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
Yes it is. We all delude ourselves in some way.
We'll see about that.
Dodging the question...
snip: Nature, untrammelled by values, rules the Conditioners and, through them, all humanity. Man’s conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man.
Spirited: The spiritual source of his humanity euthanized, man—now beastman—has regressed to his natural state. Beastman is a barbarian. Read: America, Land of Barbarianism
http://patriotsandliberty.com/?p=4235
As it was in the beginning, so it will be in the end. And since barbarianism reigned from the time of the Fall to the time of Noah, notes John of Damascus, so it will reign again.
I agree that there are acquired behaviors, for sure.
ok..
So much for Darwin's theory. Things are not evolving, they are devolving. Man is not getting more "fit"; he's getting less fit. We're largely back to barbarian stage at this point....
Thank you so much for the link to "America, Land of Barbarianism." And thank you so much for your insightful essay/post!
You mean, like smoking for instance?
Are there any non-acquired behaviors? Or to put it another way, are there any human behaviors that are innate?
Actually, reduced to its essence, natural selection is viewed as the elimination of inferior individuals, to wit: "Because of the importance of variation, natural selection should be considered a two-step process: the production of abundant variation is followed by the elimination of inferior individuals." (Mayr E.W., "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 1, pp.67-71, July 2000, p.68).
Maybe he didn't fully appreciate the niche part, but Hitler clearly understood the idea of eliminating inferior individuals, as he viewed necessity or as evidenced by their inability to effectively withstand him.
I never said God did [endow us with inalienable rights]
When you said We are endowed with our rights by our Creator, whatever that is...perhaps God, I thought you were acknowleding the possibility. If you weren't, I misunderstood in replying Perhaps God?
But are you saying that an atheist cannot use Chamberlin's multiple working hypotheses? . . I don't believe the moon is made of green cheese, but I have no problem entertaining the hypothesis.
Chamberlin, a geologist as you know, introdcued his multiple working hypotheses approach to guard against what he called the ease with which a hypothesis becomes a controlling idea. In a search for what the moon's made of, green cheese is an entertaining hypothesis, a straw man if you will, but not a serious hypothesis in a serious pursuit of knowledge.
The same is true when an atheist, someone who says there is no God, posits God as an alternative hypothesis for the source of inalienable rights: S/he is willing to entertain the idea of sake of argument, but Chamberlain's approach does nothing to guard against the ease with which God as an alternative hypothesis is simply offered for entertainment's sake. Let me ask you, if you were convinced God existed, would you belief in and follow Him?
[I]f you go out on a sunny day without sunscreen, that inanimate object will endow you with a sunburn.
I understand cause and effect; a sunburn is a reaction. Are you saying inalienable rights are somehow a reaction to the Universe? We're talking here not about a reaction, but an endowment, that is, a granting or bestowing of inalienable rights. This sunburn example is tautologically appealing, but it doesn't explain how the Universe endows humans with inalienable rights.
Rights as a concept is a human construct that can encompass non-human entities. That the concept is a human construct doesn't mean humans created them,
A human construct is the understanding that we build of ourselves, the world, and the way the two work and relate. Rights as a concept then is the understanding humans build of themselves, etc. However, to then say that human understanding of rights as a concept does not mean humans created the rights begs the question: Who or what did; who or what created inalienable rights? And that's really the question that started this exchange.
Your minor premise is flawed.
The minor premise, of course, is that atheists would eliminate God as a possible answer to the question of from where inalienable right come. Even under Chamberlin's multiple hypotheses, an atheist can consider God as a possible source of inalienable rights BUT until you show me an atheist who firmly believes the Creator God of the Universe is the source of mankind's inalienable rights to the exclusion of all other sources and remains a firmly committed atheist, I will stand by my premise that atheists, because they are atheists, would elimiante God as a possible answer to the question.
Peace, A.
So you were wrong.
The Muslim hatred of the west has nothing to do with "cognitive dissonance" of the west.
