The Luciferian Pride of Science: The Paradox of Science’s Limitlessness and Limited Scope.
I have become increasingly convinced that the real issue in modern society is the overreach of the scientific method. Scientists today boldly proclaim that science can explain everything. They claim that science will eventually prove that morality is nothing more than a material process. That free will is an illusion. That morality itself is nothing but a grand deception. That we live in a purely deterministic universe — despite the fact that these same scientists gladly accept Nobel Prizes and proudly celebrate their achievements as though they were the result of personal merit and not mere deterministic processes! I say to you — science is out to destroy our soul and our humanity. How blind so many are, living shallow lives of pride and self-satisfaction!
This arrogance — this Luciferian pride — stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the limits of science and the proper boundaries of the scientific method. There is a clear line between what science can and cannot do, but many scientists, particularly physicists, seem blind to this distinction. But should we really be surprised that scientists engage in such poor philosophy — when they themselves loudly dismiss philosophy as pointless?
They confidently declare that philosophy has nothing to teach us — without realizing that this very claim is itself a philosophical position. They fail to grasp the simple fact that to ascribe any ontology to the world — to claim that something exists and has certain properties — is to engage in a metaphysical and philosophical act. Science, by definition, cannot tell us why or what exists; it can only describe how it behaves. To claim otherwise is to mistake the limits of science for the limits of reality — and that is the most dangerous philosophical error of all.
The scientist, in his prideful confidence, fails to realize the irony of dismissing philosophy as pointless — despite never having seriously engaged with it and often practicing poor philosophy himself. The physicist continues to confidently assert that philosophy doesn’t matter, overlooking the fact that the very act of doing science relies on philosophical assumptions about the existence and nature of reality. This is a fundamental prerequisite for science, yet many scientists remain completely unaware of their philosophical ignorance.
There are, I would argue, limitless questions that science can explore, and I will explain why. But science is both boundless and limited at the same time — a paradox that many scientists fail to recognize. One of the most misguided claims in the history of physics comes from Richard Feynman, who argued that science has no limits — that not only matter, but even concepts like morality, can ultimately be measured and explained through some future form of physics. This is yet another example of shameful ignorance.
Stephen Hawking provides a similar example when he claimed that theoretical cosmology, being so perfectly free of boundary conditions, automatically guarantees the existence of the universe. He suggested that the mere presence of the laws of nature is enough to explain why the universe came into existence on its own. But in doing so, Hawking overlooked the fact that even defining and describing the laws of nature is a philosophical act. By attributing properties and characteristics to the laws of nature — essentially treating them as categorical entities — Hawking was engaging in metaphysical reasoning without realizing it. In ascribing such qualities to the laws of nature, he was treating them almost like deified objects. Yet Hawking dismissed philosophy as irrelevant — so it’s hardly surprising that he failed to notice the philosophical implications of his own claims.
If such scientifically framed claims are true, we might as well follow David Hume’s advice at the end of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, where he suggests that we should burn all books except those that deal with quantities and matters of fact. Of course, Hume himself did not literally burn all non-quantitative books, but as a society, we have essentially done just that. We have suppressed our philosophical and metaphysical nature in favor of the purely quantitative. In doing so, we have trivialized the boundaries of science and expanded its scope to disguise philosophical and metaphysical claims as scientific ones.
Even Einstein acknowledged that certain aspects of human experience lie beyond the reach of science. He argued that our experience of the “now”—the very core of human consciousness—cannot be measured because it is purely subjective. He said the same about free will, despite the obvious truth that you and I exist and are free. This reflects the fallacy of scientific dogmatism: it forces us to reject self-evident truths simply because science cannot account for them.
Science, by its very nature, is limited to the quantitative. It cannot explain consciousness, free will, or our subjective experience of the present moment. Nor can it explain the first cause of universe or why anything exists at all. When the quantitative ends, science ends. Yet modern society has forgotten this. We have come to believe that science’s reach extends beyond the quantitative—that it can address metaphysical and philosophical questions, despite the fact that these lie beyond the scope of empirical measurement. This is a fundamental violation of science’s core principle: that it deals with measurable phenomena.
