The Atheist Perversion of Reality

April 5, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[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

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:Essentially it is waves of nothing. Try that on for size : )

Waves of nothing explained! Understand where they come from:

Here

And here

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the links, dear mrjesse!

[LeGrande]

Mr. Jesse doesn’t understand that the speed of light isn’t instantaneous.

[Alamo-Girl]

Mr. Jesse doesn’t understand that the speed of light isn’t instantaneous.

I do not see where mrjesse has claimed that the speed of light is instantaneous from an observer's perspective.

One of the postulates of Special Relativity is that the speed of light is a universal finite constant it is the same in any inertial frame. An inertial frame is tied to the state of motion of an observer.

Lurkers interested in Special Relativity, might enjoy this excellent, animated introduction.

I hasten to add that for a photon traveling at the speed of light - from the photon's perspective - no time elapses. That is a "null path." For more, see Minkowskian Geometry. But neither of you seem to be "going there."

Also, concerning this ongoing dispute on "where is the sun, really" I thought both of you might enjoy this tool:

MIDC Solar Position Algorithm (SPA) Calculator

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:Mr. Jesse doesn’t understand that the speed of light isn’t instantaneous.

Replied Alamo-Girl: I do not see where mrjesse has claimed that the speed of light is instantaneous from an observer's perspective.

You are correct, Alamo-Girl: I have not claimed and do not claim or believe that the speed of light is instantaneous. I'm well aware that it has a finite speed, and takes time to complete a path. If LeGrande thinks he can demonstrate his claim, then by all means I wish he would. At one time after my honesty was called into question, I actually published an exhaustive list (at that time) of everything I'd ever said on any forum on FR so it was easy for LeGrande to search it as one big document for keywords to help him find where I'd lied. It's still available here. Of course nothing came of it. But I honestly have nothing to hide!

LeGrande has never shown any of my current understanding of physics to be incorrect nor has he cited any scientific source which backs up his understanding of the matter. And, he heretofore diligently neglects to answer my color coded questions. And I've answered all of his kinds of questions which were intended to test my understanding of physics.

I say all this to say that it is my goal to be open, honest, and to learn. If someone can show me that I'm wrong, I will gladly change my view. But of course I will want to make sure that the new view fits with reality - and so when someone comes along and tells me I'm wrong and that their understanding is correct, but then if they refuse to apply their theory to reality, what am I to think? Why would I not logically conclude that theirs is a perversion of reality?

I have come to the solid conclusion that there are folks out there who go about knowingly and willingly arguing for ideas that simply do not fit with reality. And as honest people or scientists, we must make sure that ideas we here or see poeple preaching do indeed fit reality.

That's what makes FR so great!

Thank you,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

I have not claimed and do not claim or believe that the speed of light is instantaneous. I'm well aware that it has a finite speed, and takes time to complete a path. If LeGrande thinks he can demonstrate his claim, then by all means I wish he would.

I have tried many times : ( mrjesse simply doesn't seem to understand frames of reference, two body problems, or that there is not a universal 'now' in relativistic physics.

Good luck on explaining that to him.

I have come to the solid conclusion that there are folks out there who go about knowingly and willingly arguing for ideas that simply do not fit with reality. And as honest people or scientists, we must make sure that ideas we here or see poeple preaching do indeed fit reality.

Reality is not always what you may think it is. When you look at a star you are actually seeing photons that left it a long time ago. In effect you are looking back in time, to what things were like in the past and in some cases the very distant past (billions of years). I know that this view of reality doesn't agree with your idea that all creation occured 12,000 years ago and I have no hope or desire to change your mind.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so very much for sharing your perspectives and insights!

mrjesse: I have come to the solid conclusion that there are folks out there who go about knowingly and willingly arguing for ideas that simply do not fit with reality. And as honest people or scientists, we must make sure that ideas we here or see poeple preaching do indeed fit reality.

So very true, dear mrjesse!

However, ones concept of what reality “is” often affects what he accepts or rejects as fitting with reality.

For instance, some people believe that all that exists is that which can be physically observed, e.g. with a telescope or microscope. To them, anything not physical is an illusion. They would say (and have) that the mind is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain, a secondary phenomenon which cannot cause anything to happen.

