The Atheist Perversion of Reality

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:

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.

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.

Excuse me for easedropping, but I would like to disagree with an assumption here, one that is part of a collection of assumption I call the “false-dichotomy” arguments:

Your’s is an example of one of them:

” 1: Did God create Adam and Eve, or did all life start from a single primitive cell?”

The truth is, these are not the only alternatives to the question, because there is a more fundamental one that has not been answered about any question of origins—which is, why does there have to be an origin? Did things have a beginning or not? For my money, there is just not enough evidence of any kind to conclude that there had to be some kind of instant or gradual origin of things, either the universe, or life, or anything else.

I do not hold to either of the alternatives presented in your question, by the way. Please do not ask me what I believe about “where everything came from.” I don’t know, and only know all those who are promoting what they believe as “absolute truth” don’t know either. The whole problem will go away when people admit, they do not know, and argue what they believe under that honest premise. There is nothing wrong with presenting your views in the form, “this is what I believe about it, and these are my reasons for holding that belief, but to argue one’s beliefs as though they were facts is disingenuous, as far as I’m concerned.

Here’s a thought. Except to back up your beliefs about something (God perhaps, or “no God,” if that’s what you believe) what difference does it make where everything came from.

Cosmology, and all other forms of “historical conjecture” which is what all such “studies” are (none are science, in the classical sense), make not a wit of difference to any science, because what is, is, however it got to be.

To be honest, the first question in your list should have been:

“Did God create Adam and Eve, did all life start from a single primitive cell, or does life exist in some way neither of these addresses?

Excluding the third alternative makes the question a false dichotomy and therefore dishonest.

Hank

[ “Did God create Adam and Eve, did all life start from a single primitive cell, or does life exist in some way neither of these addresses? / Excluding the third alternative makes the question a false dichotomy and therefore dishonest. ]

Adam and Eve having not being "BORN".. but "created" whatever that is/means.. They may be a metaphorical image(bibical instrument) to explain things no human could "Grasp"(creating life forms).. No one I know of, has ever seen a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil or Tree of Life..

Genesis ch 1-3 may be the first science fiction..
Fiction must be logical, reality needs not to be logical(to humans)..
Fiction can be based in reality.. like an Atom consisting of little balls revolving around each other.. like that.. Which is a myth.. but useful..

[[Did things have a beginning or not?]]

your question asks if life was eternal- I assume you would then think that somewhere along hte line life became corrupted and thus was imposed limits as to how long life could then last per individual?

There either had to be eternal life of species of gods that somehow became flesh with Nature-imposed limits of beginnings and endings-

At any rate, there is no evidence the earth is eternal either- infact, nature argues strongly against it being that the second law of thermodynamics exists and can be traced back to beginnings (some assume it was the big bang- others that God began nature- but if you’re assuming life always was, then which god created the beginning? Or was it the TRUE God?)

[[I don’t know, and only know all those who are promoting what they believe as “absolute truth” don’t know either. ]]

Yeah we do- We KNOW nature is incapable of creation- We KNOW nature is incapable of creating the necessary metainformaiton, we KNOW nature imposes an inescapable second law of thermodynamics, and we KNOW nature can not create new non species specific information that would be necessary to move each species beyond it’s own kind- We also KNOW the fossil record, which records species, shows discontinuity, and it shows an explosion of fully formed, highly complex, irreducibly complex species, and further, we KNOW Chemicals can not give birth to the highest metainformation witnessed in species of all manner. Tyherefore, we can come to a beyond reasonable doubt conclusion that at some point, species were infact created.

Some holding to naturalism will of course deny the evidences point strongly toward special creation and will insist nature somehow violated several key scientific principles, but that’s their problem- we KNOW what the recors objectively show and don’t show.

If you hold to an ideology that life always existed, you still MUST explain how it became flesh- and the science doesn’t support any kind of eternal life becoming flesh - Your argument is not a deviation from the two ideologies I’m afraid- it STILL boils down to one of two ideologies- either nature created life (in your case, you’re arguing it could have created it from some spiritual, supernatural, eternal life that just always existed) or that God did what He said He did- Created species fully formed and fully functional supernaturally

[[Here’s a thought. Except to back up your beliefs about something (God perhaps, or “no God,” if that’s what you believe) what difference does it make where everything came from.]]

It makes a lot of difference- life STILL had to begin somewhere- and htose that reject God’s special creation, IF they have not accepted Christ as Savior, risk eternal damnation, and htey’ll arrive at that destination denying God created life

[[Genesis ch 1-3 may be the first science fiction..]]

