While they may have been named after the "laws" of feudal/Church-dominated society of the Middle Ages, they were named by analogy. Part of the "narrative" of modern Science is that scientific "laws" always work; cannot be "bent or broken" in any circumstance.
That narrative of Science has actually worked to bring the world out of the Middle Ages, making life far more pleasant for everybody.
That doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but it has seemed to work. People who reject science because it's "an anthropocentric narrative derived from fealty to monarchical power" or some such narrative trash are actually trying to revert mankind to life as it was in the Middle Ages: short, brutish, and nasty. No matter what they think they’re trying to do.
Don’t like it? Then just go ahead and “believe” that you can impose your own “laws” on the world. Let us know how that works out for you. The world has seen, in Germany of the 1930’s, the Russian Empire in the 20th century, China with the “Cultural Revolution”, Venezuela, and so on.
Which isn’t to say that the system hasn’t been captured by self-serving power interests. But those interests seem to be acting in (some) accord with the realities of how power works, while their enemies are steeped in delusional wishful thinking.
But the world has a lot to lose if people are allowed to tear down the controlling narratives, and replace them with a mess of wishful thinking. Throw away what science has discovered about agriculture, and most of the world will starve. Throw away what science has discovered about engineering, and life for the survivers will revert to the short, brutish, and nasty life of the Middle Ages.
It’s my view that the fundamental fear of these losses is what causes people to reject efforts to tear those narratives down. Until you can force people to accept a narrative that tells them they’re “oppressed” and have little or nothing to lose, they’ll try to hold on to their comfortable, air-conditioned lives.
And they’ll reject your narratives.