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 Marxs 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 Voëgelins 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: GodManWorldSociety, 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 Gods 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, Marxs 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 Marxs doctoral dissertation of 18401841. From it, we can deduce his thinking about the Man partner as follows:
(1) The movement of the intellect in mans 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 mans 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 Marxs revolt. As you can see, it requires the death of God. Marxs point of theocidal departure takes its further impetus from Ludwig von Feuerbachs theory that God is an imaginary construction of the human mind, to which is attributed mans 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 mans 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 didnt 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.
Heres the beautiful thing from Marxs 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, Marxs 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. Its 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 atheists distorted and may we add relentlessly imaginary? conception.
To agree with Marx on this that the movement of the intellect in mans 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 dont like something, then it simply doesnt 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 GodManWorldSociety 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 mans self-salvation in a New Eden an earthly utopia by purely human means.
Of course, theres 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 Voëgelins 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
Thanks for the laugh, Hank! I needed that!!!
Perhaps you should RTFA. (Read The Fine Article with which betty boop established this thread...)
I happen to know that BB is in full agreement with the article's author.
“Of course life forms on earth ...”
I didn’t say “life forms,” I said “life.” Individual organism have a beginning and end, but as they say after the funeral, “live goes on.”
By the way, what do you think the “constituent building blocks” of life would be. If you are thinking of the physical components, the complex proteins, for example, they are all still there in the corpse of the organism when the life ceases. the building blocks cannot produce life, but life can use them to maintain an organsim.
Hank
I assumed “life forms” to be kind. Hank, you don’t know what the constituent building blocks of an organism are?
If form B is built from A, then A precedes form B.
But you are free to believe what you wish.
Well, of course, so are you. That does not mean I cannot be sorry for you and what you believe. Because I can do that too. That’s what being a free individual is.
Now you have taken to characterizing what I “believe,” though you do not have the slightest knowledge of all I believe. I have not done that to you. Why do you people think you can read people’s minds?
I know your view is an artificial construct made up out of so much credulity, feeling, and wishful thinking. Artificial constructs are just what you get when rationalism (as opposed to empiricism, which I’m not advocating) and ideas not based on evidence or reasoning from the evidence are the source of your ideas. When there is no evidence for your beliefs, how ever complex your “reasoning” it is ultimately, just made up—that’s what an artificial construct is.
Now I never would have said that, if you had not chosen characterize my beliefs based on your own preconceived views of what you “think” I believe.
For example, why would you say something like this:
“As I said before, the title ‘scientist’ does not confer on the bearer the property of infallibility.” What has that got to do with anything. I neither think anything like that, or ever said anything to imply it. Why do you inject thoughts into other peoples arguments? Your the one that likes to use Cosmology and quote scientist to back up your theological ideas.
You already know I am not a physicalist, that there is a lot more evidence than that which is directly available to perception. I cannot perceive my consciousness, yet I know I am conscious. I cannot perceive my ability to consciously choose (volition) or reason, but I do them, and that fact is evidence of more than the physical can explain, or any physical science will every explain.
Appreciate you comments.
Hank
Seems to me that Hank Kerchief is advocating the worldview that time, space and life are merely attributes. Or to put it another way, that such things are not objectively real, merely relative measurements and therefore beginnings are irrelevant.
He summed up his epistemology at 1207 by saying this:
By extension, the limits of his awareness are the boundaries of his world. Testimony of knowledge outside those boundaries is superstition to him; the observer is his own 'god.'
Therefore, if the observer reasons that space, time and life are merely attributes, i.e. not objectively real, then any claims of knowledge concerning their realness including their beginnings are superstition (to him.)
The "we" in the above excerpt is a misrepresentation I seek to expose. That Hank Kerchief's reality can be described by him in that manner in no way speaks for me. I do not live in his world.
And as evidence, I aver that I have knowledge from God Himself and further that His knowledge is absolute and I am not, therefore there exists much knowledge which will always be beyond my grasp. Observers who do not have that awareness (do not have 'ears to hear') - or have chosen to ignore Him - cannot speak for me.
I've not seen anything like it since hearing the diddy "Your Molecular Structure" by Mose Allison.. You have real talent.. Written any hymns?..
Truly though your testimony at post 1209 is much closer to the "Your Molecular Structure" lyrics than my own. Perhaps you should write some hymns, dear brother in Christ!
I asked, “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.”
“Since I am not an epiphenomenon of this physical body, I know the difference and can evaluate their meaning.”
Don’t mean to be picky, but you did not answer the question, just reasserted that you could, but I already knew you believed you could. The question was “HOW?”
Hank
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Old dog’s new trick: duplicate posts that are not duplicate... ;-)
Given the "if," that seems like an eminently reasonable assessment to me, dear xzins! Even though one might say that the mere appearance of something out of nothing still gives evidence of some kind of a beginning.... But then, what kind of an entity would it BE? What principles can explain it, if it came out of "nothing?" (Science tries to avoid such problems.)
Yet the assertion that life forms on earth do not have a beginning is so problematical; for it flies in the face of everything we observe in our experience. Namely, that things have causes; the original cause is called the beginning (it may well be "extra-natural" itself in the sense that it does not reside in the domain it establishes i.e., the physical universe); and that every existent thing we observe has a beginning and also an end. The timescales of particular entities may differ; but we humans do not know of a single observable natural object that didn't have a beginning, and that never ends (WRT living organisms, the latter is called "physical death"). These observations pertain to the observable natural realm.
To me, such observations fall into the category of what is called "common sense." Common sense can be thought of as a sort of "distillation" of human observation, experience, and insight as accumulated over the millennia of human history. In most cases, it seems to me that common sense is highly trustworthy though the tendency nowadays is to depreciate it in favor of "expert opinion." IMHO, your observation at the top is a fine example of the successful application of "common sense" to "abstract problems."
