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
I am an atheist. I don’t need anyone else to be an atheist. I am comfortable in my own skin no matter what anyone else’s belief. Although I am probably not the norm, I get tired of hearing how ‘bad’ I am. Oh, and as an atheist, I am not likely to follow a BRAND of atheism. It takes all kinds...ALL kinds. Please start appreciating people who are different so that we can find common ground. I probably SHARE more views with religious folks than differ with them. (and yes, I loathe Obama. I am not a troll but I am not a republican either.)
I am not endangering anyone by being atheist. I think Jesus was a very wise and kind man. I just don’t believe he was the son of God (a god, whatever one is comfortable with). That doesn’t mean I expect anyone else to think or believe the same and it serves as NO THREAT to anyone. People’s religious views are personal. Why should anyone attack them?
I respectfully disagree. Seems to me that religion is an egocentric view inherently. But if it comforts someone who has lost loved one or someone who needs fellowship, I wouldn’t begrudge them. I don’t lay claim to all the answers—on the contrary, the religious do.
Yes, I believe a lot of good comes from religion. And I believe a lot of good comes from atheism. You can have it both ways.
“For an atheist to reject religion means only that he has failed to understand it, precisely. A confession of atheism is simply an honest confession of ignorance of any realities that transcend the human ego, nothing more, nothing less.”
Thank you. You saw it the way I intended it anyway...but I tweaked my wording.
I’m curious, and with all due respect, as an athiest, do you believe we have inalienable rights? If so, what makes them inalienable?
Without a divine creator God of the universe, we’re all just random chemical reactions and Hitler’s actions were merely an example of natural selection.
Rather than telling you you’re bad, whatever that means, let me share this from Romans 1:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
And from Psalm 53:1
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,” They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good.
That “no one” part includes me, and you, and everyone else.
But here’s the good news from Romans 10:
That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
Peace, A
I mean no disrespect, but I would ask you to carefully examine the philosophical bases of atheism and reconsider them in the light of reason. The greatest minds the human race has ever produced all found atheism to be bankrupt and unsatisfactory; I suspect that, upon serious reflection, you will as well.
“do you believe we have inalienable rights? If so, what makes them inalienable?”
Yes, I do believe that we have natural inalienable rights. Why? For me, I love my life AND I love people in my life: my family, friends... When you have love, you realize, you wouldn’t want anything to happen to that love or to those loved ones. For me this is the core of my moral code.
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.
From what I can see, people that don’t get that kind of love in their life, well, they don’t learn that lesson very easy. And they can’t be taught it and I am skeptical with good reason that they can simply be told that God (a god) loves them and expect that to replace human love. They have to experience it. It’s harder for them, I know, but they must respect this inalienable right. There are consequences for the blatant disregard of human life, because crime is a cancer. Domestic violence is a cancer. Hate is a cancer.
So.. I support causes that may seem wishy washy to some, because I truly believe that unless the unloved get loved, they are facing an obstacle that’s going to be pretty hard to overcome. They don’t learn to respect the pain of others.
Of course this is an oversimplification and I am sure you can see how I apply this in all different kinds of ways. For instance, some love isn’t healthy and doesn’t do a thing to ingrain natural inalienable rights. 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?
“The greatest minds the human race has ever produced all found atheism to be bankrupt and unsatisfactory;”
“The greatest minds”: that’s subjective
Bankrupt? how so?
Unsatisfactory? Only if you have to know you have salvation. I don’t need to know that I guess. I have other motives that drive me in this world. Less self-serving motives, IMO. I dunno, I just don’t get that: “unsatisfactory.” Who says?
[[I am not endangering anyone by being atheist.]]
I am referrign to those atheists who are trying to change our constitution, change our way of life, and force everyoen to accept their ‘moral values’- I don’t htink you fall into that category
[[People’s religious views are personal. Why should anyone attack them?]]
Beleive me a great many atheists are doing just that today- I might also add secularists to that category- A prime example of atheists tryign to force their minority view on the majority of Americans who hols the universal moral code in high esteme are people like Michael Neudow who is personally attackign Christian values, and tryign to tear down our constitution and moral values
My post was NOT directed at individual atheists who are content allowing America to be made up of many different faiths or a non faith if one so chooses, like yourself, but rather it was directed at activist atheists and secularists who won’t be happy till our country has denied God and destroyed itself in the process
“resulting in salvation.”
Yes, I don’t need this. I am not interested in what I get when I die. I am only going to make my energy as positive as possible so when it leaves it’s physical vehicle—my body, it is positive energy. Afterall, enrgy is neither gained nor lost.
Even if my energy goes into a lightbulb, I shall burn brightly and happily.
“My post was NOT directed at individual atheists who are content allowing America to be made up of many different faiths or a non faith if one so chooses, like yourself, but rather it was directed at activist atheists and secularists who won’t be happy till our country has denied God and destroyed itself in the process”
Thank you. Believe it or not, I needed to hear that.
I found common ground with conservatives during this election. I am not willing to give that up. Let’s go with it.
Yet somehow, dear brother in Christ, I sense or feel that you would have the time and interest.
Please weigh in if/as you can.
Are you aware that Science is philosophically unsound, proceeding as it does from unproven and unprovable premises?
Might Makes Right.
That 'philosophy' tends to permeate religion too. Do I need to point out a few typical examples?
I would ask you to carefully examine the philosophical bases of atheism and reconsider them in the light of reason.
You are confused. Atheism like Science is not based on philosophy or logic. It is based on evidence or the lack thereof, in the case of religion.
Personally, I don’t like anyone who forces their beliefs or non-beliefs on anyone.
On that note, despite my several posts and the lengthy one, I am not here to convert, I just want to assure you.
[[On that note, despite my several posts and the lengthy one, I am not here to convert, I just want to assure you.]]
Too late- I’ve renounced my salvation, and just hope and pray I’m making hte right gamble and that there is no eternal hell after life- I hated beign secure in the knowledge I’d be with God for eternity- I’m much rather gamble. J/K
There’s no such thing as proof. Evidence perceived via the senses is fallible; for all you know, the Universe is a figment of your imagination, and you are dreaming all of this.
Nothing can be proven in any objective sense; the best we can do is examine the data conveyed to us by our fallible, subjective senses and decide on the basis of faith alone what relationship (if any) these sensory data have to a universe external to and independent of ourselves (if any).
The only things you can know for sure to exist are those things that you directly experience, rather than things you perceive via the senses.
I have nothing to add to nor detract from your beautiful testimony.
May God ever bless your truthful inquiry!
Prove it.
Prove 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.