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
Interesting imagery.
Okay, so think of it this way. We're on the Earth, which has a breathable atmosphere, a relatively mild temperature range compared to the rest of the solar system, plenty of water and other life to provide food. Now what if we had the capability to will ourselves into deep space just because we took Earth for granted and didn't particularly feel comfortable enough in its confines. We would die a horrible death if we decided to do so. Would Earth be to blame?
Also, you might want to look up what is considered worship in Christianity. It's not just singing and bowing down. And if you look at instances of worship in the presence of God in the Bible, He never commands people to worship Him.
No.
Yeah it's sad when philosophy professors look at a traditionally translated ancient text and without the knowledge of the idioms of the time, or the translation's introduction of the religious concepts of their time and the traditions that carried the wording on, start going on a tangent that depends on the misunderstanding of both.
The only thing you can answer. Self contradiction has a way of silencing you.
No self-contradiction is involved in refusing to answer a meaningless question. I’m not playing schoolyard word games with you.
You can provide no proof.
Because proof does not exist.
Prove it.
“The above is an anthropomorphism of God, it imposes human traits on One Who is not human. “
Honestly, I have a hard time taking this answer seriously, what would you call that kind of need? I only know humans, I cannot be worried about being judged for having rational thoughts based on my experiences in life.
I guess you think you’ve got him trapped or something, but he’s being perfectly consistent. Every proof ultimately resolves back to our perceptions, which are self-evident, unproven, and unprovable. Or have you figured out some proof for these? If so, that’s quite a feat given that no one prior to you has managed it.
I’m awful surprised anyone laying claim to a Biblical faith does this. Well, not surprised. Anybody can “claim” anything. But the Bible speaks of showing, demonstrating, proving. Deny this and still call yourself a Christian and I’ll laugh at you.
Agree, Hitler was trying to force selection, that’s what survival of the fittest, which Darwin equated with natural selection, is all about. Hitler’s behavior was aberrent? Without God and absolute truth, what is aberrent behavior? What you say it is? What I say it is? If we’re all just random chemical reactions and there’s no God or absolute truths, what makes one view superior to another?
Saying that inalienable rights come from a “whatever” Creator sidesteps the argument because “whatever” is the issue: From where did they come?
Perhaps God? No self-respecting atheist would say God endowed us with inalienable rights.
The Big Bang is included in your definition of Creator, but it didn’t furnish, provide or otherwise endow anything to anyone: It was a random event, so the theory goes, that spawned the simplist of life forms which, according to Evolution, evolved into humans.
Perhaps the Universe endowed us with inalienable rights? How in the world (pun intended) did it do that? The Universe is an inanimate object, a location.
We have inalienable rights because we’re humans? Under the Big Bang and Evolution theories, humans weren’t created, they evolved. How did any of the life forms from which we evolved endow us with inalienable rights? And did they suddenly come into existence with humans or did all prior life forms have inalienable rights too?
Because my questions were directed at atheists and because atheists would eliminate God as a possible answer, your post is not entirely responsive and thus far doesn’t, I think, promote a meaningful debate.
Peace, A.
Uh, no. Survival of the fittest is a natural process that leads to the fittest for a given environmental niche, not necessarily the strongest, brightest, etc. Hitler wanted the opposite of that. Hitler wanted to subvert natural selection and do what people had done with plants and animals for millenia--artificial selection.
Perhaps God? No self-respecting atheist would say God endowed us with inalienable rights.
I never said God did. But are you saying that an atheist cannot use Chamberlin's multiple working hypotheses? What other scientific methods would you deny me based on my beliefs? I don't believe the moon is made of green cheese, but I have no problem entertaining the hypothesis.
Perhaps the Universe endowed us with inalienable rights? How in the world (pun intended) did it do that? The Universe is an inanimate object, a location.
And if you go out on a sunny day without sunscreen, that inanimate object will endow you with a sunburn. Inanimate doesn't mean inert and idle.
And did they suddenly come into existence with humans or did all prior life forms have inalienable rights too?
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, any more than the idea of "freedom" means that all animals were tied to stakes until humans arrived.
