Posted on 04/05/2009 8:10:35 PM PDT by betty boop
The Atheist Perversion of Reality
By Jean F. Drew
Atheism we have always had with us it seems. Going back in time, what was formerly a mere trickle of a stream has in the modern era become a raging torrent. Karl Marx’s gnostic revolt, a paradigm and methodology of atheism, has arguably been the main source feeding that stream in post-modern times.
What do we mean by “gnostic revolt?” Following Eric Voëgelin’s suggestions, our definition here will be: a refusal to accept the human condition, manifesting as a revolt against the Great Hierarchy of Being, the most basic description of the spiritual order of universal reality.
The Great Hierarchy is comprised of four partners: God–Man–World–Society, in their mutually dynamic relations. Arguably all the great world religions incorporate the idea of this hierarchy. It is particularly evident in Judaism and Christianity. One might even say that God’s great revelation to us in the Holy Bible takes this hierarchy and the relations of its partners as its main subject matter. It has also been of great interest to philosophers going back to pre-Socratic times — and evidently even to “anti-philosophers” such as Karl Marx.
In effect, Marx’s anti-philosophy abolishes the Great Hierarchy of Being by focusing attention mainly on the God and Man partners. The World and Society partners are subsidiary to that, and strangely fused: World is simply the total field of human social action, which in turn translates into historical societal forms.
Our principal source regarding the Marxist atheist position is Marx’s doctoral dissertation of 1840–1841. From it, we can deduce his thinking about the Man partner as follows:
(1) The movement of the intellect in man’s consciousness is the ultimate source of all knowledge of the universe. A human self-consciousness is the supreme divinity.
(2) “Faith and the life of the spirit are expressly excluded as an independent source of order in the soul.”
(3) There must be a revolt against “religion,” because it recognizes the existence of a realissimum beyond human consciousness. Marx cannot make man’s self-consciousness “ultimate” if this condition exists.
(4) The logos is not a transcendental spirit descending into man, but the true essence of man that can only be developed and expressed by means of social action in the process of world history. That is, the logos is “immanent” in man himself. Indeed, it must be, if God is abolished. And with God, reason itself is abolished as well: To place the logos in man is to make man the measure of all things. To do so ineluctably leads to the relativization of truth, and to a distorted picture of reality.
(5) “The true essence of man, his divine self-consciousness, is present in the world as the ferment that drives history forward in a meaningful manner.” God is not Lord of history, the Alpha and Omega; man is.
As Voëgelin concluded, “The Marxian spiritual disease … consists in the self-divinization and self-salvation of man; the intramundane logos of human consciousness is substituted for the transcendental logos…. [This] must be understood as the revolt of immanent consciousness against the spiritual order of the world.”
How Marx Bumps Off God
So much for Marx’s revolt. As you can see, it requires the death of God. Marx’s point of theocidal departure takes its further impetus from Ludwig von Feuerbach’s theory that God is an imaginary construction of the human mind, to which is attributed man’s highest values, “his highest thoughts and purest feelings.”
In short, Feuerbach inverts the very idea of the imago Dei — that man is created in the image of God. God is, rather, created by man, in man’s own image — God is only the illusory projection of a subjective human consciousness, a mere reflection of that consciousness and nothing more.
From this Feuerbach deduced that God is really only the projected “essence of man”; and from this, Feuerbach concluded that “the great turning point of history will come when ‘man becomes conscious that the only God of man is man himself.’”
For Marx, so far so good. But Marx didn’t stop there: For Feuerbach said that the “isolated” individual is the creator of the religious illusion, while Marx insisted that the individual has no particular “human essence” by which he could be identified as an isolated individual in the first place. For Marx, the individual in reality is only the sum total of his social actions and relationships: Human subjectivity has been “objectified.” Not only God is gone, but man as a spiritual center, as a soul, is gone, too.