It may be, but judging by the abundance of evidence, from which we can and must draw the most reasonable conlusions, it wasn’t science fiction- things did happen just like God said- In order for it to be science fiction- some other god must have created life because that is where the evidence points- toward special creation- not toward macroevolution which is a serious violation of several key scientific principles, and which is impossible- biologically,m mathematically, chemically- and which violates the second law- just just minuetly, but seriously- trillions of times- the odds of that happening are overwhelming- impossible infact.

Just about to have dinner and will attempt something longer perhaps later. For now:

“life STILL had to begin somewhere”

Why. Give me the argument for that.

No theist believes that or they would have to believe God had a beginning, (unless they do not believe He is alive).

“life had to have a beginning” is an assumption. There is neither evidence or a logical argument for that assumption. As far as science is concerned, the only evidence so far is against a beginning, because life can only come from life.

Hank

[[Why. Give me the argument for that.]]

I already gave you the argument- because we know thigns have a beginning and an end now- this beginning and ending had to begin at some point- or else we’d all still be eternal IF life was always eternal- since it’s not eternal now, it had to start somewhere alogn the line

[[“life had to have a beginning” is an assumption.]]

No, it’s a conclusion based o n the evidence- there is no other rational explanation as outlined above

[[As far as science is concerned, the only evidence so far is against a beginning,]]

This isn’t true- based on what I outlined above- IF life always existed, and the was no ‘beginning’ since we know life indeed does have a beginning and ending, this beginning and ending HAD to begin somewhere. Life gets created, becomes subject to the second law, and burns itself out, ending the life of hte species-

[[quoting what they or some other Shaman said as if it was fact.. and not opinion..]]

Well, there are facts in science- it’s a fact that hte more a species is changed via mutaiton, the more unfit it becomes- and it’s a fact that hte only way to outwiegh the negative effects caused by natural process of mutaitons is via intelligent manipulation (ie: breeding programs) These aren’t opinions, they are dmeonstratable facts-

not sure what you’re gettign at? That there are no facts in science? Only opinions paraded as facts?

“because we know thigns have a beginning and an end now”

Of course entities have a beginning and end, that is, individual organisms do, but life is not an entity, it is an attribute, the attribute of all living organisms. Please give me an example of life that has not come from life. You cannot, because life only comes from life, and that is the only scientific principle we currently have evidence of.

Here is what is wrong with your argument. We know physical things have a beginning and end. Therefore weight and size and color must have a beginning and end. But weight and size and color do not cease to exist as attributes of physical things just because physical things with those attributes have a beginning and end.

Until you can provide one example of a living organism that has arisen “spontaneously” there is no evidence at all for your argument.

You may believe what you like, and I’m not trying to convince you, only outlining what is necessary if you want your argument to be plausible.

Hank

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, dear Hank Kerchief!

In my reply to the same post I mentioned several open "origin" questions for which science does not have an reasonable answer. They were:

1. Origin of space/time.
2. Origin of life.
3. Origin of inertia.
4. Origin of information (successful communication)
5. Origin of conscience (sense of right v wrong, good v evil, etc.)
6. Origin of consciousness (including decision processes)

The first one on the list necessitates that there is an origin for all the rest because in the absence of space, things cannot exist and in the absence of time, events cannot occur. Physical causality requires space and time.

Measurements of the cosmic background radiation from the 1960's forward agree that there was a beginning of real space and real time. As Jastrow said (paraphrased) that was the most theological statement ever to come out of modern science.

"There are four different kinds of “causation.” To use an example, the formal cause would be the blueprint for your house. The material cause would be the lumber, nails, etc. The efficient cause would be the construction workers who build it. And the final cause would be the house itself, the reason for the previous three causes."

~~~~~~~~~~

I aver that there is an obvious cause which precedes all these. In this example, that "original" cause would be the Architect who formulated the "blueprint".

In our broader discussions, I believe that we commonly refer to that "original" 'cause" as, "I AM"...

~~~~~~~~~~

To be even more rigorous, I would interject a "supplier" cause: the source of the materials necessary for your "material" cause to exist.

(See "I AM", above...)

But, then, what do I know? I'm a mere scientist -- not a "Philosopher" -- or a "Swahili" linguist... LOL!!

