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
If that isn't correct, then explain why not? Proof is a very high bar to pass, isn't it.
Here I have a theory. Weakened infectious organisms can be injected into a person and it will make them immune to the disease the organism causes. Of course it can never be proved, right?
Are you claiming that in all cases, injections with a weakened infectious organism will make them immune to that organism? Please do a little research and you will find that your theory is not correct in all cases. Falsified.
I have another theory. It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air. Can’t be proved though, right?
As a pilot I happen to know that an airplane must constantly displace its weight in air, in straight and level flight. If the plane doesn't displace its weight in air (becoming heavier than the air it displaces) it is no longer capable of sustained flight. Hence I have falsified your theory.
I have another. One day men will be able to fly to the moon and back. Of course science cannot prove that?
Do you know the difference between and observation and a theory? Obviously not. Do you even understand the definition of a theory?
My question: What do you mean by truth?
Your answer: A complete understanding of reality.
Then you know no truth?
I doubt you claim to have “complete understanding of reality,” but do you claim you therefore do not know anything that is true?
It is not necessary to know everything about everything to know many true things. The term for all that one knows that is true is “truth.” When one swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they are not swearing to explain everything there is to know (understand) about reality, are they? Does the word truth in that swearing then mean nothing?
Hank
That is correct. I am guessing that I know some partial truths, that is about as far as it goes : )
When one swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they are not swearing to explain everything there is to know (understand) about reality, are they? Does the word truth in that swearing then mean nothing?
They are swearing to tell the truth as they know it. Their testimony while being truthful, from their perspective, may have no relationship at all to an objective truth. Maybe you need to read some Sherlock Holmes too : )
I think both these questions you are asking are closely related, proof and truth. Aside from trivial examples, I am not capable of the absolute determination of either. There will always be some uncertainty, however small it may be.
“According to you, every time I drop a ball that is ‘proving’ Newton’s law.”
Not according to me, my friend, since I never said it, nor thought it.
“Are you claiming that in all cases, injections with a weakened infectious organism will make them immune to that organism?”
You just love putting thoughts in people’s minds and words in their mouths that were never there. I’m claiming what you know perfectly well. There was great resistance to the idea of vaccination until Jenner proved it’s feasibility. Are you claiming that the possibility of vaccination has never been proven?
“As a pilot I happen to know that an airplane must constantly displace its weight in air, in straight and level flight. If the plane doesn’t displace its weight in air (becoming heavier than the air it displaces) it is no longer capable of sustained flight. Hence I have falsified your theory.”
You may be a pilot but you know nothing about physics. A plane does not “displace it’s weight” (that’s the concept of boyancy, which might work for baloons, but not heavier than air fligh). A planes wing actually creates a force called “lift” (due to the partial vacuum above the wing) a vector force which is opposite the vector gravitational force due to its mass (weight). The plane never weighs any less (except for the immeasurable amount due to its distance from the earth). The only thing you’ve falsified is your wrong theory of flight.
“Do you know the difference between and observation and a theory? Obviously not. Do you even understand the definition of a theory?”
Before there was any space-flight there were countless “scientific papers” presenting “theories” (actually hypotheses) that “proved” space flight was impossible, that enough “lift” could never be produced, etc. etc. There were other theories that suggested space flight was possible, which according to you, could never be proved.
Just exactly what to you think proof is? And how could anything be proved without observation?
Why are you so eager to prove you cannot know anything. By they way, you have completely convince me.
“Then you know no truth?
That is correct.”
Sorry to hear that. Guess there’s no reason to continue our discussion then. I certainly cannot believe anything someone who knows no truth says.
Wish you the best, though.
Hank
Thats the basic principle of communism(socialism).. which is of course WRONG..
Only one of many things wrong with socialism..
2 x 2 = 4 .... any that come up with 5 are simply WRONG...
I am very familiar with Bernoulli’s Principle, but you are forgetting that the wing is a pump that is constantly displacing air equal to the weight of the plane in level flight. Where do you think the 'partial vacuum' (lower pressure actually) comes from?
The plane never weighs any less (except for the immeasurable amount due to its distance from the earth). The only thing you’ve falsified is your wrong theory of flight.
