You see, scientists spend all their time trying to explain to the population, why it happens, for what reason. We hear answers like “because it needs" or “it wants.” When they say “in order to" or anything that requires the object of the conversation to be the subject of the sentence automatically infers that reason behind this is the will of the object. Essentially God is removed from the entire equation. Philosophically, it will take the nature of the object and convince the listener or reader that consequences of these phenomena are merely the will of the object in question. We can go so far as to say the parody and charade of this reasoning as logic is equally damaging and counterproductive.
It will inherently be perceived as a pinnacle of knowledge, as though we have found all the answers and quantified everything. The concept that this reasoning is an acceptable answer to any scientific inquiry is actively destroying the curious nature of mankind by changing how we discover, observe, and define the universe. Furthermore, this principle assumes no thought on the purpose of experimental procedure, it never can even ask, “why?”, or more appropriately, “how?”
Can we actually consider the consequences of an action as being the cause? We never do look at what we were trying to learn, only at what we think we already know.
In convincing the reader or listener that, will is the orientation of the universe, that mother nature desires certain conditions, or that all things are objectively pursuing a finite and specific state of being can only conclude a perception of the natural processes within the same class as will, desire, feeling, and thought. These things become yoked in the mind as performing the same functions and sharing equal importance. It causes the degradation of the intangible things, allowing them to be derivative, causative, deterministic; while elevating the tangible to have the will of gods by giving them nature and desire.
We as a people wonder why we cannot find purpose, we assume our fate or destiny as being within the power of our own free will, yet actively, we are stripping will and desire from our idea of free will. We acknowledge our thoughts as they are the definition of our individuality, as they reign as the earth beneath our feet. So then, is the solidarity of the ground in question? Still, what is the fate of our thoughts?
Circular logic results in insanity! A broken mind is filled with unanswerable questions and futility. “We must be anot to confuse the things we can do with the things that cannot do.” This state of mind is a side effect of idolatry, where we look to objects to tell us what is right or wrong, to give them character and nature of being. Science was not intended to serve a religious purpose or to be accompanied by faith, belief, and consequences, determining the morality of the world.