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
Can you define information for me such that only living things can carry it and death is the absence of it?
Ever see Godfather? A dead horse’s head definitely conveyed information! ;)
My definition has nothing to do with what life looks like, it defines what actions are necessary and sufficient to describe something as alive.
Do you think anything in biology that has purpose is a doorway to finding the ULTIMATE purpose?
DNA polymerase is the enzyme responsible for the “replication” part of the definition. The function of DNA polymerase is to replicate DNA. The “purpose” of DNA polymerase is to perform that function.
Non-living (rocks, etc.) and dead things in nature do not successfully communicate. Living things do.
The horse as an autonomous living thing was no longer successfully communicating, the horse was dead. However, some bacteria, fleas etc. may still have been successfully communicating autonomously inside or on the dead horse's head.
Indeed, along the way to death of the horse, some molecular machinery may have been alive while others were dead.
That is another neat thing about the Shannon model - it is completely transportable because it is mathematics. It doesn't matter if you are talking about molecular machinery, bacteria, bacterial spores, colonies of army ants, the biosphere, artificial intelligence, computing, postal service, radio, tv etc.
Autonomy and broadcast are built into the model.
The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics (Wigner) is like God's copyright notice on the cosmos.
The existence of purpose in nature can also be seen that way.
So can the existence of information (successful communication.)
Jesus' Name is Logos and I AM. And He spoke everything into being. And He speaks to us now.
Any non Earth type life form would, as a necessity, need to be an organization of molecules that consumed energy to maintain and replicate its own molecular structure.
It is quite simply a requirement of physics that life must be organized, and that organization can only come about by consuming energy.
The problem with the Shannon postulate is that it doesn’t actually convey any useful information about what life is.
Dead things can convey MUCH information. Ever hear of an autopsy? Ever watch CSI?
Where there is successful communication, there is life.
And the Shannon definition is universal, it is mathematics, it is not limited to biological life on this earth.
Extraterrestrial life, if there is any, would need to be organized and to consume energy to maintain and replicate that organization.
The organization part has something to do with what the life form will look like, but I didn't specify a particular type of organization (a fur bearing tetrapod) which would make it have anything at all with what life looks like.
The definition provided has everything to do with what reactions are necessary and sufficient for there to be life.
Science doesn't want to talk about "purpose" dearest sister in Christ. For "purpose" is precisely Aristotle's final cause — which Francis Bacon and Newtonian particle mechanics banished from science.
The reason they don't want to talk about it is the Newtonian formalism simply cannot admit the notion of final cause (telos). That formalism is premised on the core ideas of state, state transitions, and recursivity. What it putatively "maps to" in the natural world is one state "entailing" or determining a next state in a step-by-step series of irreversible timesteps. Thus the Newtonian version of the "law" of causation: There cannot be, in principle, any "pull from the future" in this paradigm. The very idea is banned.
The idea of final cause in a certain sense seems to refer to a "pull from the future." For final cause denotes a purpose or goal that manifests formal cause (something analogous to a blueprint or schematic diagram) over time, by means of material (matter) and efficient (force) causes. A purpose or goal thus supervenes over the operations of its own realization in a global, not a step-by-step way. (If I might put it that way.)
Which probably sounds like a perfect abstraction signifying nothing we really care about. Except for one thing: If we want to understand biological function, I simply do not see how this can be done outside of the framework of final causation. For the very idea of "function" connotes a purpose at work, more or less constantly over time, entailing its needed resources, ever moving toward realization. In a formal sense, at bottom, final causes are what organize and realize all the needful functions of biological nature.
At bottom, this would mean that Nature is not a random enterprise. It has structure built into it that can be "teased out" and understood by means of formal (mathematical) modeling techniques. The structure and intelligibility of the universe are the most amazingly wonderful and astonishing things. They seem to have "been made to 'go together'."....
Where final causes, or the information necessary to the realization of final causes, come from, I don't know (if I'm wearing my scientist hat that is. When that's on, I'm "required" to be "agnostic." Of course, I do take it off now and then, to engage "higher order questions." :^) ) .