A brief digression: We live in an age where a re-appreciation of common sense, with a corresponding depreciation of expert opinion, seems to be the sole promising path to move through the extraordinary difficulties we face as a nation today, in a Godly way.... E.O.D. JMHO FWIW....
We need to recall that causes by nature are hidden from direct observation/sensory experience. This does not necessarily make causes in any way "mystical." Indeed, if they manifest observable phenomena, then that seems to pull them into the phenomenal realm, where putatively they can be studied by "science." It just means that natural laws and principles are not directly apprehensible by sense perception. That is not "evidence" that they don't exist. Indeed, to me it is inconceivable that existence can be explained in any way without reference to such non-physical, non-sense-perceptible causal principles.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, dear brother in Christ!
“Seems to me that Hank Kerchief is advocating the worldview that time, space and life are merely attributes. Or to put it another way, that such things are not objectively real, merely relative measurements and therefore beginnings are irrelevant.”
No, my view is that all of reality exists independently of anyone’s awareness or knowledge of it, and that it’s nature is independent of anyone’s belief about. You again have completely mischaracterized both my views and what I said. It is very near slander, which I don’t think you intended, however.
So everything else you said is about a view I do not hold.
I’m not sure if this absurdity is because of a reading comprehension problem or lack of normal discernment.
All I said is, that we cannot have knowledge anything we cannot be conscious of. Now if you are never conscious of something, it does not mean it does not exist, it does not mean it is not true, it only means you are not conscious of it. Now if you cannot be conscious of it in any way whatsoever, you cannot possibly know it. If you cannot see it, or a pricture of it, or no one ever describes it to you, or you never read about, or God never reveals to you, YOU CANNOT KNOW IT. You cannot know anything that does not in some way come into your conscious mind.
I even warned you to be careful when you read what I wrote. You completely misunderstood it, but you obviously have your preconceived idea about what others must believe if they don’t agree with you. You took the bait.
Love to know how you think you can know something you have never been conscious of in any way whatsoever. Here’s a test. Try to name something you’ve never been conscious of it. See, if you name, your are conscious of it. (I said “conscious of”, not perceive.)
OH, yes, it is very discourteous to talk about someone in the third person when they are part of the conversation.
Hank
For they are all "doctrines of men...."
In the second place, I restated that scientists are not infallible because you brought up Newtons beliefs and those of scientists during the Wright brothers experiments.
And finally, your appraisal of my epistemology though I appreciate your time to express it - is irrelevant to what I classify as knowledge (post 1201.)
But for the record, dear Hank Kerchief, I am dead and yet I am alive with Christ in God. (Col 3:3) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20)
Or to put it another way, I am here and there, in time and in timelessness, more aware of the Spirit than of the flesh. (Romans 8)
Therefore, I know the difference between urgings of the flesh and of the spirit, or as a metaphor the mechanical noise of the radio/receiver versus the actual signal.
Gods Name is I AM.
“non-sense-perceptible causal principles”
It certainly is nonsense from a scientific perspective.
There is no wonderland down that particular rabbit hole.
There is nothing of any scientific utility in it.
I am afraid it falls square into the realm of “Interesting if true, but of no use regardless.”
I am surprised you did not use,
“The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the Children of God.”
or
“It is given to you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God,”
or
Well you know all the verse as well as I do. :Was quoting from memory ...]
The problem is, I’ve been there and was as convinced as you that these were true, until I realized everyone who believes they have mystic insight, or oneness with God, or the revelation of the Spirit is as certain of that knowledge as you—but you all believe different things, your borthers in Christ and you.
So how does one know which revealed truth is the really true truth? If there is not a way to discern the truth other than, well, I just feel it is true, and believe the feeling is from God, and not the five tacos I just ate, just anything might be believed.
Hank
Your protests are quite ineffective to me, dear Hank Kerchief.
Let me recall exactly what you said at post 1207 (emphasis mine:)
In my personal epistemology, the knowledge I consider most certain and of the highest value and priority is that which I receive directly from God, e.g. that Jesus Christ is God. That did not come from me. Now was I conscious of Him as God.
Jesus is in fact the wisdom of God, the power of God.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. II Cor 2:6-16
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. I Corinthians 1:19-25
So how does one know which revealed truth is the really true truth? If there is not a way to discern the truth other than, well, I just feel it is true, and believe the feeling is from God, and not the five tacos I just ate, just anything might be believed.
Hermeneutics is a system of men, not God.
Truth is a Person. His Name is I AM, God, Jesus Christ.
God is like a master artist. The metaphor of the foundation gemstones of the New Jerusalem (Revelation) stands as a beautiful testimony of His artistry. Each layer is a different color and each is named for a different Apostle.
The Light going through an emerald looks green; sapphire, blue; ruby, red and so on. Likewise He has made a beautiful, colorful living masterpiece of all of us!
John was not like James who was not like Paul who was not like Peter who was not like doubting Thomas.
And Jesus chose each and every individual one of them!
A saint is like a diamond. The Light shining through him into the world is clear and unobstructed.
But so what if one of my brothers in Christ is red and another is blue? It is the same Light shining through each of us into the world.
What does this "attribute" freedom entail? Freedom for or freedom from?
[Oh, and by the way, what's an individual, in which such a quality can inhere in the first place?]
I suspect that the answers that you and A-G would give to the question "What is freedom?" would be different. Thus, that difference would be the very thing that distinguishes the difference of fundamental worldview of each of you respectively, and which seems to put them so mutually at odds.
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.