Marx believed that God and all gods have existed only in the measure that they are experienced as “a real force” in the life of man. If gods are imagined as real, then they can be effective as such a force — despite the “fact” that they are not really real. For Marx, it is only in terms of this imaginary efficacy that God or gods can be said to “exist” at all.
Here’s the beautiful thing from Marx’s point of view: Deny that God or the gods can be efficacious as real forces in the life of man — on the grounds that they are the fictitious products of human imagination and nothing more — and you have effectively killed God.
This insight goes to the heart of atheism. In effect, Marx’s prescription boils down to the idea that the atheist can rid himself and the world at large of God simply by denying His efficacy, the only possible “real” basis of His existence. Evidently the atheist expects that, by his subjective act of will, he somehow actually makes God objectively unreal. It’s a kind of magic trick: The “Presto-Changeo!” that makes God “disappear.”
Note that, if God can be gotten rid of by a stratagem like this, so can any other aspect of reality that the atheist dislikes. In effect, the cognitive center which — strangely — has no “human essence” has the power of eliminating whatever sectors of objective reality it wants to, evidently in full expectation that reality itself will allow itself to be “reduced” and “edited down” to the “size” of the atheist’s distorted — and may we add relentlessly imaginary? — conception.
To agree with Marx on this — that the movement of the intellect in man’s “divine” consciousness is the ultimate source of all knowledge of the universe — is to agree that human thought determines the actual structure of reality.
Instead of being a part of and participant in reality, the atheist claims the power to create it as if he himself were transcendent to, or standing outside or “beyond” reality. As if he himself were the creator god.
This type of selective operation goes a long way towards explaining the fanatical hostility of many Darwinists today regarding any idea of design or hierarchy in Nature — which, by the way, have always been directly observable by human beings who have their eyes (and minds) open. What it all boils down to seems to be: If we don’t like something, then it simply doesn’t exist.
We call the products of such selective operations second realities. They are called this because they are attempts to displace and finally eliminate the First Reality of which the Great Hierarchy of Being — God–Man–World–Society — is the paradigmatic core.
First Reality has served as the unifying conceptual foundation of Western culture and civilization for the past two millennia at least. What better way to destroy that culture and civilization than an all-out attack on the Great Hierarchy of Being?
Thus we see how the gnosis (“wisdom”) of the atheist — in this particular case, Marx — becomes the new criterion by which all operations in (the severely reduced and deformed) external reality are to be conducted, understood, and judged.
Conclusion
Marx is the self-proclaimed Paraclete of an a-borning utopia in which man will be “saved” by being reduced to essentially nothing. With God “gone,” man, as we denizens of First Reality know him, disappears also.
But whatever is left of him becomes a tool for social action. He becomes putty in the hands of whatever self-selected, self-proclaimed Paraclete seeking to promote his favored Second Reality du jour (usually for his own personal benefit) manages to stride onto the public stage and command an audience.
Such a charmed person blesses himself with the power to change human society and history forever, to bring about man’s self-salvation in a New Eden — an earthly utopia— by purely human means.
Of course, there’s a catch: As that great denizen of First Reality, Sir Thomas More, eminently recognized, the translation into English of the New Latin word “utopia” is: No-place.
In short, human beings can conjure up alternative realities all day long. But that doesn't mean that they can make them “stick.” Reality proceeds according to its own laws, which are divine in origin, and so cannot be displaced by human desire or volition, individually or collectively.
And yet the Marxian expectation argues otherwise.
Out of such fantastic, idiotic, specifically Marxian/atheist foolishness have great revolutions been made. And probably will continue to be made — so long as psychopaths hold the keys to the asylum.
Note:
All quotations from Eric Voëgelin’s article, “Gnostic Socialism: Marx,” in: The Collected Works of Eric Voëgelin, Volume 26 — History of Political Ideas: Crisis and the Apocalypse of Man. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1999.
©2009 Jean F. Drew
April 4, 2009
Somehow allmendream, I figured your reply would go just exactly according to the above "text."
