admitted that there is a universal law prohibiting me from clearly explaining myself.  This would negate my post modern thinking because, as a universal, it contradicts my central argument that there are no universal laws governing things like language and reason.  Therefore, either way — whether I try or do not try to explain myself — I have negated my own argument because I have recognized the existence of a universal law.

Now that the logical objection to the post modernist is behind us, let’s tackle their philosophy in a much simpler and much more easily understood manner.  I will not claim that post modernist thinkers reject the notion of physical laws.  Quite the contrary: many of them argue for ‘science,’ which necessitates the existence of such laws.  But they do reject the notion of any universal laws governing abstract things — such as perception of reality!  After all: if we can take a group of individuals from vastly different societies and put them into a situation where they will all experience the same perception of an event, we have just proven that there is a universal law governing perception and, therefore, the post modernist argument is false and should be rejected.  So, let’s conduct a mental experiment to do just that: let’s determine whether or not there are universal laws governing the perception of reality.

Suppose we take a post modern thinker and a Natural Law thinker from America, and one each from China, and one each from the Middle East, and one each from South America and one each from Africa; we blindfold them; then we put them all into a room together.  According to post modern theory, we would have a collection of people who come from very different individual and social realities.  If post modern thought is correct, none of them will perceive the world in exactly the same way.  Now, let’s line them up on one edge of the room where there is no wall, only a 1,000 foot drop to the ground.  We tel them they are facing a drop of 1,000 feet and we even encourage them to either reach out with their foot or bend down and use their hand to verify that there is no floor.  We even go so far as to take an old fashion alarm clock, set it so it starts ringing and then drop it so they can hear it fall all 1,000 feet where they then hear it smash against the ground.  Finally, we tell them that the drop is not real, they only think they perceive it to be real, and that they must take one giant step forward so they can prove that post modernism is real….

You see, with one step, we just proved that we do all perceive things the same way.  Not only will all of our test subjects believe that there is a 1,000 foot drop in front of them, but they will refuse to take that step, as well.  This demonstrates that there are universal laws governing how we perceive (they would all know there is no floor and have heard the clock drop).  They would all know that the result of taking that step would be death (a perception based on predicting the result of an action based on past observation — something that should not exist in a post modern world).  And, if one of the post modern test subjects actually does step forward and fall to their deaths, they will have actually demonstrated an act of will, not disbelief (which would prove the existence of free will, something else post modernists reject).  However, in the case of the post modernist test subjects, if they do not step forward, then they concede that they perceived reality in the same way as the Natural Law test subjects, thereby defeating their arguments for post modernism.  After all, if they had not perceived the drop in the same way as the Natural Law thinkers, then why didn’t they step off?

This brings us to the real point I wish to make: post modern thinking is actually real.  True, I just demonstrated that the philosophy is false, but the existence of people who believe it cannot be denied.  So, dear reader, ask yourself these questions:

What do you call someone who knows that objective reality exists, but refuses to acknowledge it and even argues that it doesn’t exist?

And what would be the affect on society if a large enough group of these people were to ever seize control of our government, schools, media and other social institutions?

Finally, what if these people were not only in control of society, but they claimed that those who still believed in the ‘false’ belief of an objective world were insane and needed to be ‘cured?’

In that world, how does one know who is sane and who is not?

For years now, I have tried in vain to reach my fellow citizens: to explain to them how the things they claim to want and are demanding actually work against their own self-interests, as well as those of their fellow man.  Sadly, I have found that too few care to listen, and of those few who do listen, fewer still can be reached through reason.  It seems that the majority of my fellow citizens have surrendered to their baser emotions.  Though it pains me to say this, I find that, more and more, I am being forced to feel sympathy for Paine’s assertion that those who do not understand or embrace reason have aligned themselves with the likes of animals.  Still, unlike Paine, I do not subscribe to the notion that reason is all there is to this life.  I, for one, know better.  But this does not mean that a person is free to throw reason into the waste basket, either.  For, to live purely by emotional desires and fears is, as Paine suggests, to live as an animal.  To be human, one must live somewhere between the heart and mind; between emotion and reason.  To be human, truly human, we must use one to guide the other, but we must definitely embracing both to be whole.