[[Please give me an example of life that has not come from life. ]]

That’s your opinion- the bible gives you just that- an example of life from non life- Macroevolution claims to have been the process of life from non life, but it’s a natural impossibility for life to have done so on it’s own without divine intervention

[[and that is the only scientific principle we currently have evidence of.]]

We do have evidnece of life coming form non life- whether you accept that evidnece or not is not the quesiton- but to state that we don’t have evidnece isn’t correct- (and just a side not- scientists have been able to create cells from chemicals- however, these cells are not life, but a component of life- but science can not explain how natuere could have created all the other components of actual life via nature)

[[But weight and size and color do not cease to exist as attributes of physical things just because physical things with those attributes have a beginning and end.]]

They DO cease to exist IF life was nothign but spiritual eternal ‘beings’ or life- or whatever you wish to clal it These attributes ONLY came into being when life BEGAN in physical form

[[Until you can provide one example of a living organism that has arisen “spontaneously” there is no evidence at all for your argument.]]

“Spontaniously?’ Or do you mean via creation? Or via some other mechanism/action? You’re losing ground in your argument here- the fact that life and hte earth DID have a beginning proves to us that htere was indeed a beginning for life- but you seem to be arguign that life before the world’s beginning was eternal?

AG said it well here: [[Measurements of the cosmic background radiation from the 1960’s forward agree that there was a beginning of real space and real time.]]

This statement and discovery pretty much defeats your argument I’m afraid- the fact that it can and has been measured, and shows a beginning, shows that life was not eternal- could not be eternal- at least i nthe physical sense (and afterall, life is physical)

[[Physical causality requires space and time.]]

for an event to occure- a begiinning must also occure- if however, everythign always was, is and shall be, no such requirement/beginning is needed- everythign just would have been, is and always will be- but in order for htis to be, death would NEED to be absent, the second law would not exist, and we know both of these ifnact do exist- thereby infering a beginning and end.

Ouch- got a cold this am- will have to think this through a bit- but htere’s the premise basically- in order for life to exist, space and time must have a beginning- in order for events to occure, time must occure- IF everythign just always existed, and always shall- then events would not occure because there would be no possibility of a beginning point for such events that previously did not exist to occure.

“Measurements of the cosmic background radiation from the 1960’s forward agree that there was a beginning of real space and real time.”

For people who are quick to tell me science cannot prove anything, it surprises me that you readily embrace some supposed “science” to back up your claims. And of all that is called science, it is the mostly-dishonest one called cosmology, which is almost entirely conjecture based on cooked evidence.

“Two of the three vaunted “predictions” of big bang theory - the light element abundances and the temperature of the microwave background are actually retrodictions meaning that big bang theory failed to predict them quantitatively correctly and was then adjusted after the data came in to fit the observational evidence.”

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang. Flandern, T. Van. 2, 2002, Apeiron, Vol. 9

“Virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.”

You get the point.

Hank

You quoted me: “Please give me an example of life that has not come from life.”

Then you said, “That’s your opinion.”

Well of course it is. The entire field of sterilization depends on the validity of this scientific principle. It’s my opinion, but I did not make it up.

I’m talking about the scientific principle that abiogensis, or “spontaneous generation of life” does not exist—that, as Pasteur demonstrated, organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not spontaneously appear in sterile, nutrient-rich media. Anything you see that is alive came from a living organism.

You added, “the bible gives you just that...”

By which I assume you mean the, “creation of life,” which, if you believe in it, is an example of life from life, unless you do not believe God is alive.

Instead of guessing what I’m “arguing” why don’t you just bo by what I said. I’m not arguing for any particular position, and certainly not “that life before the world’s beginning was eternal,” because life is not a “thing” but an attribute.

My point is you do not know the physical universe had a beginning, and you do not know that life (which is not physical) had a beginning either. You may believe that, but that belief cannot rest on either reason or evidence.

Hank

Thank you oh so very much for sharing your testimony and insights, dear brother in Christ!

But, then, what do I know? I'm a mere scientist -- not a "Philosopher" -- or a "Swahili" linguist... LOL!!

LOLOL!

I aver that there is an obvious cause which precedes all these. In this example, that "original" cause would be the Architect who formulated the "blueprint".
In our broader discussions, I believe that we commonly refer to that "original" 'cause" as, "I AM"...
~~~~~~~~~~
To be even more rigorous, I would interject a "supplier" cause: the source of the materials necessary for your "material" cause to exist.

(See "I AM", above...)

Indeed, there had to be a cause of causation itself.

And as you say, His Name is I AM!

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.