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
Thomas C. Van Flandern was on the fringe of modern science. So far on the fringe he was that he famously believed the notorious face on Mars was sculpted by space aliens.
He also rejected mathematical physics and the speed of light as a constant and instead posited his own concept of reality called "Deep Reality Physics."
He was a member of the "Natural Philosophy Alliance" which is an organization of anti-establishment science rogues.
He was a scientist, an astronomer. Dawkins and Pinker are also scientists. And obviously the title "scientist" does not confer upon the bearer the property of infallibility.
If a person wants to believe that the physical world around him is explained by a just-so story, that is his choice. And if he wants to believe that only that which he can perceive with his senses and comprehend with his own mind is real, that is his choice.
If he wants to explain the world by his own philosophy, theology or myth - he is free to do so.
And if he is against the mainstream of science and longs for company and is a scientist, he can join the "Natural Philosophy Alliance."
After all, there is no scientific test to falsify certain philosophies, e.g. that the physical world is the consequence of an observer, Gaia or collective consciousness of the cosmos.
But then again, most scientists reject such philosophies because they cannot be falsified (Popper et al.)
Also, science is not in the "proof" business. "Proofs" are in the domain of mathematics. Math is not science.
Science (except for the historical sciences) is in the "theory" business. A theory is valued by how well it holds to tests and observations and most especially, attempts to falsify it. For them, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The greatest "honor" a theory can receive is to be elevated to a physical "law."
Conversely, historical sciences (Anthropology, Archeology, Egyptology, Evolution Biology) fit their observations in the field "into" a blueprint theory of how it all came to be. Because they do not have a continuous, complete, historical record - the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And so in these disciplines, the theory is more a paradigm.
If there is "dishonesty" in mainstream science, I would not look to physical cosmology but rather to the historical sciences where there might be temptation to misrepresent or discard evidence that the paradigm theory is false. Or where there exists as in evolution the tendency to superimpose the paradigm onto the findings in the laboratory which has the reverse standard of evidence.
My personal epistemology is highly structured, i.e. what knowledge exists, how I know what I know and how certain I am that I actually know it.
When my correspondent's personal epistemology is ordered differently, I do not expect a reconciliation of our views - only a presentation of them in contrast for any Lurkers who might be interested.
"Of what" is it an attribute? Or in other words, what is the entity or "thing" which possesses this "attribute?" Attributes must inhere in something, they aren't just abstractions floating around somewhere. And the next question would be: Of what does the attribute itself consist? (I.e., how does it modify the thing in which it inheres?)
You stop your questions 'way too short of the goal, dear Hank. JMHO FWIW
Yes, please think it through...
“will have to think this through a bit- but there’s the premise basically- in order for life to exist, space and time must have a beginning- in order for events to occur, time must occur”
Time (hours) doesn’t “occur” anymore than distance (feet), temperature (degrees), or volume (quarts) occur. They are concepts of measurement, time is simply one measurement of the relationship between motions [the other is velocity].
Unfortunately mystics (and some scientists) have reified it into a something. It is no more a “something” than the concept of “justice” is a something.
http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.php#reif
It is very similar to the concept force. Though scientists do not, most people think of “force” as a something, because they confuse “force” with what they feel. So people also confuse their experience of things, in relationship to clocks and other motions as “time.” But it is not time.
Hank
“Of what” is it [life] an attribute? Or in other words, what is the entity or “thing” which possesses this “attribute?” Attributes must inhere in something, they aren’t just abstractions floating around somewhere. And the next question would be: Of what does the attribute itself consist? (I.e., how does it modify the thing in which it inheres?)
Life is an attribute of an organism, it is the attribute that distinguishes between a mere physical entity and living physical entity. When the life of an organism ceases, (it no longer has the attribute living) it reverts to being a mere physical entity.
It is the life of an organism that maintains its existence as a living organism, both its form and its behavior. Life is a self-initiated, self-sustained process, a process that transcends the physical. There are two more attributes that transcend the physical, consciousness, which transcends life, and volition (which requires and makes possible knowledge and rationality) which transcends consciousness.
Not all living things are conscious, but all conscious things are living, and must be. Not all conscious beings are volitional (of which there is in this world only one specie, human beings), but all volitional beings are and must be conscious.