You're making my point for me.
Yep. I do believe that is at the root of allmendream's basic holding. And by the same token, that characterization would seem to be as true for YECers as it is for Darwinists.
JMHO FWIW. On the grounds that doctrine is no substitute for experience.
Thanks for your most enlightening essay/post dear metmom!
Can you point out any “science” that doesn't depend upon physical causes to explain physical phenomena that has actually accomplished anything?
Claims of supernatural causation for physical phenomena is the realm of charlatans and quacks and has accomplished nothing.
Creationists keep saying that ‘if only science wouldn't limit itself vast vistas of discovery and enlightenment would happen’ but they cannot even come up with a single example whereby anything of value was accomplished by thinking that physical phenomena have supernatural causation.
To me it is like Communists insisting that despite their economic system being a total failure every time, NEXT time vast vista's of economic activity will open up everyone will be happy and everything will be free.
Except that scientists are not insisting that God had to do something one way or another way, they are simply pointing out how things COULD have happened based upon physical phenomena being the result of physical forces, and drawing up valuable models that allow explanation and prediction of how things could have happened.
Nice to see you get in a dig at the YEC crowd though, they actually ARE in the business of attempting to deciding how God can and cannot do things.
Scientists are merely in the business of finding physical explanations for physical phenomena.
Backatcha.
Similarly, to those that suggest that species can only be created or changed by magical means evolution through natural selection of genetic variation, suggesting that anything else that does the work diminishes God to them.
Cramming God into the *has to use "natural means"* as opposed to allowing Him to *poof* everything into existence is doing the very thing you condemn in others, that is limiting God to how YOU think He should work and that any other way is beneath Him.
Your contempt and scorn for the concept that God could have instantaneously created things is no different than what you complain about in others when they say He didn't use evolution.
God is not diminished by the means he chose to create things. Too bad your god is so little that he's hampered that way. The God of the Bible is not bound by time and is all powerful. He can do it instantaneously and still be God.
It makes no difference how the “clock” was created, it is either a ‘self winding clock’ or one that needs to be ‘wound’.
For myself, I don't think someone that created a watch that needs to be ‘wound’ is as impressive as someone who created a ‘self winding’ watch.
But I am not insisting one way or the other that God HAD to do something one way or the other, I am merely suggesting that scientific discernment suggests certain physical causations COULD have accomplished the physical phenomena observed, and thus in the absence of direct Biblical information on HOW God created our Sun, one might assume God created it the same way God creates the stars we see forming right now; and that scientific assumption has direct testable and predictable implications.
Y'all are welcome to some of ours: 93 degrees in the shade @ 6pm -- and not a cloud or radar blip anywhere across this big ol' State...
Went out and "played with the Bush Hog" in midday; that convinced me that that the Mexicans have the right idea -- so I just woke from a siesta... '-)
“Y’all are welcome to some of ours: 93 degrees in the shade @ 6pm — and not a cloud or radar blip anywhere across this big ol’ State...”
You are soooo mean. You have no idea how much I envy you. I was born and raised in New England, but spent several years in South East Asia and discovered I thrive and love tropical humid heat 90 degrees or above is just fine with me. I’ve never met a high temperature I did not enjoy. Should have known that earlier, since my parents spent two weeks in Death Valley when I was a boy, every day in the 100s, which they suffered and I enjoyed totally.
Thanks for the persecution. ;>)
Hank
Proximity to my wi-fi network's signal for my laptop is only a minor consideration -- thus, so is FReeping from the hammock...
As Ernie Boch, the Boston auto dealer, used to say, "Come On Down!!!" ;-)
“Come On Down!!!”
Don’t know what betty boop is planning, but my wife and I are planning just that—not necessarily Texas (actually have been considering Geogia), but definitely south.
Hope you find the perfect place for your hammock and thoroughly enjoy it. Love to see people enjoying their life.
Hank
Good question...
