Secularism and religion

archive: the question of religion, atheism, and Feuerbach July 17th, 2017 ·

Christianity is entering the phase of a plane crash, with Islam in the queue and Buddhism not far behind.

The secular era is inexorable but it is not as such anti-religion so much as inducing Reformations. But I

think Christianity is starting to disintegrate. At the same time Christians are not required by some

‘secular’ dogma to abandon religion or Christianity. Let me suggest an exit vehicle for a religion with

some remarkable properties and legacies often unappreciated by secular humanists:

atheism is a dialectical issue. The question of ‘god’ is metaphysical and has no resolution. Faith, or atheism, are equally flawed. Agnosticism has its own problems but is the only tenet left for most. The dialectic can lead to three phases of doubt, reconsideration and agnostic neutrality. No secular dogma can enforce a solution to this dialectic. Using Darwinism to enforce atheism is a ridiculous fiasco.

It does not follow that we can accept traditional god legacies: pop theism which replaced the IHVH (unspoken name of god) very anciently and turned monotheism into a form of idolatry. Here the Feuerbachian ‘atheist’ will carry the day. Pop atheism is as bad as pop theism, but a few versions of atheism will probably become dominant. But, to take an example, Bennett (a de facto atheist undeclared) defined ‘god’ as the reconciling force in the cascade of cosmic triads (like the negation of the negation, but quite different). Ingenious, perhaps more hogwash, but a reminder that we can’t negate ‘god’ without defining him. There are too many different definitions.

We have suggested a series of leftist oriented churches (cf. Last and First Men, the ‘virtual church of the

Holy Brick, and hyparchic future churches, useful nonsense).

But we can recommend a new form of ‘atheist’ Christianity: renouncing idolatrous monotheism without necessarily renouncing the ‘god’ concept, which might be renamed…

It would be easy to create a far superior form of that religion, but with an assumption about a probable future: that the tradition will not hold. This new Christianity will be in transition to a new and superior secularism based in science, in Feuerbach, but also in Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and with a true spiritual psychology and practice beyond the crude idiocy of Christian doctrine current. Biblical criticism will deal with historical mythology in the Bible…

Why bother? The answer is that mediating religious questions has become inevitable given the collapse of secularism into Iron Cage ideology. We can suggest not lingering in the past of religion, and yet requiring of our future that it at least understand what happened with Christianity: we suggested a minimal church of historical memory: an attempt to understand the dynamics of the Christian religion which most strangely has a deep spiritual component unknown to us beyond its outer historical form as a religious product of the Roman era…Understanding what happened with this religion is not so simple and hasn’t been achieved by secular humanists. Christians are so confused they have missed the spiritual domain completely and are herded along by a religion that treats them like sheep.

We may never know the occult riddle of the Christian beginning buried in disinfo, but the left needs a better understanding of its own position and of the legacy of religion in world history. Then and only then will the essential gist of the Feuerbachian age be realized. In any case Christian communists, like the Quakers, who anticipated this ‘exit strategy for Christianity’ in their curious train wreck, and who picked up the task of abolition, have to be welcomed on the left and their numbers would likely be greater than that of the left itself. This can be welcomed but without any retrograde or reactionary nonsense sure to attempt to come to the fore and vitiate the left. The left renounced religion for good reason and should be tolerant and yet tolerate no nonsense from the trojan horse artists sure to use religion to create reactionary strategies. The simple answer is for the left to do religion better than religionists, with a certain reserve. And the move beyond archaic religion as such.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s