Which leaves me with this dilemma:

If so few among us can even recognize the proper application of reason, let alone embrace its use, then how are we to reach and persuade our fellow citizens?  They know too little of how to use reason and critical thinking.  They know too little about the history behind mankind’s discovery and mastery of these skills.  Heck, they don’t even know the history of how these things have been intentionally taken from them and, even now, are actively being kept from them.  So, how does one reach someone who is woefully ignorant of the very thing that can help them change their world, let alone the foundations upon which that thing is built?

But the growth of ignorance in our society reaches far beyond our loss of man’s understanding of reason.  It has eclipsed most everything we know.  No longer do we understand the concepts of rights, morality, virtue, duty or honor or personal responsibility.  Worse, the majority of us do not even realize we are ignorant, let alone how deep our ignorance goes.  Instead, we have become convinced that we are smarter, more educated, more enlightened and, therefore, more ‘advanced’ than any group of humans that have come before us.  The result is a combination not only hostile to Liberty, but to the continuation of society, itself: a combination of impenetrable ignorance combined with a sense of infallible arrogance!  Dare I say this, but I truly believe that  — whether consciously aware of it or not — a great many among us have come to believe they are their own god!  But who can blame them when the people responsible for this atrocity boasted that this was exactly what they believed: than man is his own god?

If I am not careful, I will lose sympathy for the plight of those who have been blinded — blinded through now fault of their own.  They have been blinded — intentionally — by those who seek to build the world according to the desires of their own hearts; by people who believe they are above the masses, better, more enlightened than the average man.  Blinded by people who believe they alone have the moral duty to perfect the individual by perfecting society and then helping the individual to accept the place assigned to them within this perfected society.  Blinded by individuals who, by their own admission, mean no harm and, therefore, pose no threat to society or the individual.  Blinded by people who, in the process of doing all this good for so many, never once consider the possibility that they will not and might not ought to be the one who makes all the decisions for the rest of mankind.  No, I must not allow my cynicism to turn me against the blinded  rather, I must stay focused on those who blinded them.

Still, I cannot help but return to the same recurring question:

How do I reach those who cannot reason, yet think they reason better than I?  How can I enlighten those who do not realize they are ignorant and are too arrogant to allow any light to penetrate their indoctrination?  How?  How does one reach such people?  Or can they be reached?  Must I consider the possibility that such people are beyond help: permanently lost to the rational world?  The very real possibility that this may be the case not only breaks my heart, but it frightens me to my very core because — though he used different words to say it — a far, far better man than I seems to have arrived at this very conclusion:

I fear Bonhoeffer’s conclusion because I know where it leads.  If one decides that one cannot persuade through reason, the only thing left is to either leave the ignorant alone — in which case one faces almost certain ruin — or one must use force — in whatever form — to push the ignorant in the direction one feels they should go.  The problem with that option is that, at that moment, the moment when one decides they must push to save, in that moment, one casts aside any and all pretense of righteousness and joins the ranks of those who have decided they know better than the masses.  At that moment, you become the very thing you started to stop or correct…

We have seen a rise in legal battles where one business is forced to act in a way contrary to the beliefs of its owners, yet another business is permitted to act in a way that tramples on the Natural Rights of the public, in general.  This is just one of the latest examples of what Woodrow Wilson would have considered ‘The failure of law to keep up with social change.’  Wilson used this supposed flaw in our system to justify throwing away the Constitution and establishing and elected dictatorship, but this is not the best way to handle these issues.  There is another way to handle these sort of issues — a way that is in harmony with Natural Law — and that is to simply apply Natural Law to the issue.  However, before we can do this, we have to understand Natural Law and how it works.

Let’s start with a few examples of what we’re discussing:

Court rules against Oregon bakers who refused to make gay wedding cake

After Hobby Lobby, a Way to Cover Birth Control

Citigroup Sets Restrictions on Gun Sales by Business Partners

Natural Law (not to mention civil law) is broken in every one of the above stories.  This not only causes confusion, which leads to discord within society, it undermines the rule of law.  But this does not have to be.  If we understand and then properly apply the principles of Natural Law, each of these cases can be easily and quickly resolved, and with a minimum of new legislation.