For as you say, dearest sister in Christ, no known source of "biologically relevant" information has yet been identified within the observable universe. But whatever its source, the Shannon model definitely looks like the universal description of how it must be communicated.
To God be the glory!
Thank you ever so much dearest sister in Christ for your simply marvelous and thought provoking essay/post!
Is the Sun, any Sun... alive?..
Or a black hole? (whatever that is)..
Is life a matter of replication or iteration or cloneing?...
Is life physical?..
A star is a physical reaction of a mass achieving nuclear fusion.
Black holes are just huge gravity sinks of enormous mass.
Life, as it can be defined by science, is physical.
Theologians cannot agree if animals have souls.
If they did not, would there life be merely physical?
Are not Suns made from matter generated by previous Suns?..
Or did that matter just appear from somewhere?..
You are 'begging the question' here, by making the assumption that there is a 'purpose' or 'final cause.' Just assuming something without evidence (other than your assumption) is meaningless.
I am sometimes mystified by religious people trying to find God through reasoning. Logic and reason aren't going to find God. The only way to find God is to experience (evidence) God.
There is a reason Siddhartha sat under the tree.
[[I am sometimes mystified by religious people trying to find God through reasoning.]]
Are3 you ‘mystified at forensic scientists trying to ‘find nacient people’ through reasoning of the eiveneces as well?
[[Just assuming something without evidence (other than your assumption) is meaningless.]]
I guess we’d better inform criminal forensics, archeologists and anyone that studies cultures and any evidences about hte past that they must immediately give up coming to beyond reasonable doubt conclusions based on evidences then. I’ll begin phoning them tonight
No, we have very good evidence that ancient people existed.
Obviously you don't have a good grasp of what 'evidence' is. Maybe you should read some Sherlock Holmes novels : )
With all due respect, LeGrande, please tell me how you can isolate the idea of a biological "function" from the idea of "purpose." I'm not speaking here of someone's purpose (i.e., a conscious agent at work). That is not the issue. I'm just looking at the logical idea of purpose or goal (final cause) in a completely naturalistic setting.
A brief review of the classical Aristotelian causes:
The formal cause (eidos) is the pattern or design according to which materials are selected and assembled for the execution of a particular goal or purpose. For example, in the case of a Boeing 747, the blueprint (or schematic) would be its formal cause. This is the key “explanation” for the jet; for its construction materials and subcomponents would be only a pile of rubble (or a different jet) if they were not put together in the particular way its blueprint specified."The final cause is an end which is not for the sake of anything else, but for the sake of which everything [else] is." [Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book XII, Section 7.]The material cause is the basic stuff out of which something is made. The material cause of a Boeing 747, for example, would include the metals, plastics, glass, and other component materials used in its construction. All of these things belong in an explanation of the 747 because it could not exist unless they were present in its composition.
The efficient cause is the agent or force immediately responsible for bringing that material and that form together in the production of the Boeing 747. Thus, the efficient cause of the jet would include the efforts of engineers, materials fabricators, hydraulics specialists, and other workers who use the designated materials and components to build the jet in accordance with its specifying blueprint. Clearly the Boeing 747 could not be what it is without their contribution: It would remain unbuilt.
Lastly, the final cause (telos) is the end or purpose for which the Boeing 747 exists. The final cause of the jet would be to provide safe, reliable, comfortable air transportation for human beings. This is part of the explanation of the 747’s existence, because it never would have been built in the first place unless people needed a means of air transportation. [J. Drew and S. Venable, Don't Let Science Get You Down Timothy, p. 48]
We don't have to bring God or anything supernatural on-stage to speak of final causes. My point is they are already in Nature. Thus you are imbuing that term with a religious connotation that is not relevant. Final cause is a logical idea.
Contemporary science (i.e., the Newtonian Paradigm) wants to explain everything in terms of material and efficient causes only. Which is why I very strongly believe it has no method for addressing biological systems because in addition to material and efficient causes, organizational causes (so to speak) are at work as well. It seems to me organizational entailments invoke the very idea of formal and final causes. Which incidentally pertain to (fabricated) machines as well as (natural) living organisms.