Hank
From conversations with Hank Kerchief long ago, I concluded that our personal epistemology could never be reconciled, that what was "real" to him was not even close to what is "real" to me.
Since then I have avoided further conversation with him because there is nothing to debate, only worldviews to be presented which I am doing on your wonderful thread here, dearest sister in Christ!
Evidently, in Hank's "reality" life, time, space, etc. are all illusions. In mine, they are not.
The reader will draw his own conclusions.
The supposition of an origin or beginning can't rest on evidence (because we weren't "there" then); but most assuredly it can rest on reason. For absent an origin, all you can have is an infinite regress, and that is a situation in which nothing can ever happen or mean anything. As Aristotle pointed out, there has to be a "limit," or there can be no reason in the world. Most importantly, Natural Law — which deals with the relations obtaining between physical Nature and the cognitive mind — cannot arise in a situation of infinite regression.
Cartesian doubt — skepticism — is a most useful and admirable thing. In David Hume's words, it is "a sovereign preservative against error and precipitate judgement."
It recommends a universal doubt, not only of all our former opinions and principles, but also of our very faculties; of whose veracity ... we must assure ourselves by a chain of reasoning deduced from some original principle, which cannot possibly be fallacious or deceitful. But neither is there any such original principle, which has a prerogative above others that are self-evident and convincing: or if there were, could we advance a step beyond it by the use of those very faculties, of which we are supposed to be already diffident.Cartesian doubt is one thing; rank nihilism is another. Where do you draw the line Hank?The Cartesian doubt, therefore, were it ever possible to be attained by any human creature (as it plainly is not) would be entirely incurable; and no reasoning could ever bring us into a state of assurance and conviction upon any subject.
It must, however, be confessed, that this species of scepticism, when more moderate, may be understood in a very reasonable sense, and is a necessary preparative to the study of philosophy [which in Hume's day included "natural philosophy," or what we now call "science"], by preserving a proper impartiality in our judgements, and weaning our mind from all those prejudices which we may have imbibed from education or rash opinion.
Thomas C. Van Flandern was on the fringe of modern science.
Since “modern science” means “academically accepted science” which wholly endorses evolution, psychology, and evironmentalism, and even while the wright brothers were flying “modern academically accepted science” of the day was “proving” (what they called it, not me) that heavier than air human flight was impossible.
I have no idea weather there is anything to Van Flandern, and what other things he believes are irrelevant; Newton believed in alchemy—so what? Does that invalidate his physics?
I personally do not regard any field of study science except the physical sciences, namely, physics, chemistry, and biology and their subcategories. I regard cosmoloogy just another historical guess based on very incomplete information.
Now since you have no idea what my epistemology is, and since yours does not address the question of what knowledge is, (although it gives me a great deal of insight about your thinking) I’ll explain only that nothing that cannot be derived from reasoning about that which we are conscious of can be knowledge, and that all knowledge is about that of which we are conscious. Anything else that makes a claim to knowledge is superstition.
Out of curiosity, how do you know what your feelings mean, and how do you distinguish between those that are genuine and those that just have physical causes. When my mother was going through menopause she suffered from great feelings of fear about things she knew perfectly well had nothing about them to be afraid of. How would one tell the difference if they did not know how hormones affect ones feelings?
Hank
Of course life forms on earth (I'm assuming that's what's meant) had a beginning. They have constituent building blocks.
If an eternal future is possible that would demand the possibility of an eternal past.. The big bang may be a simplistic Yarn.. Its all based on lineal time.. Time may not be linear at all.. And space might be something and not nothing(a vacuum of nothing)..
I prefer a Spiritual Universe or a Universe based in a spiritual dimension/realm/reality.. That way what we humans see could be "real" or appear real to us.. when it is a second reality in a box.. In essence (possibly) human reality "did have" a start(big bang) and possibly an end(whatever).. But the spiritual universe is/could be eternal.. i.e. No human time frame..
Thats the way I see it, or want to see it.. or prefer to see it.. Humans just love a good story.. or even a bad one.. Homey(me) can play that game too.. The imagination is a wonderful thing.. Ask any child of God..
Welcome to my sand box..
As I said before, the title "scientist" does not confer on the bearer the property of infallibility. And precious few theories achieve the label of a physical "law."
