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
I’ll agree with this.
“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.”
Where did you get this math?
IMO, it took many variables for this complex universe to exist as it does.
“The odds of the universe being as it is, so delicately balanced as to allow life on Earth to have reached the human condition are one in 10120.”
I don’t answer for them, nor am I familiar with those groups. I don’t belong to an organized religion or nonreligion. It comes from within for me.
“What about The High Order of Proselytizing Atheists or the Anarchists United for a Stronger Government?”
[[I wonder why LeGrande invests so much time and energy in debunking Christianity.]]
Apparently To try to justify his refusal to heed the promptings of the Holy spirit- his and many others around the world’s prevailing attitudes in the face of God’s blessings on this great nation of ours, are what are contributing to the judgements on our nations. Liberalism, which tries to exclude God, have been prophesied about (ironically enough, contrary to Legrande’s claim) in God’s word, and our once great nation, is in the beginnings of what I beleive to be perhaps the final judgement upon us for our ungrateful unbeleif and for shirking our responsibility to show God as we should have while we were being blessed. Britain and the US were spoken of in the bible, our rise to power, our being favored amoung nations, and then, now, our downfall due to unbelief. If you haven’t yet, read the following link which goes into great detail discussing this issue:
http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/US/
Legrande’s and other’s cosntant belittling of God and Christians was foretold in the bible, and we’re now reaping the ‘rewards’ of liberalism which proclaimed that liberal ideology was far superior to objective universal moral values- but sadly, extreme liberals are too blinded to see that- but again, their blindness, and hte resulting fall of a once great nation, were prophesied about, and our new president is also too blind to recognize that he is playing right into the hands of hte evil one.
We could repent, and becoem a great nation again, but it’s apparently too late, as more and more people like Legrande would apparently rather beleive the lies of ‘self-goodness’, and the lie that America would be better off without God and His universal moral ethics- We sadly however, are reaping what we have sown- We had a responsibility to show forth God’s greatness, and we squandered His gift of greatness for our nation, and are no longer favored amoung nations as we once were- Not to long ago, we were a great Christian nation who the world looked to for help- Us, a tiny little nation, became one of hte most powerful nations on earth and saved countless natiosn from certain destruction- but now, thanks to extreme liberalism, and itnenrational condemnation, can’t even decisevely win a war anymore! The ‘rights’ of terrorists and despots is more important to these extreme liberals in the EU than is hte deciseveness annihilation of evil!
It’s not surprising hten that folks try tso desperately to justify their disbelief by attackign those who stood firm on the truths of God’s word. If folks in disbelief go down, they are determiend to take everyone else alogn with htem- This is playing out right now in our government and in world affairs.
To raise the ‘120’ power for the ten, place ‘sup’ between less than symbol and greater than symbol, then 120, then the less than, forward slash, ‘sup’, then greater than. Other than that, I don’t do your homework for you, especially since you appear to want to be ignorant of the data.
I have never heard anyone say anything like this, until now.
If you read my posts you would see I disagree and find this a crass statement.
I’ve heard some Christians say, “Thank God for AIDS.” Do you feel like this?
“that the existence of horror and evil in the world “adds more flavor to life”
How do you know I haven’t done that? I just came to a different conclusion based on what I’ve encountered in my life.
“They can’t- but the risk SHOULD at the very least inspire someone to honestly seek to find out if God is indeed real one would htink.”
“I’ll have to dissagree here whole heartedly- He DID care enough about what you think that He gave His only Son to die for yours and my sins as the final sacrifice and propitiation.”
Didn’t Jesus rise again then go to Heaven to be with God?
I guess I don’t see this as a very impressive sacrifice for God (only Jesus) in the same way as I see the woman who lost two young sons in the Oklahoma City bombing who made a real sacrifice for a ‘sin.’
I see a lot more people suffering A LOT worse than that.
If I have to explain the cognitive differences between human and fish, you need more than what I got to offer...
“So on what grounds do you imagine that your existence has any more significance or objective purpose than that, say, of a fish? “
It came from my loving parents. THEIR love taught me these lessons.
“Exactly. And where did this awareness come from? However much or however little you realize it you have absorbed a very particular understanding of life which simply doesn’t exist everywhere.”
