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
By this reasoning, Andrea Yates was "experiencing reality" but her children weren't.
B-Chan - LOL Haven't read much philosophy, I see...
Actually I have and that is my point. Philosophy has very little to do with reality. Aristotle proved that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Proof is not a scientific possibility. Science deals with the real world and is based on actual observations and measurements, flawed as they may be.
For instance: As a star expels helium atoms, at a precise pressure and temperature these helium atoms unite to form heavier atomic structure. The timing and pressure and temperature are exquisitely crucial to the unverse of our existence. And for the star formations and galaxy structures and planetary systems to exist, the number is a very large improbability, yet we do exist and these interactions do happen and the exquisite balance is maintained!
'Maintained', that is the key you have perhaps missed. [You might enjoy a visit to reasons.org, and reading through a few essays by an astrophysicist who has enumerated these delicacies more fully.]
There really is no such thing as empirical proof. Science is about refining our perception, not about discovering absolute truth. Natural phenomena are quite real but the details tend to be very questionable.
I don’t follow. The murderess Yates knew exactly what the rest of us know: that she herself existed. As for the reasons behind her gruesome acts: whatever they were, they were based upon her beliefs, not upon certain knowledge. The “voices” she heard, for example, were perceived as coming from “outside” herself, not from within.
Even in the context of your proposed “delicate cosmological balance,” it isn’t really all that “delicate.”
See, e.g.,
http://www.nikomi.net/english/astronomy/starsizes.htm
Precisely my point. The observations and measurements we use to define Reality are flawed, for we perceive them only with our subjective and unreliable senses. For all we know, no such thing as the "real world" exists. There's certainly no way to demonstrate its existence; any such evidence would necessarily come from the "real world" itself, and would share its subjective nature.
Of course, every sane person believes in the existence of the real world -- but make no mistake, this is a case of belief, not knowledge.
Really? So she was just listening to the wrong voices?
Thanks anyway, but I find that conclusions cross-checked against our "unreliable" senses tend to be the ones that comport with reality, as opposed to unverifiable conclusions based upon "voices from within."
In the years that followed, all but one of the twelve primary eyewitnesses to these astounding events were incarcerated and tortured to death for their witness. These men could have saved their lives by simply admitting it was all a lie, but not one ever recanted his story.
That's enough for me.
[[I fail to understand how someone can “decide” to believe in something that they don’t believe, just because of Pascal’s Wager.]]
They can’t- but the risk SHOULD at the very least inspire someone to honestly seek to find out if God is indeed real one would htink. We’re ALL born with an inate ‘knowledge’ that there is a God, and it’s only after years of pushing that feeling to the back of our minds that we come to ‘not beleive’. God reveals Himself to every individual through the testimony of hte Holy Spirit in our lives- so in reality, we all go from knowing somethign to be true (even if subconsciously) to a point of hardening our hearts and midns to unbelief- justifying our unbelief along hte way by assuming we’re gaining some form of ‘higher knowledge’ after ‘investigating hte claim’ and coming away empty handed- but hte truth of hte matter is those who ‘don’t find anyhting’ weren’t honestly looking, and some were even looking for excuses to justify their unbelief.
As I said- You can’t simply beleive somethign simpyl because of a wager/profit/reward/punishment etc- but one woudl htink, concidering the dire consequences of being wrong if one dies in unbelief, that the wager would cause someone some serious sefl reflection and seeking to at least examine more closely hte claims of billions of Christians and God’s word. That’s all I’m stating
And how do you "cross-check" anything using your admittedly unreliable senses? How do you know that a reality external to and independent of your own consciousness exists?
You can't. You may say "I believe that a universe outside of and indepedent of me exists", but don't fool yourself -- that stament represents a leap of faith. Assuming that "reality" exists is as great a leap of faith as assuming that God exists -- greater, in fact, for God's Existence can be directly experienced, whereas reality cannot.
Belief? You may believe that the real world is not objective reality, but it is. No belief or faith is necessary.
[[Maybe I choose to not want to be around anyone like that.]]
I thought perhaps that might be the case- and if so, then that would make you not an atheist, but someoen who simply defies someone you don’t care to get to know
[[THEN I further believe that He/She is probably not concerned with whether or not I was convinced of His/Her existence based on what I see on this earth.]]
I’ll have to dissagree here whole heartedly- He DID care enough about what you think that He gave His only Son to die for yours and my sins as the final sacrifice and propitiation.
[[He/She will have had much more important and less egotistical things on His/Her mind.]]
How is it egotistical for God to love us? I woudl htink it would be egotistical to refuse someone’s love stating in effect that “I don’t need you- I’m fien all on my own”
[[Besides, who wants to spend eternity with an egomaniac personality that is so self conscious that they really think, “Love only me, Worship me, etc..”]]
He didn’t say that- He layed out hte truth by stating that IF we choose to love something other than Him that we are subjecting ourselves to the desires of hte Evil one, and we’d be subjected to al lthe ills that come with such a descision- while it might seem like ‘freedom’ at first to reject God, and ‘go it alone’, the reality is that we’d be rejecting the love of the God who created us and prefering instead to serve sin.
God of course loved us enough to give us hte choice- Free will, to beleive what we want, but He also made it very clear that we either choose forgiveness of we live with our choice if we choose not to beleive Him.
Is a parent being ‘egotistical’ when htey tell a child “Don’t touch that stove” and hte child adamantly shoots back “Why?! You can’t tell me what to do!” and hte parent says “Because I love you and don’t want you to get hurt”?
