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
[[Independent thought in this case is thought that is free from the constraints of the threat of eternal damnation]]
How is a warning a ‘threat’? Would it be ‘liberating’ for a child to ignore their parent’s warnign about a hot stove and stick their hand on it anyways? Woudl it be ‘liberating’ for a person to be warned agaisnt investing in a bogus stock, and for that person to buy into it despite the warnings?
Liberating? I hardly htink so
[[illogical set of rules that religion gives]]
Oh please do elaborate- this ought to be rich!
[[ free from the promise of eternal salvation and all the selfish things that come from such motivation ‘to act.’]]
I take it you think it’s ‘gallant’ to reject God’s gracious offer? Is it also goign to be gallant for eternity? Better to reject Your creator than to ‘accept such a selfish offer’ eh? Almost a form of self-denial for the sake of self-righteousness it woudl seem- but better self-righteous, than JUSTIFIED via free offer. Wouldn’t want to appear to be the ‘unliberated selfish’ person now would we? Much better to place our compelte trust in self-pride- so much more ‘liberating’
The song in the flames “I did it MY way” - but better to burn than to be beholden to someone else- that’s my motto- Better to do things ourself, than to admit we need help- better to bleed than to admit we can’t save oruselves- better to pretend somethign doesn’t exist than to listen to that still small voice- don’t want to be seen as weak and needy- better for others to be impressed with our sense of selfrighteousness- better to get temporary praise from others than to face eternity
Yes, liberating- how liberating it is to be held in esteme temporarily by others who also shut out that stil lsmall voice- that icky religion- so stifling and old fashioned! “Intellectuals don’t beleive in such htings’ (or so we’re led to beleive based on the vioces of the loudest smallest groups) Must keep yelling to drown out that still small voice- liberation! Liberation! Religious peopel are ignorant and afraid! Stuck i nthe dark ages! Bound by ‘silly rules’! Morlaity is subjective! (Contrary to the evidence )
Your argument is entirely dependent on the existence of hell and therefore not valid.
It is your belief that hell is as real as a hot stove. I am inclined to disagree with that opinion.
—How is a warning a ‘threat’? Would it be ‘liberating’ for a child to ignore their parent’s warning about a hot stove..—
ALSO:
—[[illogical set of rules that religion gives]]
Oh please do elaborate- this ought to be rich!—
The idea of ‘jihad’ is a fine example.
The rest of your response kinda proved my point, thanks.
“Some truth can be true today and false tomorrow.”
No, that is a mistake. Every true statement is always true. The postmodernists and linguistic analysis tried to put that one over, but all statements are contextual and the kind of argument you are making can only be made by dropping the context.
For example, if someone says, “Harry is still alive” on thursday, when Harry is alive, and Harry drops dead on Friday, someone might say, “the statement, “Harry is still alive,” is no longer true. But that drops the unstated (but understood) context, which is, “On this Thursday, Harry is still alive,” and that statement will be true for eternity because on Thursday, Harry was still alive, and will always have been alive on that Thursday.
Many, possibly most, fallacious arguments come from dropping the context of atatements. The most famous class of such fallacies is Ayn Rand’s identification of the “floating abstraction.”
Hank
Could it/that be TRUE?... "
I can't state strongly enough: I have zero doubt that it is absoutely true!
[[Your argument is entirely dependent on the existence of hell and therefore not valid.]]
You have proof hell doesn’t exist? Lol. Just keep thinking somethign doesn’t exist- just don’t ask the rest of us to buy that crap when we’ve Met Christ personally- you speak from innexperience, then try to tell everyone that God and Hell don’t exist? You stand on the outside, trying to peer through the windows, informing everyone on the outside about htings you have no experience with- You’re apparently not even willing to see for yourself, and you expect others to beleive you? You can stomp your foot outside the door all you like, but unless you take God at His word, put your trust in Him, you can not speak as an authority on anythign concerning Him-
The argument is entirely valid- you simply refuse to speak from the position of authority via experience, and hterefore, your argument is invalid because quite frankly, you have no idea what you’re talkign about- It’s akin to you, never having seen ice in your life, refusing to beleive someone who has seen it who states it exists despite being able to produce it. Repeating over and over again that it doesn’t exist isn’t a valid argument unfortunately for you
[[It is your belief that hell is as real as a hot stove. I am inclined to disagree with that opinion.]]
