Currently, there is a deception of great magnitude at large: one in which the discipline of science attempts to name itself the Nature of Truth. This comes as a shock. Truth and the Nature of what is True existed aeons ago, since the beginning of it all. Science has no such indefinite and distant origin. Abundant clarity is imperative here: There is No Truth in Science. Rather than being True, science only attempts to attain legitimacy and uncritical acceptance by offering to approximate and explain Natural Truths.

Science takes what is true as a starting point, and from there, devises a plausible pathway from origin to outcome. Commonly, science takes an event that people universally accord as a Natural Process, like the birth of a child, and devises an elaborate, contextualized, yet fictional, story around the Natural Process.

To take the example of childbirth, science manufactures tales about conception and delivery, narratives about prenatal care and post-natal woes. The story’s proximity to the stages of the Natural Process convinces many of us that the story is real and that science is valid. Meanwhile science, lays claim to the entire Natural Process. Science proclaims, anachronistically so, to have invented childbirth–a process that obviously came before it and exists without it.

Indeed, all the textbook-educated medical doctors can vanish from the planet without a moment’s notice, and the Nature and Truths around childbirth practices and processes would not cease to exist. Childbirths will continue to flourish–with or without science and its thirsty, devout peddlers!

Though most people fail to separate the “science” from Nature. Most cannot parse the science away from the Truth. Most are deceived into thinking they are one and the same. This is the deception of great magnitude at large when most falsely believe that science is congruent with Nature and what is Truth.

What is true is not possibly reducible to comprehension nor articulation by the human species, though attempts in doing so frequently occur. The most consistent attempt of the past centuries is via the academic discipline of science and its spreading tentacles. In its attempts to explain processes of the Natural World, science attempts to supplant and masquerade as the Truth. Those who practice science attempt to speak for Nature and Natural Truths.

Nature and Natural Truths speak for themselves, in ways that are untranslatable via human languages but are translatable to our senses of touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing. Humans, for instance, can sense an impending storm, smell its damp humidity, see the flurry of rain droplets splattering the concrete, hear thunder crackling, touch the moist drops that streak onto cheeks before evaporating into the air.

Scientists hijack this Nature, this Natural Truth, and claim to divulge “scientific truths” around Natural processes like rainfall. Scientists manufacture their doctrine to dispel words like condensation and precipitation, to propagate myths of quantities, percentages, and probabilities: the “chances” of rain today or tomorrow, the number of inches or meters of rainfall in a particular region during a given year, the percentages of humidity, the counts of pollen. Scientific data desires greatly to convey Truth but even in its most thorough and earnest attempts, cannot manage to capture an absolute Truth. The Nature of Truth is so fine that it cannot be measured with data. All approximations fall short of capturing the essence of Truth.

Natural processes are true in their operation. In the way a rose blooms when the time is just right around a certain time of year every year, in the way a baby emerges from the womb when the time is right just around the same span of growth, give or take. For thousands of years these processes have happened. Well before our friends have invented their religion of science.

Truth cannot be confused with exactness, precision, or correctness–terms of science that are preoccupied with measures and human estimations, terms that are burdened with language borrowed from the scientific community. The Nature of Truth is abstract and not quantifiable.

Beauty, for example, has no formula–though the eye can tell. Even then, what the eye perceives as beautiful varies between organs and cannot stand on the head of a single pinpoint. The blueprint for beauty, much like the blueprint for Nature, has infinite possibilities, although both appear to render a strikingly similar image each time. Nature is incomprehensibly complex, yet seemingly, on the surface, simple.

An influential doctrine, science is a system of beliefs practiced by a devout following.
Science is a religious belief, a fiction, a discipline invented by social beings–humans–and thus influenced by their values and morals. Science, no matter how highbrow, cannot be True and can only, at best, locate itself in the realm of opinion, persuasion, or culture.

