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, I don’t need this. I am not interested in what I get when I die.]]
I don;t understand htis- why, if there were the real possibility, that God is who He says He is, and htere is indeed a heaven and hell- which will both be eternal, and hell is eternal suffering, woudl you gamble on your life beign nothign but energy with no soul? I just don’t get it. The risk of eternal damnation is simply too great to gamble in my opinion. When life is over, there’s no chance to say “Whoops- Maybe I was wrong”-
IF it turns out htere’s no God- then when I die, I’ve lsot absolutely nothign by believing- IF however, there is a God, then I’ve not risked eternity in hell by not bel;ieving (And let me just state quickly, that we who accept Salvation find God to be true to His word, real, and personally itnerested and active in our lives- so I am speakign fro mexperience here when I state I know God to be real- I know you find it hard to beleive peopel can know God personally, because you feel He doesn’t exist,, but htere it is- one gets to know God is real when one puts their trust in Him, and not until- one can suspect, of course, but can’t really know for sure until they take that one last step- at which point God imediately confirms His identity and existence in that persons life)
I’m not goign to preach- you beleive what you do, but just wanted to know why an atheist is willing to take such a gamble with such severe consequences if it turns out God really is who He says He is- As a Holy God, He MUST punish sin- sin and holiness can not coexist together- but fortunately, He did provide a way of compelte forgiveness- once for all. Why trust a mind only capable of partial knowledge when we can trust the Omniscient all knowing mind? The risk- to me, simpyl is too great that hte beleif that God doesn’t exist is true. There’s nothign to be lost by beleiving in Him- nothign at all, and everythign to be gained.
I don’t have to prove it. You are the one claiming that “proof” exists. It is up to you to “prove” that your claim is valid.
I can demonstrate rationally that “proof” is a meaningless concept, however. Please feel free to advance a definition of “proof” and I’ll be happy to demolish it for you.
Pascal’s Wager...
Well good grief, MissTickly. What the hail is "the norm?" Exactly whut the hail passes for "normality" these days? And whut the hail standard exists that can tell the good from the bad that would be of interest to the currently prevailing public mind?
I imagine that it might be the failure to discriminate between good and bad that makes it impossible to objectively define what "normality" is in the first place.
So, if you feel the society around you does not "judge" you as "normal," well — join the freaking club.
Personally, I'm always glad to greet the new members.
As I have mentioned before I perceive three different kinds of atheists: 1) the ones who don't believe but don't mind if you do, 2) the ones who don't believe and want to tell you why as if they only have questions or need proof, and 3) the ones who are activist anti-God and usually more specifically, anti-Christ.
God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for a half century and counting.
So it is tempting to chuckle whenever an atheist tells me that God does not exist.
The first type of atheists are unreachable, they simply don't care. They are content in their "Second Reality." This is where the Marxists would like everyone to live.
And the third type reek of rebelliousness. Why would they work so hard to attack some one or some thing they do not believe exists? It will not end well for them:
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying], Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. – Psalms 2:1-5
And we are reminded that doubting Thomas was an Apostle, too.
So we continue in the debate, serving up words of God intermingled with our testimony and reasoning.
The bottom line is that if a person has "ears to hear" he will.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43
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. - I Cor 2:15
Prove it.
Wanna bet, Blaise? ;-)
“I [love] being secure in the knowledge I’d be with God for eternity- I’m much rather gamble.”
I am happy for you, really.
Fair enough. I guess it just takes more for me to be convinced than you or someone else...
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.
good night, folks. Thanks for letting me get my 2¢ in...
[[Although I am probably not the norm, I get tired of hearing how ‘bad’ I am.]]
Just think of how tired God gets of tryign to get it through our skulls just how bad we really are?
We’re ALL bad MissTickly- but those who accept Christ are forgiven- that doesn’t make us good- just forgiven, and it doesn’t mean we’re more deservign of anything- we’re not- we’re still sinners. Go’ds gift is pure grace and underservign mercy- it’s not somethign we earn.
“The risk of eternal damnation is simply too great to gamble in my opinion.”
I just have to answer this one more very good, good question.
Here’s my non-branded atheism concerning this: IF there was a God, and I am only giving it the teeny tiniest of chances, but I acknowledge that astronomical chance. THEN I further believe that He/She is probably not concerned with whether or not I was convinced of His/Her existence based on what I see on this earth. He/She will have had much more important and less egotistical things on His/Her mind. Besides, who wants to spend eternity with an egomaniac personality that is so self conscious that they really think, “Love only me, Worship me, etc..”
Maybe I choose to not want to be around anyone like that. Especially not for an eternity. I’ve been burned by that kind before.
And I don’t mean that in any ugly way if that offends anyone, please forgive my crude explanation. And please be gentle with me because I am being honest about how I feel...
LOL, thanks...
“Personally, I’m always glad to greet the new members.”
Actually, Hitler was trying to force selection, not go with natural selection (unless you are saying that Hitler's actions were natural).
But even if it were natural, the societal instinct within man would promote self-preservation by fighting such aberrent, dangerous creatures as Hitler.
We are endowed with our rights by our Creator, whatever that is...perhaps God, perhaps The Universe...but whatever endowed us with them, we have them as humans.
I fail to understand how someone can "decide" to believe in something that they don't believe, just because of Pascal's Wager. Honestly, I don't understand this concept of changing one's beliefs to something else just because it might seem more beneficial.
If I'd get a cookie for believing the sky were polka-dotted, I could only claim that I believe...but I wouldn't actually believe it. How do you do such a thing?
This is an honest inquiry to any who can explain. Thank you.
This part stood out to me. I remember in my philosophy class in college the professor was opining on what the "forbidden fruit" in the garden of Eden actually did. His points were that if it was really knowledge of "good and evil" that the Bible states, then how could God morally judge someone who didn't know right from wrong? And if it was not that, then it couldn't be bad, since God Himself states that the fruit made mankind "more like one of us".
In short the fruit did not give a moral compass to those without it, but instead set it adrift. We can now decide our own reality for ourselves thanks to the fruit, but we aren't God, and have no true authority to impose such dreamed-up realities upon others (or even, ultimately, ourselves). So the lie that atheists tell themselves, that they are somehow in their judgment above reality, comes straight from the effects of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Atheism, without need for ritual or structure, lays bare the fruit's effects that other philosophies and religions attempt to obscure.
“This is an honest inquiry to any who can explain. Thank you.”
uh, don’t look at me...*whistles and walks away*
Mine opined that it was kind of like a parent turning on an oven and telling a toddler to not touch the oven. Then the parent runs outside and watches through the window and jumps out and says, “Aha!” when the kid gets burned. That always stuck with me.
“This part stood out to me. I remember in my philosophy class in college the professor was opining on what the “forbidden fruit””
LOL
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.