Likewise, as I said earlier, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.
But you are free to believe what you wish.
And yes, I did have an idea of your epistemology. As I recall, I compared it to the coffee shop worldview of the late 60's and early 70's, a meandering erasure of philosophical/theological insights being replaced by deductions based on on sensory perception and reasoning as the only elements of reality.
It is the life of an organism that maintains its existence as a living organism, both its form and its behavior. Life is a self-initiated, self-sustained process, a process that transcends the physical.
My word, Hank, but you have managed to construct one dandy of a metaphysical system here. At first, I thought you were suggesting that life was merely the epiphenomenon of the physico-chemical activity of the constituent parts of a bulk collocation of inorganic matter which, when configured in a certain way by means of purely random processes, spontaneously erupts into LIFE! (This seems to be the abiogenetic expectation.)
But given your interesting account of the "hierarchy" inorganic/organic/life/consciousness/volition, it seems you are not operating within the domain of science at all, but of philosophy.
And it is a philosophy of systematic type (i.e., is fundamentally doctrinal in form). Just an observation. It is not the classical philosophy, which represents an open-ended quest to know the "Why?" of the universe. School philosophies purport to give the explanation without us having to do any work at all. Instead of saying, "Go look for yourself!" a la Plato, it says: I know the truth of reality, and here it is: This is the explanation!
Yet this can in no way be a "privileged" position, as against other systems which satisfy their constructors' demand for "self-evidence." Indeed, the self part of that term is extraordinarily instructive. What is self-evident to me is not the same thing as what is self-evident to you. Neither of us is entitled to demand that the other, and others, must believe that either of our views is the "correct" one.
I've not seen anything like it since hearing the diddy "Your Molecular Structure" by Mose Allison.. You have real talent.. Written any hymns?..
Hardly self-initiated. I had a mom and a pop.
And there were moments when they were ready to end my "self-sustaining process."
:>)
That's certainly true, xzins. But the building blocks are merely the "material cause." Life does not "bottom out" in constituent building blocks (i.e., "matter")!!! If we say it does, then we are question begging: (1) where did the building blocks come from? (first cause, pertaining to the "In the Beginning" question. Aristotle says this must be an uncaused cause because, logically, an infinite causal regress cannot account for the order that we perceive in the natural realm). (2) what laws govern their assembly into a living being? (formal cause). (3) how is this assembly realized? (efficient cause). (4) what purpose does this assembly realize in nature, not only in regard to the organism, but also (arguably) to the universe at large? (final cause x 2)?
The comment flagged as "arguably" was inspired by Niels Bohr's pregnant suggestion that the reason that life forms are so difficult to study and understand is because each is intimately connected with the entire biosphere. To try to isolate them out of this context involves a "we murder to dissect" situation.
If the discussion is about life forms on earth not having a beginning, then it strikes me that they had to suddenly appear out of nothing or they had to be eternal.
betty boop; Alamo-Girl; mrjesse; hosepipe; TXnMA; CottShop; xzins; marron
“[Life is] Hardly self-initiated. I had a mom and a pop.”
Your Mom and Pop weren’t alive? If they weren’t alive could they have done it?
Look, it’s the life if the sperm and egg that “initiates” new life (organism). Nothing non-living can initiate life.
Hank
Self-initiating????
I tried to talk mom and pop into making me but my lips wouldn’t move.
“It is not the classical philosophy, which represents an open-ended quest to know the ‘Why?’”
Tha is not what philosophy is. No doubt it is what they teach it is in school, but most of that “philosophy” comes from Hume, Kant, liguistic analysis, and post-modernism.
The purpose of philosophy is to understand the nature reality, all of it beyond the physical, (which is the province of the physical sciences) and how we know it. There is no, “Why.” That is a baseless teleological assumption, a religion, not philosophy.
And you are right. Science is only capable of dealing with the physical, that which can be directly perceived or deduced from what is directly perceive. Since life, consciousness, and volition are not physicsl, science cannot deal with them.
Are you a physicalist, one of those who believes there is nothing but the physical?
Hank
Thanks for the laugh, Hank! I needed that!!!
Perhaps you should RTFA. (Read The Fine Article with which betty boop established this thread...)
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.