If people genuinely are to understand that humans can neither control nor explain what exists in the Natural World no more than they can control or explain their own bodily processes, then there could be no god-like humans or god-like science worship, as there exists within societies today. If people are to understand Nature and the Natural World as the marvel miracles that they are, there would be no need to gawk at “scientific discoveries,” which are only just Nature’s gems revealed to cure a human ailment or malady. The deception claims science is the creator of goodness, of Nature; on the contrary, just because a human learns of Nature’s power to heal does not mean that science created the potion.

The deception persists anyhow as science hopes to supersede Nature, no matter that science cannot fully understand nor explain what it did not invent, much less precede. Science hijacks Nature’s past, present, and future in the hope of overtaking and ultimately “becoming” Nature in the eyes of humans. Scientists engage in Nature-envy and lay claim, in a territorial manner, to Nature and its Truths. Aiming to control the perception of Nature, science and scientists strive to contain Nature and its narratives of Natural Truths in their quest to become gods.

The essence of Truth can neither be convoluted with notions of fact and reality nor as beliefs that are widely accepted, as these concepts are influenced by human values. Truth need not acceptance of humans nor grounding in scientific communities’ to be itself, to be True. The Nature of Truth is often wrongly co-opted in the language and speech of humans. For instance, academics speak of “scientific truths.” Yet, this notion of a scientific truth is a theoretical impossibility.

Science is no god. Science holds no Truth. The Nature of Truth lies in the abstract. Truth cannot be explained by scientific jargon. Truth just is.


  1. This Is How Science Works.

    Scientific endeavor today proceeds along a path that is much like this: “The elephant is a snake.” Twenty-five years later, other scientists find out that in fact, “The elephant is a giraffe.” Thirty years later: “The elephant is a tree.” Fifty years later: “The elephant is not a snake, it is both a tree and giraffe.” And so on. You get the picture!

    The point being: Science is never wrong, except that what it claims changes from one generation to the next. That point is an actual contradiction in terms. That is, it makes no sense. But people are made to believe that it is okay for a discipline to change its mind from the elephant is a snake to the elephant is both snake and a giraffe. Mind tricks.

    Or, just lies. There’s another word for such a discipline playing mind tricks on its followers: Religion. Does that ring a fine bell?

  2. How does religion work? Snakes can talk? Humans can transform into animals and vice versa? There is life after death? Then years later they say the ancestors were only being allegorical and not literal. But then the literalists arise and say that it was not allegorical but literal since he has seen people transform into animals, the dead speak of heaven and hell and snakes talk. When asked to reproduce his claims he argues that you must believe in order to witness it. It cam only be seen in the spirit. The religious person thereby uses “con games” to get out of his illogical predicament. Then he and the allegorical school of thought wage a war to determine whose side God is on. If you win then God is on your side invariably.

    Point being: Religion is never wrong.

    • True. Your point being: Religion is also wrong. My point being: Science is just as wrong as religion.

    • So if science says snakes don’t talk and religion says they do, who is right? Science or religion?

    • Let’s be specific since religion and science barely directly speak of the same subject matter. For instance one religion claims that snakes talked a “very long time ago.” One scientific theory claims Humans didn’t talk a “very long time ago.”

      You ask? Who’s correct? Their method’s are wanting. They are both wrong.

    • Massa, religion and science speak about the same thing; reality. Science basis it’s theory of evolution on evidence. What evidence is there to suggest snakes could talk in the past? There is evidence that ape-like creatures walked this earth in times past and that during that time anatomically modern humans were no where to be found until about 200,000- 300,000 years ago. Do religious adherents show any evidence of talking snakes?

    • If you say that they speak of the same subject matter here then you make my point: Science itself is a religion. In this case they make the claim that a very long time ago something happened. I claim that they cannot know. But the day I see a snake talk or an ape-like creature turn Human, I will accept the “evidence.” These are the only evidence we need. Nothing else. Beyond these, these two religions have no evidence. All they have is circumstantial evidence. They are both wrong.

    • At least, one admits it’s errors when new evidence comes up and then continually updates itself. The other though insists on their hifalutin tales being genuine but only relies on blind faith to support it’s assertions.

    • Narmer Amenuti Have you witnessed a fertilized human egg turn into fetus from an embryo? Do you have to witness everything in order to make inference or deductions? We can safely assume that some thing happens to sperm when it fertilizes an egg to gradually transform it into a fetus.