Because my questions were directed at atheists and because atheists would eliminate God as a possible answer, your post is not entirely responsive and thus far doesn’t, I think, promote a meaningful debate.
Your minor premise is flawed.
Peace, A.
Truth and Justice, G. :-)
Define “proof” and I will.
Thank you for the ping, sister.
Reading through the article and the responses, both pro and con, I’m struck by the positions taken.
I expect that they’ll be proven on the basis of their proximity to reality. Reality strikes me as immutable. As a believer in God, I am convinced of His realness. Ultimately, Reality is God who is the uncaused Cause. Therefore, any objections will eventually come up against that unmovable Wall and will be stopped dead in their tracks...simply because they have no basis in fact (only in human imagination).
This is true of any position counter to God. Whether Islam, Atheism, Scientism, or any other religion or philosphy, they all will stand or fall on the basis of their alignment with Reality.
Sometimes the separation from Reality is so extreme that the opponent hits the Wall sooner rather than later. (Sun worship for example.)
Interestingly, even our behaviors are weighed in this balance of Reality. Romans teaches us that those who cling to an Unreality must turn to that which is Unnatural, and thus, some of their unnatural behaviors will cause individuals to hit the Wall, the devastating impact on their well-being taking them from the stage of life. (Homosexual disease, for example, the result of, at a minimum, the religion of Self-Worship/Narcissism.)
Such will be the case with Atheism. The seeds of its own destruction, and/or that of its adherents, are inbuilt. Sooner or later, the directions an adherence to unreality allows the adherent to take, that seem rational to the adherent, are going to confront Reality. Sometimes that confrontation is a devastating crashing into the Wall. Sometimes its the slow approach to the immovable, unscalable Wall.
One cannot escape Reality....especially there is no escaping the One who is Ultimate Reality.
However, WHOSOEVER calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
No, religion is based purely on faith, nothing else is required. It is primarily circular logic. Science however is based on evidence and observation.
That is why on threads like this the religious try to use pure logic (based on faulty assumptions) to try and 'prove' their position. Reality though is based on what actually is, not a logical construct in somebodies mind.
Evidently the biblical cartoon of the same subject is beyond many readers and thinkers.. Even-though that cartoon crosses and has crossed all dialect and cultural lines..
The cartoon of which I speak is Satans gospel to Eve.. "Eat of the tree(of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) because once you do, you will know what God knows...".. This cartoon says the same as you've said(and more) in much fewer words and in cartoon(metaphorical) terms.. Seems that cartoons can bridge dialect and culture the way no other verbal instrument can..
Seems that the book of genesis is just full of Mega-toons and Mini-toons.. which form Mega-toons.. I know, I know some can use Macro-toons and Micro-toons.. but that is a debate for future iterations of....
the Gospel of SATAN!.. (ominous music)..
I can’t speak for the Miss but I am very uncomfortable with atheism. Technically I’m an agnostic but disbelief is disbelief. The main problem with a godless universe is that you are left without justice. Mankind has had millennia to figure out how to remove its own corruption and we have made ZERO progress. Even Christian societies and empires failed miserably. This is why I am not an anti-theist. I don’t give a damn about what Ayn Rand and other atheist philosophers call “loyalty to reason” or the “morality of pure reason”. There is no justice in this would. Therefore, God MUST exist even if he certainly doesn’t.
Despite this stance, I don’t know how to escape the position that I’m in. I’ve been trying to believe for years and I’ve found absolutely nothing that could convince my mind. Mere feelings of “God’s presence” would not be enough since my mind would quickly dismiss their validity. The reason why I don’t dismiss the possibility of God is that it is very difficult for anyone to imagine supernatural evidence that can be totally distinguished from natural evidence. Even the resurrection of dead humans, as fantastic as it would seem, could still be regarded by a skeptic as a super-rare natural phenomenon. Likewise, how are we to demonstrate that all known natural phenomena are indeed natural and not supernatural? This is why I am an agnostic and not a positive atheist. I’m not certain that supernatural things don’t exist but I can’t confirm them either.
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.