The child can either decide they don’t need their parent tellign htem what to do, and touch the stove, or they can listen and be spared-
you’re not being crude btw- your quesitons are idneed hoenst- Many people do indeed feel God is nothign but a big egostistical, even maniacle God who does nothign but demand, and it does indeed SEEM this way- until you begin to see that His ‘commands’ are actually quite similar to what any good parent would ‘command’ their children to do or not do- they do it out of love- not egomania.
I dunno if you’ll take hte time to read some of the following site- but the dude is quite smart, and he tackles many of the common complaints of those who see God as a big bully Here’s a link to common objections about God:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/objedex.html
As I said, He’s a smart dude, and really explains htings quite well and accurately- in ways we don’t see at first- I thought I knew quite a bit about certain issues, but this dude really opened up angles I’d never seen before on certain topics- Soem of his tpics get a bit invovled, and a bit deep- but if you have hte time, they are WELL worth reading htrough-
Not tryign to preach at ya- or push you in any direction- but I just htink that a few of your objections might be covered by his topics- and beleive me, I’ve had many of the same objections both before AND after salvation- I’ve put God htrough hte ringer many times in my battles with Him- and have what I think are many of the very same objections you might have- so I’ve been htere- been htrough it- severely quesitoned His goodness and caring- beleive you me!
If you define "atheism" as the antithesis of this statement, then I sincerely hope the pilot of the plane I'm traveling on tomorrow is unalterably atheist.
And how do you "cross-check" anything using your admittedly unreliable senses? How do you know that a reality external to and independent of your own consciousness exists? You can't. You may say "I believe that a universe outside of and independent of me exists", but don't fool yourself . . ."
And I sincerely hope you don't have a driver's license. Or access to loaded weapons.
B-Chan to LeGrande: [[Dude, you’re high.]]
Ignore him- His ‘refutations’ of Christianity have been thorouhgly refuted many times here on FR- The bible has been 100% accurate concerning prohpesies- unlike hte mere 40% of psychics which are vague and general- the bible has, and continues to be VERY specific in it’s prohpesies. God spoke about future events in such a way that when htey happened people would KNOW He was God- but of course there were some, like legrande- who will never accept any evidences, and prefer to beleive the lies and deceits of those who are like him- valuing man’s ‘intellect’ over God’s truth and historical reality.
On the atheist view, why should anyone "respect" the electrochemical concatenations of your brain? On a more fundamental level, HOW is it even possible for electrochemical reactions to "respect" one another?
I wouldn’t want anything to happen to my family or my friends, so I wouldn’t hurt anyone else’s family or friends. That’s not a cycle I want to be a part of. Hurting another person physically or psychologically teaches others to do the same
And if others feel just the opposite, so what? Their brain chemistry is just as much a product of blind, purposeless evolutionary forces as yours is. On your view, you both are nothing more than bi-pedal carbon units doomed to eventual extinction, individually and collectively. So on what grounds do you imagine that your existence has any more significance or objective purpose than that, say, of a fish?
But my overall logic is much the same as a Christian or Jew or Mormon....I just don’t get it from the Bible, it comes from within.
Is that so dangerous?
Yes. What you don't know can hurt you. You have a form of logic, it's just that you can't account for your logic or your reason on your own atheistic presuppositions.
Cordially,
[[Thanks anyway, but I find that conclusions cross-checked against our “unreliable” senses tend to be the ones that comport with reality, as opposed to unverifiable conclusions based upon “voices from within.”]]
You are taking anectodotal instances of a whacked person, and extrapolating that to mean the billions of Christians hwo hear and respond to the inner voice of the Spirit must also be ‘untrustworthy’? That’s liek saying that because soem Ax murderer ‘reasons’ then commits a crime, that EVERYONE therefore shoudl avoid reasoning
I've always wondered about atheists who wind up in our camp, when most atheists typically are in the opposing camp.
But then I realize that "our" atheists are of a type.
You believe in inalienable rights, which means you accept that there are eternal truths. You accept and believe that Love is the fundamental good in the universe.
For me this is the core of my moral code.
Exactly. And where did this awareness come from? However much or however little you realize it you have absorbed a very particular understanding of life which simply doesn't exist everywhere.
my overall logic is much the same as a Christian or Jew or Mormon....
Exactly. You've been shaped by the judeo-christian understanding of truth and morality and love, and you have internalized it, and it is a part of you.
I just don’t get it from the Bible, it comes from within.
Exactly, again. You have internalized this without understanding necessarily where it comes from. God speaks into the hearts of men and if your personal noise level isn't too high you will occasionally become aware of it. You will not always put a name to it.
What I see again and again is this: People make assumptions about what a "god" must be like, and then when that doesn't make sense, or doesn't seem to jibe with reality, they reject God's existence. There is another way to go about it. Rather than assume what a god must look like, and then not finding anything that looks like that, assuming that there isn't one, reverse the process. There is a much bigger adventure ahead if you let God reveal himself to you. You're already pointed in the right direction; you know that Love is fundamental. You know that Liberty is fundamental. You know that Truth is fundamental. That already should tell you that God isn't exactly who you thought he was.
And with that in mind, go back and re-read your Bible and you will see something completely different this time around.
You said something else, too, about having to experience something yourself for you to know that it is true. Again, exactly. Don't look for the fairy-tale God, let the real God show himself to you. There is always a big difference between people who have read about something versus the people who have lived it. You're going to live it.
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.