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
LOL Haven't read much philosophy, I see...
You can always choose to be loving and respectful to humanity. The problem is that people DON’T make that choice. That’s why we have the world that we have.
Religion must be based on both faith and reality. Of course, there will be an element of faith present.
However, any religion that strays too far from reality will be easily disproven.
Therefore, the best religion will be that which most closely aligns with reality, fact, and truth.
However, the truth of religion will primarily be the type of truth one searches for in history and archeology. I cannot prove to you, for example, that Lincoln is actually the mind that gave rise to the Gettysburg Address. He could have simply written as someone whispered words in his ear.
However, it is his handwriting. Is that 100% proof? Nope. But, it is logically true within a reasonable doubt.
With no rights given by God but permissions given by humans..
NO rights............ but merely privileges..
No, his followers did...
“He never commands people to worship Him.”
That’s exactly why I am comfortable being an atheist. No one promised me justice...you get that on earth if you get it at all.
“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.”
The Bible speaks a lot about faith too. If it were all about proofs, it probably wouldn't have appeared as "foolishness to the Greeks". The paradox is that the things that can't be proven are more real than the things that can. Nothing can be more real to us than our sensory perceptions and our thoughts. The fact that we can't prove what the color red looks like or that we have a conscious mind or that we love someone doesn't make them not real. We experience the reality of these things concretely and immediately, so no abstract proof is required. Any attempt to prove them leaves you with something less real and less convincing than the thing itself. Look at God himself -- he doesn't bother with abstract proofs. He just says I AM and leaves it at that.
What the heck does this mean? What's the difference between "directly experience" and "perceive via the senses"?
You: 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.
We are all creatures “in” space/time. We have very limited sensory perception and our mental abilities are finite. Space/time is finite.
Cosmic microwave background radiation measurements since the 1960’s consistently agree that space/time is expanding, that there was a beginning of real space and real time in this universe. That was the most theological statement ever to come out of modern science (Jastrow) – “In the beginning” (Genesis 1, John 1)
In the absence of space, things cannot exist.
In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
Physical causality requires space and time. Indeed, all physical cosmologies (multi-verse, multi-world, imaginary time, cyclic, ekpyrotic, etc.) rely on space/time for physical causation. That is the poison pill to atheism.
There had to be an uncaused cause of space/time and therefore, physical causation. And the only candidate for uncaused cause is God.
So even if a person has no spiritual discernment whatsoever – no “ears to hear” – still, if he is a rational thinker and cares to think about the evidence as objectively as he can, he will conclude that God is and also, that man cannot measure Him, cannot put Him under a microscope, observe Him with a telescope, draw pictures of Him or subject Him to mortal judgments, etc.
He might be Deist, he might think that God started it and then walked away or ceased to exist, he might rationalize Him in Platonic or Aristotlean terms or vague philosophies or mysticisms - but the evidence is so great, the rational man would not ignore it.
Those who do ignore the evidence are the type 1 atheists in my post #45. Marxism is fueled by them precisely because they are not rational thinkers.
What about The High Order of Proselytizing Atheists or the Anarchists United for a Stronger Government?
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.
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Or how about thought itself? When you talk to yourself, who is "speaking"? Who is "hearing"? With what "ear" do you hear yourself think?
Imagine you have been given a powerful anesthetic that has left your entire body perfectly numb. You are then masked, equipped with a breathing tube, and placed in a sensory-deprivation tank, floating perfectly still in the darkness, masked and numb yet fully conscious as you lie suspended in body temperature salt water.
You cannot see, hear, feel, touch, taste, smell, or otherwise perceive anything with your senses -- yet you remain conscious, aware, and awake. Now, ask yourself: what can I know for certain while I am in this condition?
Those things which can be known for certain without recourse to the senses constitute that which is known by direct experience. As you float there in the tank, you can know certainly that you exist -- yet you know this by direct experience, not from your senses. You do not "feel" yourself existing, nor do you touch, taste, or smell your own existence; you simply ARE. You experience your existence directly. You do not "sense" yourself; you ARE yourself. Cogito, ergo sum.
Christianity is easily disproven. All of its prophecies have failed to materialize. Christianity doesn't have a single accurate verifiable prophecy that has been fulfilled. Christianity is falsified.
But like AGW alarmists, the falsification of their models makes them even more strident. Cognitive dissonance hurts. Cognitive dissonance is also why the Moslems hate the west.
I’ve heard some atheists say that the existence of horror and evil in the world “adds more flavor to life”. I find that to be a disgusting statement, I don’t know if you feel the same.
There are so many other challenges that humanity could be facing without having to deal with crime, poverty, and insanity. We could be traveling to the stars right now! It angers me that there is basically no chance whatsoever of one day seeing a civilization that treats all of its members with utmost respect and awe and whose only true concern is progress and adventure. That day will never come.
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.