Under Natural Law, the ‘Corporation’ has no rights!  This is because it is not a person; it does not exist in the State of Nature.  The ‘Corporation’ is actually a legal structure constructed by the public, through their legislative representatives, to make it easier to run large co-operative operations.  Therefore, in its simplest form, the ‘Corporation’ is a law.  As a law, the ‘Corporation’ not a person, nor is it ‘private,’ either.  It is a creation of the People and, as such, remains under the control of the People.

So, how does this help us?  Simple:

In the case of the bakery, if the bakery is a sole proprietorship or a private partnership, then the bakery is free to deny service to anyone for any reason — period!  This is because the private citizen, being a real person, has the Natural Right to Contract.  Inherent in the Natural Right to Contract is the notion of free will.  Therefore, for any business conducted by the bakery to be ‘legal’ under Natural Law, it has to be conducted freely by all Parties involved.  If the customer wants the bakery to make them a wedding cake, but the owner(s) of the bakery does not wish to do so, the owner(s) of the bakery retain their Natural Right to refuse and the customer has no recourse.  They cannot sue because, to do so, they would have to trample on the Natural Rights of the owner(s).  This then means the Courts have no say in the matter, either.

However, in the case of Hobby Lobby, the People have authority over the business because it is a corporation.  Without the law that allows it to exist, Hobby Lobby could not exist — not as we know it.  But this does not give the People or their government authority to force Hobby Lobby to provide contraception.  This is because Hobby Lobby is claiming a Natural Right — that of Conscience (i.e. freedom of religion).  Remember, the People cannot demand the government pass a law that is contrary to Natural Law.  In this case, that means the Government cannot write law demanding Hobby Lobby surrender the Natural Rights of the stock holders and their board.  And, if there can be no law mandating such an action by Hobby Lobby, then the Courts can have no authority to rule on the issue.

Finally, in the case of Citigroup, the Corporation is breaking the law.  Under Natural Law, no one — least of all an artificial entity such as a ‘Corporation’ — can trample on the rights of another person.  Therefore, Citigroup has no authority to deny services to people who are exercising their Natural Rights.  In this case, that is the Natural Right to self-defense.  Now, if Citigroup were a privately owned business, this would be different.  But Citigroup is not private.  It is the result of a public action (i.e. a law) and, therefor, must comply with the restrictions by which that public action draws its authority.  In this case, that would be the Social Contract we call the U.S. Constitution.  In turn, the Constitution draws its authority from the Declaration, and the Declaration from natural Law.  Thus, by logical extension, Citigroup is restrained from doing anything that would unjustly trample the Natural Rights of any citizen — period.  And this is because the People cannot make law (through their representatives) that tramples the rights of any individual.

We have a tendency to think that the world has out-grown the Constitution: to believe that modern society is too complicated for such an antiquated document.  But the reality is that we are the ones that no longer function properly, not the Constitution or the principles upon which it is built.  If we still understood and embraced the principles of Natural Law, our society would not appear so complicated.  Nor would it be as confused as it is.  But then, this confusion is the result of intentional actions designed to convince us to abandon the Constitution and Natural Law.  This way, the path to tyranny will lay open and, rather than resist it, we will charge down that path cheering and welcoming the chains of our own slavery.

I’d like to start this post by explaining what I understand the term, ‘secular humanism,’ to mean.  As I understand the idea (from reading the works of self-described secular humanists), the theory encapsulates a body of thinkers who embrace human reason and mankind’s ability to perfect himself — especially society — through reason, especially through scientific experimentation and application.  At the same time, secular humanists reject what they call ‘religious dogma’ and ‘pseudoscience.’  They also reject the notion that any belief should be accepted solely on faith, arguing instead that any belief must first be carefully and thoroughly evaluated by the individual.  All combined, the secular humanist believes that morality can be based on science.

Now, if I might, please allow me to point out a small problem with the fundamental assumption upon which ‘secular humanism’ is founded:

Secular Humanism denies the very definition upon which its entire ideology is predicated.

Yes, I am arguing that the theory of secular humanism is self-defeating because it rejects a definition upon which the theory rests.  The contradiction is found in the definition of ‘science.’  All secular humanist thinking is predicated on the use of science as a means by which morality and ethics can be devised.  Therefore, if the secular humanist rejects the definition of science, they reject their own argument.  This then means that the theory of secular humanism is self-defeating.

