The Atheist Perversion of Reality

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:

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.

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.

“Again, we’re not talking about Code....”

ahhh, the method or algorithms use for error correction are called “error correction CODEs, commonly abbreviated ECCs.”

http://www.eccpage.com/

So if you are not talking about that, what are you talking about?

The question is rhetorical.

Hank

You are bringign two very different issues to hte table Hank- it’s hard to even follow your arguments as a result- I spoke about (and explained several times now) that hte discussion was abotu sender/receiver communication method, and not the code itself- you’ve been tryign to steer the conversation toward the code itself to support your argument I guess- if you’ll go back several posts, you will see that we were discussing the need for shannon theory which deals again, with sender receiver- not hte code itself- Code without the ability to be sent and received is useless information, and can not by itself sustain life in a fit condition- the species would fail to thrive without having a pre-existing method of sendign and receiving that code. It is this method of sendign and receiving that is vital to life, and again, this MUST all be present before life can even happen, and it MUSt be intelligently designed, and cooperate with many vital key systems such as Metainformation (code) that is forward looking and which anticipates errors in order to keep the species fit and viable

“it’s hard to even follow your arguments”

Yes, that’s quite obvious, though I am not trying to make an argument. If this is too hard for you, perhaps you should stop. I don’t want to hurt your head.

Have a nice day, and all my best.

Hank

[[Yes, that’s quite obvious, though I am not trying to make an argument. If this is too hard for you, perhaps you should stop.]]

Oh don’t worry Habnk- it aint too hard for me to stick to hte actual subject being discussed- what is hard is following your rabbit trails that have nothign to do with hte subject- Your first question was about life- statign that there was a possibility that it ‘always existed’- We showed that it couldn’t have always existed- then you stated life could ‘self initiate’ itself- we showed the evidence shows that it can’t- then you went on to claim shannon theory was about code- which it’s not- Not sure where you’re headed next- but don’t you fret- it’s not ‘too hard’ - just sidetrails that really have nothign to do with your first claims

Thank you for sharing your views, dear brother in Christ!

Or is it possible humans are really spirits with a body as clothing?.. and literally no one(spirit) actually “dies”?.

To the contrary,

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. – Matthew 10:28

[ To the contrary, / And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. – Matthew 10:28 ]

This verse implies the soul(spirit) and body are two different things... as I did.. What is "a" soul(mind,emotion and will)?.. Does it need a body to exist?.. Or maybe not a human body but some kind of other conduit is sufficient... or none at all..

No doubt about it, the vanity of humans is great, they love that body.. They serve it, groom it, maintain it, feed and water it, entertain it, teach it tricks, breed it, clean it, identify with it, love it, its almost like it was a treasured pet.., they sacrifice for and to it, some worship it, idolize it.. There is no end to the things they do for the human body.. while neglecting their spirit(soul)...

Not that some have not "merged" in their minds the soul and the body.. some have.. you know; conflated them.. When humans look into a mirror they may not be seeing themselves but merely their body.. Who/What they really are(soul/spirit) may be much more beautiful(precious) than that body..

Some new agers separate them(soul/body) and do all the above mentioned "things" to both the soul(spirit) and body.. They idolize both of them.. As Jesus said 'the path" is narrow it has a ditch on both sides of it.. But theres no doubt about it.. The soul is one thing, the body is another.. Conflating them is a mistake..

[[This verse implies the soul(spirit) and body are two different things... as I did..]]

I beleive the bible teaches htis as well- the spirit of life is the breath of life which God breathed into the nostrils of man at creation- the soul is the eternal ‘being’ to be wrapped in a new incorruptible body in heaven (an an undying body in hell- although people who speak about NDE’s describe beign ripped to shreds, dying, then being revived and happening all over again time and time again- never ending nightmare- I had similar ‘NDE’, although it was a bit different- I didn’t get to see the comfy white lights of heaven that most peopel see- I went hte other way- whether it was a real experience, or soemthign else- I can not state, but I was clinicly dead and had the ‘experience’ whatever it was- could have been synapsesdying, or an experience- just not sure)

[[What is “a” soul(mind,emotion and will)?..]]

Essence of who we are

[[The soul is one thing, the body is another.. Conflating them is a mistake..]]

Eat live and be merry for tomorrow we die

So true, dear brother in Christ!

Thank you for sharing your insights!

[ Eat live and be merry for tomorrow we die ]

Could be possible for your body to die but YOU won't die..
Meaning, you will live eternally somewhere.. i.e. Hell?..

If so, death might be an allusion.. responsibility for life as a human could be eternal.. What we do "here(as humans)" could impact the base of our everything.. Thereby "proving" what sort of "spirit" we are.. Not proving to God, but proving to ourselves.. Eliminating any future confusion on the issue.. Humans self sorting themselves into groups.. spiritual groups.. Even atheists/agnostics being a spiritual group.. (John ch 10).. Sheep pens and maybe Goat pens..

[[Could be possible for your body to die but YOU won’t die..
Meaning, you will live eternally somewhere.. i.e. Hell?..]]

Me? Hell? No- I took God at His word and found Him to be true- goign to heaven.

[[If so, death might be an allusion..]]

It’s a real experience that we go htrough- while our soul does not die, our experiences in the flesh are real- fear nad pain are real experiences- Bunyan described the passing over pretty well

Hi BB, I recently happened upon another online book that bears directly on atheism’s suicidal thought tendencies I couldn’t find where it came up, so I decided to reply with it here:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm

All the best—GGG

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.