But which God?.. The judeo-christian one?..
The one that allegedly made this Universe?..
Whenever the age of the universe debates come up I usually just finish the sentences:
and
The universe is a week old from the inception space/time coordinates
One such view is that, since coordinate transformations can be performed mathematically, then any choice of coordinate is as good as the other, e.g. the earth is the center of the universe and the rest of the universe moves around it.
Jeepers...
Don't get me wrong. God is the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe and everything in it, including you and me — but this is so regardless of how old or young we conjecture the universe may be from our human standpoint.
But if he wishes to reconcile his statement of faith to the cosmological data with a theory, then he cannot simply substitute the theory for the cosmological data.
God's Name is I AM.
Replies MrJesse:Said MrJesse:Replied TXnMA:
"Say, did you get a chance to look over some more of my color coded questions?"
Although I'm "retired" -- as Texas Archeological Steward and Chairman of the Cass County (Texas) Historical Commission -- I have an almost-too-busy life apart from FR... so my time for FReeping is quite limited. Your questions are fun - but they are a diversion from my primary quest for understanding re Creation, Scripture, and our Creator God.
...[Lines Skipped]...
...aside from sinful ego and fear of being wrong...
You seem to get it right on the small scale, so I am interested in where your reasoning falls apart so badly as to allow you to be suckered into to the concept of a young universe. Especially so since the data from the Hubble telescope and the COBE experiments are readily available.Maybe it has something to do with my understanding of science. Not that I'm a great scientist by any stretch of the imagination. But there are two kinds of "science:" The real science, like physics, math, chemistry, etc. The reproducible stuff. For example, I learned early on in my electronics learning that if you put too much current through an LED it changes color, puts off a pretty bad smell, and never works again. I determined it by scientific experimentation. Then I did it again. If anyone doubts, I can show them that it is true. Or I can write instructions, and anyone can try it and see that it is true.
Remember that I am a Christian and a firm believer in our (infinite, timeless, eternal, all-powerful, omnipresent and un-bound by space and time), Creator God..I'm a Christian for the record. But if you believe that God is all power and infinite and timeless and all that, then how come he couldn't have created not only the stars but the light in transit?
... and His incomprehensibly mighty works. What I am seeking is an understanding of why otherwise intelligent and thoughtful folks still insist on diminishing their concept of Him and his mighty creation so as to deprecate them into the man-centered YEC model -- when His works shout, "I AM far greater than your finite minds can comprehend!"If you ask me, it's the OEC model that depreciates God to the bare minimum, saying he just barely got things working - attributing to God only those few things that aren't (yet) explained away by Science.
IOW, what (aside from sinful ego and fear of being wrong) drives folks to cling to Ussher's 16th-century mind-burp misinterpretation of Genesis -- when they are literally "surrounded by so great a cloud of Witnesses" in what we can now see of His Creation?All I can say is "Show me please."
Remember, I do not doubt the truth of Scripture; I only question the rationale of those who would deny clear evidence in order to belittle Almighty God down to a puny "thing" that their minds can "wrap around". And, I especially question those who go to great lengths of effort and expense to proselytize and try to force that (to me, sinful) belittlement of God on the rest of mankind.Show me what clear evidence that I am denying.
Gotta run; a rancher a few counties from here has just unearthed another 10,000-year-old "Indian" site, and has asked my help in evaluating it...If I may prod your way a tad of humor here... How did you know that it is 10,000 years old if you had not at the time yet evaluated it? By the way, how'd it turn out? Find anything interesting? Got any firm dates yet from your evaluation efforts today?
snip, “So if creation was a “mechanical assemblage of parts”, somewhat knowable and predictable by scientific means; that diminishes God to you more so than if it was a magical assemblage of parts?”