Let’s start by looking at the definition of ‘scientific method:’

Notice how the notion of ‘science’ is based on the existence of ‘laws’  If there are no laws governing whatever is being studied, then the notion of ‘science’ cannot apply to that thing.  This is because ‘science’ has to have predictability.  Predictability is inherent in the ideas of study and testing.  Why study something that is truly lawless?  You cannot know what it will do from one moment to the next.  And, if you have no idea as to what it will do, you cannot test it.  This is because you cannot be sure whether the thing you are studying actually responded to your test, or just responded according to its natural lawlessness — or both!  And, unless these things can be known, the notion of testing becomes an absurdity.  Therefore, ‘science’ is predicated upon the existence of some sort of law which governs the thing being studied.

Therefore, let’s look at the definition of ‘law:’

Notice that the definition of ‘law’ rests upon the existence of an authority to create and administer the law.  By definition, this ‘authority’ cannot be man!  If we assume man makes the laws governing any area of science, then studying something man controls becomes an absurdity — at least in terms of ‘science,’ anyway.  This is because, if man made it, whatever the subject being studied, that thing will be subject to the whims of an ‘authority’ that is not, itself, controlled by law.  This means man is lawless, and, therefore, anything he designs that remains subject to his will must be lawless, as well.  Therefore, man cannot make the laws governing morality because those laws will forever be subject to the ungoverned whim of a lawless creator.

However, if we assume that there are pre-existing laws which can be discovered through observation and testing — and we do, as evidenced by the studies of anthropology, philosophy, sociology, biology, psychology, etc — then we must assume there is an authority that created those laws.  Since we have already demonstrated that this authority cannot be man, then what remains?  The universe, itself?

The universe cannot be the source of any governing law over itself.  This is because a thing cannot define itself. Notice that the definition of ‘law’ does not say that the law can be defined by the law.  By definition, a law must be defined by something over or above it; something that has control and authority over that law.  If the universe is governed by the same laws we propose to study through science, then we are actually saying that the universe — an inanimate thing — not only created itself in an ordered form, but it did so by an act of will.  This is by logical extension.  In order to create (in this case a law or system of laws), a thing must have will.  Therefore, if we are saying the universe created the laws we propose to study to create a ‘scientific morality,’ we are saying the universe is conscious.  But the universe is inanimate, therefore — by definition — it cannot be conscious.  Which means, it cannot have created itself to operate by a set order (i.e. laws).  Which then begs the question: how can the laws we propose to study have been created by themselves?  They cannot have been, therefore, whatever laws we assume are governing the behaviors of man, they cannot have come from the universe.

Well, if the laws the secular humanists propose to study in order to design a ‘scientific morality’ cannot come from man, and they cannot come from the universe, then from where do they come?  Ultimately, we are left with two choices:

Either there are no set laws governing human behavior, in which case, we cannot create a ‘scientific morality’ because there is nothing to study or test (remember, science cannot be applied to a thing that is without some sort of governing law or order).  In fact, by logical extension, we would be forced to question whether or not science is possible at all.  If there are no laws governing the behavior of man, then there can be no certainty as to anything man does — to include reasoning.  Which leads to the final choice:

There is a Law-Giver in the Universe: a Law-Giver Who is conscious and acts with purpose and design.  And, if this is the case, then the notion of secular humanism then becomes lawlessness as the entire theory is predicated upon man being the law-giver over himself.  Therefore, anything man tries to do that goes against the laws of the Law-Giver would constitute and illegal action on the part of man. This means man cannot use ‘science’ to create a ‘scientific morality.’  He can only use science to determine what the existing laws are and how they work.  The moment man steps outside of this effort, he throws away any pretense of ‘science’ because he is acting lawlessly.  This, then, makes the theory of secular humanism a self-defeating theory — and all because their ideology forces them to reject the very concepts upon which it is built: the notion of ‘science.’

[NOTE: The root of the secular humanist problem is actually the fact that their theory is not based on true science, but on pseudoscience — one of the things they claim to reject.  And this is because they do not understand that science is the study of what already is, and if a law already exists, then there is a Law-Giver and any attempt to change that Law-Giver’s laws is lawlessness.  It is also man trying to claim to be the law-giver or, in other words, man claiming to be god.]