No doubt I have been touched by it and even internalized it, but it is not the source. My parents LOVE is the source.
“Internalized it, and forgotten its source. But indeed, it is a “part of you.” “
Truly, I am very familiar with Christianity. My grandfather was a Southern Baptist Minister. I studied much early Christian history and Western & US religions in college.
Thanks for sharing your POV though.
“Not tryign to preach at ya- or push you in any direction- but I just htink that a few of your objections might be covered by his topics- and beleive me, I’ve had many of the same objections both before AND after salvation- I’ve put God htrough hte ringer many times in my battles with Him- and have what I think are many of the very same objections you might have- so I’ve been htere- been htrough it- severely quesitoned His goodness and caring- beleive you me!”
I know you are not asking me. I never made this claim.
“Christianity is easily disproven. “
Wow. Never knew that. Thank you.
This info will come in very handy. Especially here in the The Utopian Socialist States of Obama.
_______
As I understood it from my undergrad days (sir thomas more had only recently died), the word utopia could be as he suggested:
eu + topos = no place
ou + topos = some place
a paradox in the word itself
Dude, I only copied and pasted what was there, I am not trying to go to math class....
Here’s one hundred, my grandmother tells me all the time I need to pray for forgiveness and worship God. Oh, and to thank him.
“I would love to hear of an instance of a Christian telling you to worship God.”
Ah yes, the ‘young woman’ arguement- what a ‘powerful’ counter argument to the bible lol-
“It has been suggested that the Hebrew word “ALMA” simply means “young
woman” and that if Isaiah had intended to refer to a “virgin” he would have
used the Hebrew word BETULAH. SO the question arises, what is an
ALMA? What is a BETULAH and why would Isaiah use the word ALMA rather than
BETULAH if it were to be a virgin birth?
The word ALMA refers to a young unmarried woman one of whose
characteristics is virginity. There is no instance where the word ALMA is
used to refer to a non-virgin. In such passages as Gen. 24:43 (compare
Gen. 24:43 with 24:16 where BETULAH appears) and Song 1:3; 6:8 ALMA
clearly refers to virgins. In fact the Hebrew Publishing Company
Translation of 1916 translates ALMA as “virgin” in Gen. 24:43 and in Song
1:3; 6:8. Moreover an ancient Ugaritic tablet was discovered which uses
ALMA in synonymous poetic parallelism as the synonymous parallel to the
cognate of BETULAH. For this reason one of the worlds leading Semitists,
Dr. Cyrus Gordon who is Jewish and does NOT believe in the virgin birth of
Yeshua maintains that Is. 7:14 may be translated as “virgin” (Almah in
Isaiah 7:14; Gordon, Cyrus H.; JBR 21:106). So why would Isaiah have used
ALMA rather than BETULAH? Because a BETULAH can be a young married woman
who is not a virgin, but pure because she is married (as in Joel 1:8).
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin [B’TULTA] shall conceive, and bear a son,
And call his name Immanuel.
(Is. 7:14)
The Aramaic word B’TULTA clearly means “virgin” and not simply “young lady”.
Now lets look at the Greek Septuagint reading:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin [PARTHENOS] shall conceive, and bear a son,
And call his name Immanuel.
(Is. 7:14)
The Greek PARTHENOS means “virgin” and not simply “young lady”.
Thus both the ancient Aramaic and ancient Greek versions of Isaiah 7:14
understand ALMA here to refer to a virgin”
http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0102/010218_d.html
You missed the point. The point is not whether you have different cognitive abilities than a fish, but rather, how you account on atheist terms for your groundless assumption of significance and objective purpose for your existence.
Cordially,
You are blessed. But then you already know that. :)
Great post, B-Chan!
All that we really know of the world is how it appears to us, not what it actually is. Human perception registers incoming sense impressions, and the "picture" it produces to our mind is, well, a picture, not the reality itself. Also, that picture is itself "structured" by the capacities and capabilities of our sense organs. So we can't even say that the picture is an accurate reflection of reality as it is.
Kant argued that one can never know anything directly about the "thing in itself." All we have are the "pictures" of it.
Thank you for your wonderful post, B-Chan!
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.