This confusion leads to absurd contradictions. If free will is merely an illusion and the universe is nothing more than a deterministic mechanism, then should a scientist who makes groundbreaking discoveries accept a Nobel Prize? If his discoveries were not the product of genuine choice but mere automatic processes, are we not rewarding pure automatism with the highest honors?
This is the sheer absurdity of the so-called scientific claims that deny the existence of free will. The idea of a deterministic universe, which supposedly undermines the self-evident nature of free will and consciousness, is inherently contradictory — because even a determinist, when making an argument, does so non-deterministically. The irony is inescapable: a determinist acts non-determinically!
Both within and beyond science, the notion that science has no limits leads to absurd conclusions if taken seriously. Yet prominent scientists consistently overlook these consequences. Worse still, they fail to recognize that even in their own scientific fields, measurement and quantities alone are insufficient to explain reality. A striking example comes from the 1995 Einstein Memorial Lecture at Princeton University, where Professor James Watson, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, declared that all human life can ultimately be described in terms of molecules — adding that "there is no need to invent anything else."
But should we then conclude that life itself does not matter simply because it cannot be measured, despite the remarkable successes of biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetic research? These fields have undoubtedly expanded our understanding of the measurable aspects of life, but existence itself remains beyond the reach of quantification. For what would it even mean to measure existence itself?
Science, by definition, is confined to the quantitative. If, as Watson and other prominent scientists claim, only the quantitative matters and anything beyond it is meaningless, then the logical conclusion is that existence itself is not real — because existence cannot be measured quantitatively. How exactly would one measure existence? Would you measure the heart rate or the flow of blood? Would you attempt to measure brain activity? These are merely measurements of certain physical processes, not existence itself. The essence of existence — the subjective experience of being — is not reducible to quantities. And yet, modern scientific dogmatism insists on reducing reality to only that which can be measured, thereby denying the very foundation of human experience.
Contrary to the claim that DNA is the secret of life, the truth is that life remains the secret of DNA. Microbiology has yet to find a quantitative explanation for the apparently purposeful actions seen in all living things, from single cells to complex mammals. It has likewise failed to provide a quantitative answer to the question of free will. Brain researchers, despite mapping neural activity and biochemical processes, cannot explain what it is that we experience as the present moment — the very core of consciousness.
If science is solely confined to the quantitative, and if anything that cannot be measured quantitatively is deemed meaningless or non-existent, then the logical extension of this view leads to absurd conclusions. Should the scientist, following this line of reasoning, conclude that mathematics does not exist? That the mind does not exist? That international law, the legal system, and free will do not exist — simply because they cannot be empirically measured in a laboratory?
Consider the brain. While researchers may be able to identify the biochemical processes that accompany a particular thought or word, they cannot explain what it means for a word to have significance. The mere correlation between brain activity and thought does not account for the subjective experience of meaning itself.
From this position, science can take two approaches. The first is to cling to the mistaken belief that the scientific method is all-encompassing — that whatever cannot be expressed in quantitative terms is purely subjective and therefore illusory. This was Einstein’s position when he suggested that consciousness and free will are not objective realities because they cannot be measured by physics. He might as well have called them illusions.
But the more reasonable position is to recognize that science has fundamental limits. These limits become apparent whenever a question cannot be framed in quantitative terms or tested in a laboratory. That is the true boundary of science: it is concerned solely with the quantitative. Scientific questions arise when they involve measurable phenomena and can be tested empirically. Where measurement ends, science ends. Beyond that boundary, science has nothing meaningful to say — and it is a category error to expect otherwise.
When science establishes a quantitative fact — such as the Earth’s diameter being a specific number of kilometers — it first presupposes that something, namely the Earth, exists. But this is, in itself, a philosophical and metaphysical position — precisely the kind of position that many scientists claim to reject. The same applies to any quantitative result of science, whether it’s the atomic radius of an element or the distance to a distant galaxy.
It is a mistake, though a common one, to assume that science or its quantitative methods discover new entities in an ontological sense. Science does not create or bring into existence new material entities; it merely uncovers new aspects of material reality. If it were otherwise, one would be committing the Platonic fallacy — the mistaken belief that quantitative properties alone are what give existence to material entities. If that were true, then anything that could not be expressed in quantitative terms — such as consciousness, free will, purpose, or moral responsibility — would have to be dismissed as mere illusions.