      In the same way when you have a human-like creature existing in the past and gradually looking more and more human with time it lends credibility to the theory of evolution. On the other hand we have no evidence whatsoever that a God created man from dust unless that God represents the laws of nature. You are here typing your thesis on a platform based on Science, why don’t you try chanting your ideas into our heads instead? Let’s see if that will work.

    • Massa. The Sun has risen every morning since I have been on Earth. That one too is Science? The Science is when Newton attempted to explain why the Sun rises. He got into trouble. He was wrong like many before him.

      That humans fuck and have children is true. I have seen it happen. That is evidence. You have evidence, I am sure of this “evidence.” The attempt by Science to tell us why they think it happens, and how it happens is a lie. They cannot prove it. In fact scientists prove nothing but give circumstantial evidence (the natural observation) as proof of theory. A mind trick. For instance they will put a human egg and a sperm in a petri dish and say “see? I told you!” But you act like we didn’t already know? The mind tricks abound.

      My point being: Me too I can observe natural phenomenon. Why? Is it only scientists who can see? Me too I can make Waastey without invoking some theory about the “melanomela of the leaves, the glutinomophous beans and the oxidative reaction of pepper, salt and wele.”

      The idea that the computer for instance is a direct result of science is also false. Waatsey is not the direct result of science. Kente is not the direct result of science. Sometimes cooks and weavers also discover stuff. “Engineers,” meaning people who make things also make stuff without invoking a “glutinomophous theory.” People have always taken advantage of our natural laws of the universe to create new things. These people are engineers, not as pompous as those who attempt to explain how things happen – scientists.

  3. Crisp. Both are political tools designed carefully by people who want freedom and impunity to do whatever they desired.

  4. Except that science might get the conclusion wrong, but it is always led by the evidence. Science can show you reasons it thinks the elephant is a snake, and does not arbitrarily change its mind until new evidence either about snakes or about elephants forces a rethink. Even then it can point to logical reasons for its conclusions. The only reason science gets it wrong is because the information at hand is incomplete or misleading. The key thing is that science is a process for iteratively gathering more and more information and reinterpreting its conclusions in the light of the new info. Religion on the other hand… Well don’t get me started!

    • You are not wrong, hence my point: Science is not correct, it may be trudging along the path to correctness, but it is not. It is not a true picture of what is claims it is a picture of. It is wrong in the same manner as you describe that religion is wrong.

  5. Science uses self-correcting, self-upgrading approaches to give us useful and life-improving results, unlike the psychological bliss one may get as maximum blessing from religion and its method : prayers.

    • I speak only of religion. But sure that too…you don’t think people obtain “useful and life-improving results” from religion entrepreneurship?

    • The families and lovers of clerical businessmen surely benefit from the entrenchment of creed, but my initial comments were about the statistical majority: the tithe-paying congregants.

  6. There is no real conflict between science and religion. Science attempts to explain the mechanisms of “how” things happen and religion focuses on the “why” question and the (claimed) purpose behind the occurrences. To attempt to use science to answer a “why” is to misapply it just as to use religion to answer the “how” mechanisms is also a misapplication.

    • You are probably correct. Even then both do a bad job at either one. Although that is not to say they don’t try.

  7. Science continues to succeed in answering more satisfactorily questions which religion had attempted: rainfall, drought, earthquakes, eclipses, stars’ origin and fuel, what have you. Science often answers the why questions not by intent, but just in the course of investigation into phenomena for results to be applied to the public good. Religion asserts without adducing any evidence, and frowns on critical review of its groundless positions. Long live science!