Nope- it obviously went right over your head- the point is that it is NOT a ‘threat’ to warn someone of something- it is love- Your failse accusation that a waning is akin to a ‘threat’ is simpyl false- it is NO more a ‘threat’ than it woudl be for a parent to tell hteir child a hot stove will hurt them- and it certainly is NOT ‘liberating’ for that child to ignore the warning and place htier hand on that stove. Whether you personally beleive hell exists or not is irrelevent, but your accusation is false, and your attempt to make Christians out to be ignorant sheep with psychological insecurities isn’t welcome here- especially from someone who speaks from complete ignorance on the subject being that you again, refuse to meet your Creator personally
[[The idea of ‘jihad’ is a fine example.]]
Jihad has NOTHING to do with Christianity
[[Your argument is entirely dependent on the existence of hell and therefore not valid.]]
You have proof hell doesn’t exist? Lol. Just keep thinking somethign doesn’t exist- just don’t ask the rest of us to buy that crap when we’ve Met Christ personally- you speak from innexperience, then try to tell everyone that God and Hell don’t exist? You stand on the outside, trying to peer through the windows, informing everyone on the outside about htings you have no experience with- You’re apparently not even willing to see for yourself, and you expect others to beleive you? You can stomp your foot outside the door all you like, but unless you take God at His word, put your trust in Him, you can not speak as an authority on anythign concerning Him-
The argument is entirely valid- you simply refuse to speak from the position of authority via experience, and hterefore, your argument is invalid because quite frankly, you have no idea what you’re talkign about- It’s akin to you, never having seen ice in your life, refusing to beleive someone who has seen it who states it exists despite being able to produce it. Repeating over and over again that it doesn’t exist isn’t a valid argument unfortunately for you
[[It is your belief that hell is as real as a hot stove. I am inclined to disagree with that opinion.]]
Nope- it obviously went right over your head- the point is that it is NOT a ‘threat’ to warn someone of something- it is love- Your failse accusation that a waning is akin to a ‘threat’ is simpyl false- it is NO more a ‘threat’ than it woudl be for a parent to tell hteir child a hot stove will hurt them- and it certainly is NOT ‘liberating’ for that child to ignore the warning and place htier hand on that stove. Whether you personally beleive hell exists or not is irrelevent, but your accusation is false, and your attempt to make Christians out to be ignorant sheep with psychological insecurities isn’t welcome here- especially from someone who speaks from complete ignorance on the subject being that you again, refuse to meet your Creator personally
[[The idea of ‘jihad’ is a fine example.]]
Jihad has NOTHING to do with Christianity
[[Your argument is entirely dependent on the existence of hell and therefore not valid.]]
You have proof hell doesn’t exist? Lol. Just keep thinking somethign doesn’t exist- just don’t ask the rest of us to buy that crap when we’ve Met Christ personally- you speak from innexperience, then try to tell everyone that God and Hell don’t exist? You stand on the outside, trying to peer through the windows, informing everyone on the outside about htings you have no experience with- You’re apparently not even willing to see for yourself, and you expect others to beleive you? You can stomp your foot outside the door all you like, but unless you take God at His word, put your trust in Him, you can not speak as an authority on anythign concerning Him-
The argument is entirely valid- you simply refuse to speak from the position of authority via experience, and hterefore, your argument is invalid because quite frankly, you have no idea what you’re talkign about- It’s akin to you, never having seen ice in your life, refusing to beleive someone who has seen it who states it exists despite being able to produce it. Repeating over and over again that it doesn’t exist isn’t a valid argument unfortunately for you
[[It is your belief that hell is as real as a hot stove. I am inclined to disagree with that opinion.]]
Nope- it obviously went right over your head- the point is that it is NOT a ‘threat’ to warn someone of something- it is love- Your failse accusation that a waning is akin to a ‘threat’ is simpyl false- it is NO more a ‘threat’ than it woudl be for a parent to tell hteir child a hot stove will hurt them- and it certainly is NOT ‘liberating’ for that child to ignore the warning and place htier hand on that stove. Whether you personally beleive hell exists or not is irrelevent, but your accusation is false, and your attempt to make Christians out to be ignorant sheep with psychological insecurities isn’t welcome here- especially from someone who speaks from complete ignorance on the subject being that you again, refuse to meet your Creator personally
[[The idea of ‘jihad’ is a fine example.]]