It is simply that Muslims are wholly intolerant of anyone who does not agree 100% with their own peculiar beliefs. They hate everyone who isn't them, including Muslims who aren't exactly like them. We are not them. Therefore they hate us.
?????????????????????????????????????
Are you out of your mind?
Obviously you aren't familiar with the Creation Story. Let me refresh your memory : ) From Genesis.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
So what happened to the waters above, where are they? I am very interested in your nice rigorous answer to that question : )
You can't even objectively verify that you exist, much less that you can construct an objective reality based upon your senses and mental constructs.
If you are an atheist, then you are nothing more than chemicals.
Where did your senses come from? Where was your mental construct designed? If it is all one giant accident, then how can you be so assured of any conclusion that you draw from your senses and mental constructs. You are nothing more than the chemicals which comprise your body.
Different question. Your hatred of the FLDS is different from your hatred of Atheists, or Abortionists.
It is simply that Muslims are wholly intolerant of anyone who does not agree 100% with their own peculiar beliefs. They hate everyone who isn't them, including Muslims who aren't exactly like them. We are not them. Therefore they hate us.
Sound familiar?
No, but let me try a different tack. Do you consider your memory to be the same as what you are experiencing now?
Getting a bit personal there eh?
Where do you get the idea that I hate FLDS or Atheists. Frankly the FLDS are simply living the gospel according the Joseph Smith, which is a false gospel and those people should be pitied and not hated. The same goes for Atheists. They should be pitited.
As for abortionists, while I am commanded to love them, God has made it quite clear that He hates them. And if God hates, them, then they too should be pitied.
As for you, LeGrande. I pity you too.
Actually every time I look in a mirror, or my wife gives me one of her looks, I objectively verify that I exist
If you are an atheist, then you are nothing more than chemicals.
I prefer waves of nothing (Laughlin), or at least very high frequency EM waves (Feynman would prefer that explanation).
Where did your senses come from? Where was your mental construct designed? If it is all one giant accident, then how can you be so assured of any conclusion that you draw from your senses and mental constructs. You are nothing more than the chemicals which comprise your body.
At my most basic I am a wave of light (Me) : )
Are you denying your hatred of the FLDS?
Where do you get the idea that I hate FLDS or Atheists.
From your hundreds of posts on the FLDS threads? Interesting isn't it that all of the children except one have been returned?
As for you, LeGrande. I pity you too.
I don't think you meant pity, I think you meant contempt. If you are going to try and insult me couldn't you at least come up with something creative? Or at least paraphrase one of Churchill's put downs. It isn't like I haven't given you lots of fodder to work with.
I’m sorry, but that has not been my personal experience.
A child can “want and know” there’s a pony in the front yard, but if it’s not there, wishing for it doesn’t make it true.
And believe me, it would seem to be a much fairer universe if the Christian God were running it, and I would feel comfort in knowing the blessings that loved ones would receive even if denied the temporal ones here. But unfortunately, I have to face that it isn’t true.
I never said that man is a grantor of the rights...I was quite explicit in saying the opposite.
While the concept might be a human construct, that doesn't mean they don't exist without a name.
Do you have any problem with this, Gondring?
Not at all. Like many of the Founding Fathers, I recognize that our Creator doesn't have to be "God" of Christianity.
Your question about apes has man granting rights again, which I dismissed above.
Do you believe you have a soul?
Define a "soul"... First we define terms, and then discuss things...I don't want "proof by definition" or other postmodern lib garbage. Depending on how "soul" is defined, then yes. Could that soul be the result of chemical and physical interactions? Yes.
Do you think there is such a thing as human nature?
There are certain traits that are normative for humans. Does that mean every human will have those traits, that nature? No. But there could be described a normative "nature" of humans, I suppose, if we consider specific traits.
Just wondering....
Hope I satisfied your curiosity :-)
No, I really do pity you. Not that you care.
If you are going to try and insult me couldn't you at least come up with something creative?
You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
It isn't like I haven't given you lots of fodder to work with.
Really? I hadn't noticed.
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.