My argument is not based on "finding" or "proving the existence" of God. I don't need to convince myself about a conviction I already have. All I'm trying to do here is to indicate certain intractable facts about biological organisms than cannot be explained in terms of material and efficient causes only.
[[No, we have very good evidence that ancient people existed.]]
And we’ve got very good evidence that an intelligence is needed behind life’s irreducibly complex organizations, as well as very good evidence that it’s biologically impossible for mutaitons to create new non species specific info, as well as very good evidence that the fossil record shows discontinuity, as well as very good evidence that nature cna not violate the second law which would have had to occure not just a couple of times, but literally tyrillions of times IF macroevolution had occured, plus we have very good evidence that it’s chemically impossible to create biologically necessary informaiton and metainformation, as well wee have very good evidence that species can NOT violate species paramters when changing, as well we have very good evidnece that each species is seperated by boundaries tha can not be breached, as well we have very good evidnece that nature is incapable of creating the necessary metainformation NEEDED before macroevolution can even be concidered, as well we have very good evidnece that mathematically, it’s impossible for nature to create non species pseicif info, as well we have very good evidnece that homology does NOT equate to species comminality as claimed by macroevolutionists, as well, we have very good evidnece that DNA is NOT comprised of ‘junk’ as was once claiemd by macroeovlutionists, and this non coding region plays a criticial role in seperating species one from another, as well we have very good evidnece that shows that information, by itself, is useless UNLESS there is a livin, governing metainformation inplace BEFORE any new material or info can be added to the already assembled and functioning mix- We have very good evidence that mutaitons can not introduce new non species speciific organs or features, and can ONLY work on species specific info already present- it’s not capable of creation- only alterating what is already present- Macroevolution DEMANDS the creation of new, non species specific info, features, and organs - on and on it goes- whether you personally accept these evidneces is of no relevence to the fact that ID has more than enough evidneces to both support a beyond reasonable doubt case for the need for an intelligence, and that nature simply is incapable of creating what macoreovlution claims it did
[[Obviously you don’t have a good grasp of what ‘evidence’ is. Maybe you should read some Sherlock Holmes novels : )]]
Oh- I’ve got more than an adequate grasp on what is and is not evidence
Outstanding analogy by which to explain the Shannon theory, dearest sister in Christ — and gently suggest that allmendream may have a "category problem."
Thank you so very much for your excellent essay/post!
[[We don’t have to bring God or anything supernatural on-stage to speak of final causes.]]
The naturalist endows nature with that role- despite hte fact nature is incapable of supernatural acts with purpose
Informaiton, and hte succesful communication of it within the whole metainformation system, screams out purpose, and it screams out intelligence- there simply is no way to seperate the need for intelliguence from the evidnece, nor is htere a way to relegate the purpose, the creation, the assembly, and the colloperation of all systems within life to nature- The whole heirarchal system of information speaks very clearly to the need for an intelligent organizer- just as viewing hte 747 would by someone who had never seen one before- with the myriad of complex irreducible parts in both life and the 747, one simply can not argue that natuire is capable such complex, highly integrated, and itnerdependent system arrangements- not logicvally anyway
Indeed CottShop. Still it seems to me that questions regarding the "intelligent organizer" are higher-order questions that science is really not equipped to deal with, and wouldn't be even if it decided to admit first and final causes back into its method.
Nonetheless, as Chandra Wickramasinghe put it, "The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747.”
We do well to keep that in mind.
True.... the third human on this planet came from the first two..
-OR- a bodacious Yarn must be invented.. to explain him or her.. usually involving the first two.. Removing the first two is an act of circular logic.. or changing the subject to confuse or obfuscate the issue..
Prima facie evidence demands that at one time there was a/the third human on this planet.. thereby proving the first two.. The established Yarns prove that humans love a good story.. and that science fiction requires a logical tale, reality never needs to be logical at all.. Reality needs not make any sense at all to humans..
Could be that Exodus(Torah) ch. 1-3 might be metaphorical with much deeper meanings to a long story/history where origination could be merely minutia.. to a broader story with more scope..
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.