  8. Good discussion Nefetiti, Narmer Amenuti & co. The flowing is an essay from the Philosophy Podium a Dogon perspective ~

    Science & Religions: Ideological Partnership

    “A conspiracy is always a scary thing unless you are part of it.” This is what my grandfather always said. As people of this world, we are so used to being on the losing side of every conspiracy that we are no longer surprised to see another institution or a religious organization that makes exploiting us its reason for existence. This is maybe what we have come to call the new era or modernization. Apparently, societies of pre-modernization times knew how to protect the weak and the dispossessed since those societies allowed the weak and dispossessed to survive until today. Now that the modern world has arrived with its groups of professional con artists and those who fish in troubled waters, we can start crying for our weak ones and our dispossessed ones. The new society is not here to protect those who do not know how to exploit their neighbors. Moral and spiritual values which have en- abled all of us to survive have themselves become victims of the intellectual conning by spiritual organizations and by leaders of ideological groups. It is the law of the jungle that rules today. Many statesmen became famous for announcing to people, who were preoccupied with entrusting their destiny into the hands of the new leaders, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.”They said this so as to wake all of us up from our illusion that the new society will protect us. The new state will protect you only on the condition that you are rich enough to buy its protection or on the condition that you are part of the small circle of the leaders of the system. This logic has become the new philosophical bedrock: it determines the values and reasons behind the new march of human intelligence. Whatever the new system wants is what the religions will obediently preach as a form of divine truth, just as science will also try to bring its loyal “logical”and “intellectual”explanation to justify what the political system wants! This is the shocking part of what is happening to us. Science and the school will educate, or, let’s say, will reshape and predispose us to accept some logics and then to reject other logics, thus turning us into biological machines that are easier to manipulate. The modern system of education will transform us into beings that are so predictable that the individual becomes the only entity who sees himself/ herself as a human being. For a long time we thought that the so-called scientific community wanted to liberate humanity from obscurantism and from the dictatorship of ignorance. Scientific ideology once won the sympathy of people by presenting itself as the victim of Christian barbarism. For many decades scientific ideology stood in opposition to religious doc- trines, making it simply the other side of the coin. This situation did not last long. Eventually, science collaborated for a very long time with religious doctrines, especially in domains that have social implications; then science became the instrument par excellence of religious and political propaganda led by interest groups. In October 1584, after the Julian calendar placed the Vatican in an impasse, the Gregorian Calendar was introduced and was supposed to be precise; this was at a time when the Vatican had not yet succeeded in understanding how clocks brought out of the Nile Valley worked! And until today, the academic system still explains that a leap year exists because the year is exactly 365 days and 6 hours, making the fourth year the year of 366 days. Science declares the accuracy of this notion while we still, even today, don’t know the exact distance between the Earth and the Sun! We have heard astronomers brag that we perfected our method of telling time; yet the leap year is already 113,000 years old, having been in use since the birth of the Sidereal Calendar, which, for accuracy, is based on the conjunction between the sun and the Sothis star in the Orion constellation. The Sidereal approach to time is the only one that offers the 366th day of the leap year. Without the Sidereal approach to time, it remains practically impossible to set the exact cycle of the Earth around the sun, even today! Today for the first time, science and religion have found a field for collaboration: how to lead people to accept the result of an intellectual procedure while at the same time rejecting the logic that conceived/ discovered that intellectual procedure. The astronomical truth is that a lunar year (one based on a lunar cycle) lasts around 18 years, meaning 18 seasonal cycles, while a solar year (one based on a solar cycle) will last around 56 seasonal cycles. That fact leaves modern astronomy unable to explain where the 365 or 366 days come from, the same 365 or 366 days that modern science boasts that it can calculate exactly. The calculation of the cycle of the Heliacal Rising, as an astronomical event born from the eclipse of the Sothis star and the sun in the rhythm of 1461 years, has been performed for 113,000 years. And it is that cycle that produced the smaller cycle of 1461 days called the medium year or Renpit. The Renpit is composed of three cycles of 365 days and one cycle of 366 days. The new explanation, which simply insults our intelligence, is not the deliberate effort of science to expose its own ignorance; instead, the new explanation is the result of the collaboration between two ideologies to keep people ignorant. It would be an error to believe that these ideologies are intended to keep us enlightened; these ideologies see everything in the context of whatever is practical and advantageous for the groups that are fighting to control this world. If we want to survive, we don’t have any choice other than to maintain our own spiritual and intellectual vigilance. Sidereal Calendars are produced and distributed by the Earth Center.

Comments are closed.