Any discussions on the true faith are serious, yes. Now the 'prophecy' discussed here may not be true but the subject matter has to be included in any prophesy that predicts a loss of Catholic faith and worthy of discussion. Opinion polls of non-believers mainly attribute their unbelief to science so called.
‘Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit.” ---Vatican I.
With the Copernican Renaissance there began a shift in philosophical thought, a move from scholastic metaphysics towards pantheism, naturalism, secularism and atheism, but now backed up by what they claimed as scientific ‘proofs’ that the supernatural geocentric world of God’s Creation was now proven false by man’s science. These modernist philosophies could be said to have started with the French ‘Catholic’ René Descartes (1596-1650), alleged to have been a Rosicrucian, and the 17th century philosophers known as the rationalists. Relying exclusively on human reasoning and experimentation, the rationalists endeavoured to free science from ‘the straightjacket of scholastic thought’ as Francis Bacon (1561-1626) had put it. Following them were the empiricists, founded by John Locke (1632-1704). Later empiricism was taken to extremes by the Scotsman David Hume (1711-1776) who held that nothing exists but sensations. Then the German philosophers Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Georg Hegel (1770-1831) burst on the scene. Kant held that reason could only know those things experienced by the senses. Hegel decided matter is only an illusion, the only reality being ‘Absolute Spirit,’ which expresses its nature in a historical process of struggle and conflict that results in a perfect society, a philosophy adopted later by Charles Darwin and Karl Marx.
I'd like to add some more protagonists to your list.
Starting from the dirt and dust stirred up by the "Copernican Revolution", Immanuel Kant came to the conclusion that man cannot recognize things as what they are. Our cognition of the things around us is limited to mere "appearances". We can't recognize the nature of things.
That's the basis of the thinking of Joseph Ratzinger. Against the oath against modernism
, perjurious Ratzinger, based on Kant, denies that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world
. That's because in Kant's system causal linkages are only in the eye of the observer, not out there in the world. Following Kant, and having abolished God, Ratzinger then recommends to live and act "velut si Deus daretur" (as if God existed) viz. he recommends to pretend (to cant).
After the Copernicans, who claimed that man is deceived by the appearances of the movement of the celestial bodies, and later switched to man is unable to distinguish movement from rest
(Mach's principle, General Relativity), we not only have Kant and Ratzinger, who suffer from being unable to grasp the nature of things and who are left with mere appearances. We also have the the flat earthers (Blount, Dubay, and their ilk), who deny that man is able to distinguish between a body approaching or moving away, and a body rising or setting. In their system, man isn't even able to grasp appearances, simple geometry and kinematics.
Where shall all this end?
Come quickly, Lord Jesus! (Rev 22:20)