Spirited: In order that the “mechanical assemblage of parts” be “knowable and predictable” the “cosmic machine” must be guided by an immaterial ‘something rational.’ Additionally, in order that this ‘rational’ knowing be intelligible and rational to the chemical processes and firing synapses in the material ‘brain,’ there must as well be ‘something rational,’ an unseen ‘ineffable force’ if you will, operating within the chemicals and synapses, which by themselves are irrational.
Now either this ‘rational something’ is a rational Creator who exists beyond the reach of men, their irrational firing synapses, and their microscopes, or this ‘rational something’ is not rational at all, for if all that exists is Nature, and nature is irrational-—as all of us know it is-—then, in order to be consistent with the tenets of Darwinism, we must not speak of rational ordering and predictability.
As well, an assumption of free will underlies the claim of ‘knowing’ while the use of personal pronouns, ie, ‘you,’ bespeaks one individual ‘choice-making’ individual spirit reasoning with another.
Additionally, in order for there to be ‘predictability,’ there must exist a history of past and similar occurances (patterns). Only through comparison of yesterdays’ patterns with todays’ occurances can we know something about predictability.
All of the foregoing not only shows the glaring contraditions inherent in Darwinism, but its’ need for magic-thinking and self-delusion.
Mister, what the heck is that thing?
I figured it was time to start looking for a place to retire...
;-0
.
.
.
(... actually, an old joke from Reader's Digest...)
Nothing in the theory of evolution through natural selection is dependent upon magic.
You must be thinking of the Incompetent Design movement (I.D.). They think things proceed about 90% of how Biologists say they do, but with a little extra “magic” thrown in somehow.
Nothing in nature is irrational. Nature speaks to the glory of God and the universe obeys rational and predictable laws when acted upon by natural forces.
It is “magic” that is is irrational and arbitrary and unpredictable.
I think your problem is with the definition of predictable.
If I state that the sun will come up tomorrow is that a prediction or an observation? I would call it an observation that the earth is spinning. If I state that you will die at some time in the future, again, is that on observation or prediction? I would call that an observation that everyone dies.
With that definition in place, is Darwinism (and Science in General) based on prediction or observation. I think it is pretty clear that Science is based on observation.
Religion on the other hand is based on the unobservable and claims to be able to make predictions. In fact it claims that its predictions are infallible prophecy. The fact though is that there have been no accurate prophecies from religion.
The reality is that religionist’s are the ones suffering from “magic-thinking and self-delusion”.
It is not enough that evolution through natural selection of genetic variation explain observations, to be truly useful it also needs to be able to predict results.
For example one would predict that multiple rounds of replication with error prone DNA polymerase and a stringent selection criteria could generate proteins with novel and beneficial properties.
Or one might predict where and when (in what strata) a fish with tetra-pod features would be found; and then they went out and found one.
One might also predict how a population would respond to selective pressure such as to predict that poor patient compliance in taking antibiotics would lead to the evolution of antibiotic resistance.
snip: Nothing in the theory of evolution through natural selection is dependent upon magic.
Spirited: If ‘natural selection’ is true, then sheep should have disappeared long ago. Natural selection is not only false, but powerful Cosmic Humanist/postmoderns (occult pantheists)throughout the UN and elsewhere, not only reject natural selection and reason, but materialism. Occult pantheist Cosmic Humanists have gained the upper hand and are even now in the process of claiming Darwin for their own. Toward this goal, they plan to trash the concept of natural selection, redefine Darwin, and demonize all ‘natural selection’ materialists, who Cosmic Humanists blame for the 20th centurys’ genocide. In future, look for Dawkins to either convert to Cosmic Humanism or disappear from sight.
snip: Nothing in nature is irrational. Nature speaks to the glory of God and the universe obeys rational and predictable laws when acted upon by natural forces.
Spirited: If as you claim, nature is ‘rational,’ then the God you speak of is immanent (one with nature). Hence the God you speak of is not the Bibles’ transcendant Creator but liberal theologies pantheist ‘God or Christ consciousness,’ in which case magic thinking is utterly necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.