Because such a person lives in a highly reduced world of his own imagining, our mention of things outside his world are not “real” to him though they are quite “real” to us, e.g. universals in mathematics including information theory, consciousness, mind, soul and spirit. And most especially, God.

LeGrande: I have tried many times : ( mrjesse simply doesn't seem to understand frames of reference, two body problems, or that there is not a universal 'now' in relativistic physics.

Special Relativity approaches the issue of time as if space/time were not warped. In General Relativity, space/time is warped, time and gravity are interrelated, the higher the gravity the deeper the indentation in space/time, the slower time elapses: A Light Take on the Gravity-Time Relationship.

Those who do not consider General Relativity may think of time as a persistent illusion. Those who focus on General Relativity (like me) see it as geometry.

I do not support your out-of-hand dismissal of a universal ‘now’ because the concept is tied to ones sense of “reality” whether he expresses it as physical cosmology, relativity theory, philosophy or theology.

Indeed, multiple time dimension theories – especially those invoking an additional expanded time-like dimension (Wesson) – suggest time is a plane or volumetric, i.e. that past present and future exist concurrently. This of course messes with the concept of an arrow of time and physical causation on the one hand but, on the other hand, is useful to understanding other phenomena such as non-locality and superposition.

And although many correspondents are aware of both Special Relativity and General Relativity they often argue about the age of the universe as if time were absolute. That’s why, when brought into the debate, I usually just finish sentences:

The universe is some 15 billion years old from our space/time coordinates

and

the universe is some 6 thousand years old from the inception space/time coordinates.

On this forum, I suspect the most common concept of a universal now is timelessness or the perspective beyond space and time.

That of course is God the Creator’s perspective, seeing everywhere and every when all at once.

And it can be seen as the “bird” perspective in Tegmark’s Level IV Parallel Universe physical cosmology which is based on radical Platonism.

In Zen Buddhism “eternal now” is living in the moment - which New Agers take up as something akin to "if it feels good, do it."

In Jewish mysticism, “eternal now” means that all of time (past, present, future) is "present" to God.

Also in Jewish mysticism as well as Christian belief, “eternal now” is the awareness of timelessness while yet in the flesh.

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:3

And there are levels of awareness of this being at the intersection between time and timelessness. A recent theory of relativity by Fineman suggests two realities, one of space which is “real” and the other time which is “abstract.” The concept can be visualized on a complex number plane.

Those who are not yet born again, may sense the moment by reasoning or logic even though they never actually perceive in the “now” – e.g. there is a gap between sensory perception and cognition of it.

And some – whether Christian or not - may sense timelessness but secondary to a sense of time passing, an arrow of time. They may sense that they do not belong “here.”

And still others' sense of timelessness surpasses their sense of time passing. I am one of the these, I am more aware of being alive in timelessness than I am of being alive in the flesh:

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. - Galatians 2:20

I should also note, at the risk of sounding mystical, that a common testimony of those who have spiritually meaningful dreams or visions is that time is the moment, i.e. the Eternal Now. In their sense, the arrow of time is an illusion.

In sum, I suspect the root of your dispute is the irreconcilable difference between what each of you “know” to be “real.”

For more on that subject, I defer to betty boop on epistemology.

God’s Name is I AM.

[LeGrande]

I do not support your out-of-hand dismissal of a universal ‘now’ because the concept is tied to ones sense of “reality” whether he expresses it as physical cosmology, relativity theory, philosophy or theology.

Lets read what you said a little further down.

The universe is some 15 billion years old from our space/time coordinates
and
the universe is some 6 thousand years old from the inception space/time coordinates.

I would agree with your second statement if your reference coordinate is something traveling just slightly under the speed of light. You may notice that your second statement contradicts your first statement that there is a universal now.

The whole point of the the theory of relativity is that time is relative.

[Alamo-Girl]

To the contrary, LeGrande, both statements are true - what the observer perceives is relative to his space/time coordinates.

The "catch" is that from a perspective beyond or outside of space and time - both are true at once, i.e. universal "now."

[xzins]

You may notice that your second statement contradicts your first statement that there is a universal now.

I don't see that. I see the opposite; that it supports it.

Not being a student of philosophy, physics, or special relativity, I can look only at the words. To argue that at this point 5 seconds pass, and that at that point 1 second passes, seems to me to suggest that any outside observer would be the "now".

