The tired old anti-science trope
Contrast that with science before Darwin’s voyage. While the concept of experimenting to establish a natural law was long-established, the focus was fundamentally different. Philosophically, science was concerned with confirming truths already revealed or already in place from a divine source. Material discovered by scientific investigation which contradicted a divinely-revealed truth, therefore, was automatically wrong, to be dispensed with, or an act of deception by an agent natural or supernatural.
To any rational male living today, this sort of thinking is lunacy. It is the sort of reasoning Christopher Columbus probably chuckled at when he fooled a group of Jamaican natives into thinking he, not the predictable orbits of planetary bodies, caused a lunar eclipse on cue. But for people like Galileo Galilei whose observations contradicted “established truth” propounded by religion, it was serious business—to the point of being deadly in the case of Galileo’s contemporary Giordano Bruno and others.
This is how people who haven’t accepted modernism think. They demand certainty. They demand a conclusion be revealed first—from any pseudo-logical source, it need not be religion—upon which to interpret the world. They cannot conceive of a universe where the underlying order of existence is unrevealed, can’t ever be completely certain to us, and must be uncovered step by laborious step.
You can still see echoes of the pre-modernist mindset among Young Earth Creationists: it’s not uncommon to hear accusations that dinosaur fossils were placed there by Satan. The same antiquated thinking is in force when a creationist shouts that “The theory of evolution is not proven!” It reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. Either way, there is a different form of reasoning going on: the predominant reasoning of science prior to 1859.
As with most such lies, the story does contain a small element of fact. Galileo was put under house arrest and threatened with Inquisitorial vengeance under religious pressure. The problem is, that pressure came from Lutherans and Protestants, who espoused a very literal reading of Scripture- and not from the Church.
Not only were his findings well received, he was granted an audience with Pope Paul V, who explicitly endorsed Galileo's findings, and made it perfectly clear that the Church had absolutely no intention of interfering in his research.
To truly understand our world, our Universe, and our purpose, we have to have faith. Which is why faith, of all kinds, has been a cornerstone of the human condition for as long as we have had capacity for reason.
It is entirely right for men like Marcus Aurelius to criticise shoddy reasoning and bad thinking; this is exactly why people like me are so highly critical of feminism in the first place. Feminist "thought" is a bad joke; there is nothing logical, empirical, or moral about its teachings, and it is a philosophy best treated with disdain and contempt because it is made up of a set of very largely debunked theories that fail to fit the facts.
However, it is entirely wrong to then take the same arguments against feminism, where they are valid, and warp them into a poorly constructed and largely ahistorical argument against faith, and especially against the Word. It is high time that we stopped arguing against that which ennobles and elevates us- namely, faith in God and fidelity to His laws- and started using the gifts that He gave us to fight the evils of a feminised society.