This is a crucial distinction to recognize. Before a scientist even begins the process of scientific inquiry — which involves quantifying matter — they must first engage in a philosophical and metaphysical step: the assertion that entities exist in the first place. For example, even the statement "this table is here" lies beyond the scope of science. Science cannot prove that the table exists. What it can do is measure the table’s length, width, depth, and circumference — but the existence of the table itself is not something science can establish. The assertion that "this is a table" is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one.
Therefore, the act of scientific inquiry rests on a foundational philosophical assumption: that the entities being studied actually exist. This is an ontological claim, not a scientific one. And yet, many scientists who dismiss philosophy as irrelevant fail to realize that they are themselves engaging in philosophical reasoning at the most fundamental level. The very act of measuring and quantifying presupposes the existence of that which is being measured. Thus, even the most ardent scientific materialist relies on an implicit or explicit philosophical step before engaging in the scientific process. This is the vital distinction that many scientists overlook.
Thus, science is paradoxically, both limitless and limited. It is limitless in the sense that the material world is vast in scope. Even if scientists were able to measure and analyze every single instance of matter, the process of scientific inquiry would still not end. This is because the scientific method is built on a process of conjecture and refutation — scientists continually test, measure, and reassess even that which has already been measured. The process of verifying previous measurements and exploring new dimensions of material reality is, in principle, endless. In this sense, science is boundless — it can continue indefinitely wherever material properties and measurable phenomena exist.
But at the same time, science is inherently limited. Its limits emerge the moment we step outside the realm of the quantitative. Questions about morality, purpose, meaning, free will - these lie beyond the reach of scientific inquiry because they are not reducible to measurement. Science, by its very nature, cannot address these kinds of questions because they are not rooted in material properties or quantities.
Science, therefore, has no limits when it comes to the measurable. There is no theoretical boundary to how deeply scientists can explore the physical and psychological processes involved in the human mind. For instance, brain researchers might one day be able to provide a complete and exact account of the energy levels of every molecule involved when a person consciously reflects on the present moment. But even in such a scenario, the subjective nature of that experience — the "now" itself — would remain beyond the reach of scientific explanation.
This is the radical non-quantitative aspect of consciousness, something that even Einstein acknowledged. The subjective experience of being — the inner sense of existing and reflecting — is not something that can be measured, no matter how advanced neuroscience becomes. The physical processes can be mapped, but the experience itself remains outside the reach of science. This is the fundamental paradox: science is limitless in its ability to measure and analyze matter, but it is powerless when faced with the non-material, subjective dimensions of human experience and reality.
James Clerk Maxwell offered one of the most insightful reflections on the true nature of science. Toward the end of his distinguished career, Maxwell wrote: "One of the severest tests of the scientific mind is to know the limits of the legitimate application of the scientific method." He emphasized that the scientific method can be legitimately applied only where experimentally verifiable quantities exist.
This idea of experimentally verified quantities is crucial. Science, by definition, operates within the realm of the measurable. It is concerned with material properties — with things that can be observed, quantified, tested, and repeated under controlled conditions. Anything outside of this material framework — anything that cannot be reduced to a measurable quantity — lies beyond the legitimate reach of science.
This means that science, while enormously powerful within its own domain, is fundamentally limited. It cannot address questions of meaning, purpose, morality, or consciousness because these are not reducible to quantities. Science can tell us how the brain “processes” decision at the neuroscientific level, but it cannot tell us why that decision is right or wrong. It can measure neural activity when a person feels love or grief, but it cannot explain the subjective experience of those emotions.
Maxwell’s insight reveals the essential boundary of science: it thrives where measurable phenomena exist, but it reaches its limit the moment it encounters the non-quantitative. The modern mistake lies in assuming that the power of science over the material world implies that it can extend that same authority over the immaterial — over the subjective, moral, and metaphysical dimensions of reality. Maxwell’s warning remains as relevant as ever: true scientific wisdom lies not in the boundless application of the scientific method, but in knowing when it no longer applies.