[Alamo-Girl]

Precisely so, dear brother in Christ!

Thank you so very much for your encouragements!

[xzins]

I’m so humbled in these discussions, sister. But even in them, every now and then some things just appear to be common sense.

[LeGrande]

Not being a student of philosophy, physics, or special relativity, I can look only at the words. To argue that at this point 5 seconds pass, and that at that point 1 second passes, seems to me to suggest that any outside observer would be the "now".

No, that would be just another time reference. There is no absolute baseline to measure against.

[xzins]

Not in this case, since we’re talking about the observer being outside of space/time.

[Alamo-Girl]

The discussion is humbling to me, too. Those who are not humbled by it might wish to reflect on Einstein's remarks here:

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.

Albert Einstein, “My Credo,” presented to the German League of Human Rights, Berlin, autumn 1932, in Einstein: A Life in Science, Michael White and John Gribbin, ed., London: Simon & Schuster, 1993, page 262.

[Alamo-Girl]

Not in this case, since we’re talking about the observer being outside of space/time.

Again, precisely so.

It should be noted that if LeGrande's sense of "reality" excludes anything or anyone "beyond" space/time - then to him, there can be no such observer even though we know Him personally. We know His Name, I AM.

[Hank Kerchief]

“For an atheist to reject religion means only that he has failed to understand it, precisely.”

Perhaps you can explain it then.

There are theists who believe everyone is born in sin, already condemned unless they are converted and God has to do the converting. There are other theists who believe sin is chosen and that salvation is chosen. Do both these kinds of theist “understand” their religion?

And which kind of theist are you, if you don’t mind my asking?

Hank

[LeGrande]

The "catch" is that from a perspective beyond or outside of space and time - both are true at once, i.e. universal "now."

Aside from the trivial little detail that there is nothing outside of space and time : ) Lets see if we can't have some fun with a thought experiment.

We know that in our Space/Time, all the 'nows' are equivalent and all are different. There is no definitive frame of reference and from different perspectives events can happen in different orders and time periods.

Now how would this appear to an entity that has no space or 'time'? It couldn't see anything happening because events are a function of time and it has no 'time'. Essentially time is stopped for that entity and nothing ever happens. This observation would be the same as someone traveling at the speed of light, for them everything would be frozen, time would stand still for eternity.

Or everything that ever happens, happens in the same instance, which is functionally the same as nothing happening.

The only way for the observer to see our space/time is to be part of it : ) These are precisely the kind of questions that Relativity and QM are trying to answer and the inescapable conclusion so far is that the observer is inherently part of the equation.

[TXnMA]

Thank you, dear Sister, for the "invite" to this discussion, and for your -- as always -- thoughtful and faithful discussions! You wrote:

The "catch" is that from a perspective beyond or outside of space and time - both are true at once, i.e. universal "now."

I place a distinction between the perceived duration of time, and the dimensionless, instantaneous state of the universe -- your "universal now".

For example, we tend to think that photos like this APOD image:

represent a "partial snapshot" of the "universal now" -- when they absolutely do not do so. Beyond a doubt, there are, within that image, objects that no longer existed in the state and position depicted -- at the "instant" the photo was made.

Astronomical distance from our POV and the speed of light so dictate.

I submit (or agree) that it is physically impossible for any observer confined to a reference frame within our universal system to experience your "universal now".

I agree completely: only an observer viewing "from a perspective beyond or outside of space and time" can perceive the state of the universe as it truly exists at any instant -- your "universal now".

It is my understanding and belief that there is only One who IS capable of that feat -- the One Who created all that is -- space, time, matter -- and spirit ..."I AM".

[Hank Kerchief]

“And I believe a lot of good comes from atheism.”

I do not believe in a God of any kind, though do not claim to be an atheist, just because I think the term is absurd. I don’t believe in a phoenix either, but I don’t call myself an aphoenixist. I think it is silly to label myself by what I don’t believe in.

So I also don’t believe “good comes from atheism,” because it is actually nothing. I know atheists who are truly virtuous, independent individuals who are productive, creative, honest, desire nothing more than they can earn by their own efforts, are reasonable and would willingly die in the fight for the freedom of all men—and they mind their own business, something many Christians have not learned to do, and which their Bible plainly teaches.

Hank