Of course the weight of the plane stays the same. I am talking about the weight of the air that is being displaced behind the wing.
I have a question for you that you may find fun. Why can you blow out a candle more than a foot away, but you can't suck it out more than an inch or so away?
Before there was any space-flight there were countless “scientific papers” presenting “theories” (actually hypotheses) that “proved” space flight was impossible, that enough “lift” could never be produced, etc. etc. There were other theories that suggested space flight was possible, which according to you, could never be proved.
You are doing a very good job making my point that nothing can be proved.
I wouldn't describe it that way. Such a thing is only possible from God's "point of view."
That comports well with my proposed "return to the 'Universal Now' discussion". I do believe I'll pursue that path for now -- and leave the "mutually lethal environments" theme for later -- or elsewhere...
That sounds a whole lot like Pilate's question: What is truth? Pilate asked it at the very moment Truth was standing right in front of him and looking him directly in the face. Pilate didn't even recognize it....
What I mean by Truth is Logos. In both the classical Greek and Christian meanings of that Word.
LOLOL but please do save the "mutually lethal environments" for later!!! Your other proposed topic is ever so much more inviting! And probably much more basic, thus more useful.
Universal Now forces us to think about "the time problem." Our current concepts regarding time may not be sufficient to advance a fuller understanding of Reality.
Betty Boop - I wouldn't describe it that way. Such a thing is only possible from God's "point of view."
I don't think it is possible either. Remember I see truth as a journey or a path if you will. Similar to Taoism.
“What I mean by Truth is Logos. In both the classical Greek and Christian meanings of that Word.”
Well the word only means “word,” in Koine Greek, which is the Greek the Bible was written in, not classical Greek, so don’t know what that would have to do with it.
Very disappointed in you betty boop.
What does the word mean when a parent punishes their child for not telling the truth. Or do you not believe children should be taught to tell the truth? And when the child asks, “what is truth,” your answer will be “Logos, in both the classical Greek and Christian meanings of that Word?”
Good grief gal, I wasn’t asking a theological question, just a simple common sense one. What do you mean by truth. When a news reporter presents some wild story you know can’t be true, and someone remarks, “that’s not the truth,” what does that mean? It certainly doesn’t mean “that’s not Logos in both the classical Greek and Christian meanings of that Word?”
If you cannot explain what you mean about the simplest concepts... oh, never mind.
Hank
Of course, but that does not explain what truth is. If someone said, "2 X 2 = 5" that would be false, and if someone else said "2 X 2 = 4" that would be true. But truth is the attribute that pertains to all true statements.
Truth is simply a quality or attribute and it pertains only to statements or assertions about something. If I simply say, "penguin" or "phoenix" neither is either true or false. They are just ideas or "concepts." Until I say something about them, that is, make a statement or assertion about them, the concept of truth is irrelevant. If I say, "there are penguins in the Antarctic" that is true and an example of truth. If I say, "there are phoenixes in the Antarctic" that is false, and and example of untruth. If I say "the phoenix is an ancient Egyptian mythical creature," that is true and an example of truth.
Truth is nothing more than the concept for the attribute common to all statements or assertions which are true. To regard truth as more than that is an example of the fallacy of reefication.
Hank
TXnMA: That comports well with my proposed "return to the 'Universal Now' discussion". I do believe I'll pursue that path for now -- and leave the "mutually lethal environments" theme for later -- or elsewhere...
Some truth can be true today and false tomorrow.. i.e. timestamped..
other truth is always true.. "Truth" is not as simple as life..
However life defies definition..
Some say Jesus is truth.. Jesus said he was truth..
To humans; truth may remain all wrapped up in Jesus..
Jesus said, "HE was the way, the truth, and the life.."
Could it/that be TRUE?...
Hank, you are trying to spice and dice because you don’t ‘get it.’
Independent thought in this case is thought that is free from the constraints of the threat of eternal damnation and the often illogical set of rules that religion gives one to live by and free from the promise of eternal salvation and all the selfish things that come from such motivation ‘to act.’
I have a feeling you actually do ‘get it,’ but you are too bull headed to admit it.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
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.