Jihad has NOTHING to do with Christianity
You have stumbled on the "observer problem"..
What one observer sees/notices can be occluded to another observer.. due to time or qualia or position.. Assuming humans can even see reality clearly or at all..
As I said, as Jesus said, reality and truth is not in a statement, theory, assumed fact, or mental figment but in a person.. Jesus is truth.. Its hard to get your mind around that at least for me.. But if, Jesus is truth, everything else isn't, by itself..
It is possible humans with picayune sensory organs and multifarious mental problems(blind spots) cannot see universal reality as it is... Truth then would be "roll your own" observations.. basically opinion.. The life of a scientific fact is timestamped..
You have stumbled on the "observer problem"..
What one observer sees/notices can be occluded to another observer.. due to time or qualia or position.. Assuming humans can even see reality clearly or at all..
As I said, as Jesus said, reality and truth is not in a statement, theory, assumed fact, or mental figment but in a person.. Jesus is truth.. Its hard to get your mind around that at least for me.. But if, Jesus is truth, everything else isn't, by itself..
It is possible humans with picayune sensory organs and multifarious mental problems(blind spots) cannot see universal reality as it is... Truth then would be "roll your own" observations.. basically opinion.. The life of a scientific fact is timestamped..
For Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BCE), it meant both the source and fundamental order of the Cosmos (universe):
But though the Logos is common, the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own. [Fragment 2]In short, Logos means source and fundamental order of the Cosmos. (One might think of it as "algorithm from inception.") Thus it is also the standard or criterion by which men may distinguish things truthfully, "according to their nature."Those who speak with the mind must strengthen themselves with that which is common to all [i.e., the Logos].... For all human laws nourish themselves from the one divine [i.e., the Logos] — which prevails as it will, and suffices for all things and more than suffices. [Fragment 114]
Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it — not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time. That is to say, although all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be quite without any experience of it — at least if they are judged in the light of such words and deeds as I am here setting forth. My own method is to distinguish each thing according to its nature, and to specify how it behaves; other men, on the contrary, as as forgetful and heedless in their waking moments of what is going on around and within them as they are during sleep. [Fragment 1]
Which is basically the way I see it, as further elaborated by the Gospel of John, which identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos, through which all things are made; and as divine intermediary between God and the world.
You wrote: "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 means: Someone realizes that the reporter is presenting a falsification of reality.
It is ever a quest, and never a final possession.
There is only reality, dear. Have no idea what you think "universal reality" would mean.
It still amazes me that people who think human intelligence is so feeble are nevertheless absolutely cconvinced their grasp of concepts written in a language they cannot read, translated by people they do not know, still gives them certain knowledge. You'll have to explain how you do that with your puny "finite" intellect. (I'm not accusing you of anything, just using the language that is used with me. I think your mind is fine. Just don't agree with how you are using it.)
Hank
One is a action, the other is a thing. You can label it process or search, but either way, the search for something cannot be the thing itself.
So it's not circular reasoning, it's not reasoning at all.
Life as science defines it is ONLY physical life, not the eternal life of the soul.
If your definition of life includes messages from Beyond and Mary the mother of God it is not a scientific theory.
That is the enormous blind-spot of the Newtonian paradigm which rejects formal and final cause on principle and which can only anticipate by syntactical encoding, e.g. Fibonacci series - entirely unaware of the semantical ambience of nature (Rosen model) much less so that which is Spiritual!
oops. Sorry I didn’t see this.
Betty, what language did Heraclitus write in?
What language was the book of John written in?
You do know there is a difference, don’t you? (The question is rhetorical, I think.)
Have a question for you. Why do you always have to “characterize” people and their comments with words like “reductionist?” Is that just a Christian’s way of calling people names? Don’t feel you have to stop. It doesn’t bother me, just wonder why you feel the need to do that rather than just addressing the issues.
Hank
Not at all Hank. Reductionism is an epistemological strategy. A person who employs it can be fairly described as "reductionist." Or so it seems to me.
I'm sorry to have given you offense.
YES!!!!!!!!!!! Outstanding observation, dearest sister in Christ!
The reality of the Universe.. Reality beyond what is experienced on this planet.. The evolution of humans to the next stage..
You know... being "born again"..
Darwin was on the right track its just his God was too small..
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.