Gaslighting

The Selective Use of Reason in Secular Thought

Hello readers,

I’ll be taking a brief hiatus from writing. Don’t worry, if God wills, that is, if reality unfolds according to its objective order to permit me to return, I’ll be back.

In the meantime, I encourage you to revisit my previous essays, all available on my Substack page. Thank you sincerely for taking the time to read and engage with my work.

If any of it has ever resonated with you, please share it. One of the most important ways to challenge the misdirected intellectual narrative is through collective awareness. In light of the pervasive institutional corruption shaping our governments worldwide, change begins when people simply see the motivation behind it. The power is in numbers, in simply knowing.

If an essay sparked something in you, pass it along. You may help create that same moment of clarity for someone else.

My work is intentionally free. I have no interest in placing it behind a paywall. It is meant to be accessible to anyone who wants to engage with it. But accessibility alone isn’t enough; it spreads because readers like you choose to share it.

So if you found value here, tell someone. Send a link. Start a conversation.

Thank you again for reading.

Until next time, peace. -GO

Gaslighting is not merely deception. It is the strategic destabilization of another’s epistemic footing—applying standards inconsistently, shifting criteria mid-argument, and then denying that any shift has occurred. It is not refutation; it is disorientation.

In modern philosophical discourse, particularly in the Western academy, a subtle form of epistemic gaslighting is considered normal. It does not appear as hostility toward religion. It appears as methodological sophistication. Yet its structure is remarkably simple:

A line of reasoning gets affirmed in one domain, dismissed in another, and is then shielded by empiricism when the inconsistency is exposed.

This move is not really acknowledged, and that is what makes it effective.

The Mechanism of Domain Switching Without Admission

Consider how reasoning functions across domains.

In metaphysics, philosophers freely appeal to:

• necessary conditions,

• logical coherence,

• non-empirical constraints,

• invariance and universality,

• transcendental arguments.

In ethics, they invoke:

• normativity,

• obligation,

• rational duties not reducible to observation.

In philosophy of science, they admit that science presupposes:

• logical consistency,

• mathematical structure,

• causal uniformity,

• the intelligibility of nature.

None of these are empirically derived. They are preconditions for empiricism itself.

Yet when religion appeals to similar categories such as necessity, grounding, universality, invariance, the standards abruptly change. Suddenly:

“That’s not empirically verifiable.”

“That’s just metaphysics.”

“That’s a faith claim.”

The same reasoning that is respectable in secular metaphysics becomes illegitimate when applied theologically.

This is not a refutation. It is domain switching.

Using Reason to Delegitimize Reason

The second move is more subtle: using rational critique to deny the legitimacy of rational metaphysics.

Western philosophy, especially post-Enlightenment, developed powerful tools for analyzing claims:

• skepticism about causation,

• critiques of metaphysical necessity,

• linguistic analysis of meaning,

• empiricist verification criteria.

These tools were initially aimed at clarifying knowledge. But they are often selectively deployed.

When metaphysics supports scientific realism, it is tolerated. When metaphysics grounds moral realism, it is defended. When metaphysics underwrites political liberalism, it is assumed.

But when metaphysics points toward a transcendent grounding principle, particularly in religious discourse, skepticism intensifies.

Reason is applied until it approaches theological implication. Then the brakes engage.

The critique becomes asymmetrical.

The Empiricism Trump Card

The final move completes the pattern.

When inconsistency is pointed out, when one asks why metaphysical grounding is acceptable in secular domains but forbidden in theology, the empiricism card is played.

“Where is the evidence?”

But this demand is rarely applied consistently.

• The uniformity of nature is not empirically proven, it is presupposed.

• Logical laws are not empirically discovered, they structure discovery.

• Moral normativity is not observable, yet it is defended.

• Mathematical objects are not physical, yet science depends on them.

Empiricism is not the foundation of knowledge. It is a method operating within prior metaphysical commitments.

To demand empirical proof for the grounding of reality itself is to misunderstand what grounding claims are. They are not objects within experience. They are conditions for experience.

When empiricism is invoked selectively, only at the point where theological reasoning approaches legitimacy, it functions not as a methodological standard but as a rhetorical shield.

This is epistemic gaslighting.

The Misframing of Religion

The consequence is profound. Under theology, religion is framed as:

• irrational,

• mystical,

• psychologically motivated,

• epistemically inferior.

But this framing depends on the very asymmetry described above.

Religion is not rejected because it fails rational criteria. It is rejected because rational criteria are redefined at the moment religion approaches coherence.

The public narrative becomes:

Science = reason
Religion = belief

Yet science itself rests on non-empirical assumptions, and religion, at least in its classical formulations, has always engaged questions of necessity, grounding, and intelligibility.

The misframing is subtle because it does not deny religion outright. Thru theology it relocates it into the domain of private sentiment.

And once religion is reclassified as subjective comfort rather than epistemic orientation, it no longer competes in the arena of grounding. It becomes psychological rather than structural.

The shift is not argued. It is assumed.

Flip-Flopping as Power

The ability to move between standards without acknowledging the movement is power.

If logical necessity is valid here but invalid there, if metaphysical reasoning is rigorous in one domain but speculative in another,
if empiricism is required only when convenient, then discourse is no longer governed by invariant criteria.

It is governed by narrative control.

And narrative control determines what counts as “serious,” “rational,” or “academic.”

This is not a conspiracy. It is a habit that is deeply internalized, institutionally reinforced, rarely examined.

The Cost

The cost is not merely religious marginalization. It is intellectual fragmentation.

When reasoning standards are allowed to shift without justification, epistemology itself becomes unstable. Philosophy becomes performative rather than principled. Empiricism becomes rhetorical rather than methodological.

And the very rationality invoked to critique religion loses its coherence.

If grounding principles cannot be discussed because they are “not empirical,” then neither can the grounding of science itself.

If universality is dismissed as metaphysical speculation, then objectivity dissolves.

The attempt to delegitimize religion through selective rationality ultimately erodes rationality.

Beyond Gaslighting

The solution is not anti-Western polemic. Nor is it abandoning empiricism. It is methodological consistency.

If metaphysical reasoning is valid, it must be valid across domains. If empirical standards apply, they must apply uniformly. If grounding claims are illegitimate, then they are illegitimate everywhere, including in secular frameworks.

What cannot continue is the silent shift in criteria. Religion’s role in epistemology cannot be dismissed by redefining reason mid-argument. If it is to be rejected, it must be rejected on consistent grounds.

Anything else is not critique.

It is gaslighting.