According to the scripture, the world is dominated by spirits who manifest doctrines, teaching, or philosophies that once embedded into the minds of men they guide their entire lives and sometimes centuries of civilization (1 Tim.4:1, 1 Jn.4:5, 1 Cor.2:12-13, Col.2:8). The unsuspecting who walk according to the course of this world, ignorantly and in darkness take for granted or assume the truth of what they think and follow. (Eph.2:2-3) They are merely staying afloat while a rip tide propels them in its course, thinking they are swimming in a direction of their choosing.
The current clashes of ideology, manifesting itself more violently of late, are a turbulence created by the tidal currents of past centuries. Those caught in its pull are mostly unaware of the underlying doctrines and beliefs that have seized their minds, for they have not been transformed by the renewing power of the word and Spirit of God. (Rom.12:1-2) Having detached themselves from the anchor of scripture they float about carried along by every wind of doctrine as it is not possible in one lifetime to traverse the whole corpus of philosophical and religious literature to chart a course for ones’ own life. And so they guess and assume most everything they believe and never apply self-evident logic (as opposed to logic being rejected as a Western patriarchal racial construct). We will briefly examine various belief systems driving our culture and insist they be discarded as they are found to be internally incoherent (i.e. repent).
In large part the black community has not followed the path exemplified by Booker T. Washington in establishing their independence in the market place, but instead a large portion has been misled by its leadership who have been intoxicated along with the rest of the Western Intelligentsia, with delusions of a Socialist world utopia in general and the doctrines of Karl Marx in particular, having abandoned orthodox Christianity for a social Savior. Concerning Marx it is observed that ‘Large numbers of intellectuals have been profoundly influenced by him both in England and in America’. (Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy Pg.754) The result is that men look to government to an exaggerated degree to fix their problems.
Booker T. recalls "At Hampton I not only learned that it was not a disgrace to labour, but learned to love labour, not alone for its financial value, but for labour’s own sake and for the independence and self-reliance which the ability to do something which the world wants done brings. At that institution I got my first taste of what it meant to live a life of unselfishness, my first knowledge of the fact that the happiest individuals are those who do the most to make others useful and happy." (pg.39 Up From Slavery) "I will not say that I became discouraged, for as I now look back over my life I do not recall that I ever became discouraged over anything that I set out to accomplish. I have begun everything with the idea that I could succeed, and I never had much patience with the multitudes of people who are always ready to explain why one cannot succeed." (pg.35 Up From Slavery)
A number of liberal black “leaders” (e.g. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) have made their living by promoting black victimhood, resentment and white guilt. Booker T. Washington warned of such people within the black community in his 1911 book My Larger Education. He described them as “problem profiteers”: “There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” (p. 118) (This describes most politicians today as well.) Even Washington’s critic W.E.B. DuBois in 1903 stated: “The present generation of Southerners are not responsible for the past, and they should not be blindly hated or blamed for it.” (Pg.42 The Souls of Black Folk And which is an aspect of righteousness- Ezk.18:19) But many of today’s blacks are taught this very thing along with their victimization. They are inculcated in resentment and being used as revolutionary foot soldiers in Marxism. They are being weaponized with resentment.
Contrast the resentful, envious, revolutionary, ‘burn it all down’ mentality with Washington who actually was a slave yet made his meteoric rise in the middle of great animosity, enormous obstacles and immense racial and political darkness by means of Christian light. Booker T. Washington understood his times and applied the wisdom of the scripture “By long forbearing is a prince persuaded, and a soft tongue breaketh the bone.” Prv.25:15
“In this address at Madison I took the ground that the policy to be pursued with reference to the races was, by every honourable means, to bring them together and to encourage the cultivation of friendly relations, instead of doing that which would embitter. I further contended that, in relation to his vote, the Negro should more and more consider the interests of the community in which he lived, rather than seek alone to please some one who lived a thousand miles away from him and from his interests. In this address I said that the whole future of the Negro rested largely upon the question as to whether or not he should make himself, through his skill, intelligence, and character, of such undeniable value to the community in which he lived that the community could not dispense with his presence. I said that any individual who learned to do something better than anybody else-learned to do a common thing in an uncommon manner- had solved his problem, regardless of the colour of his skin, and that in proportion as the Negro learned to produce what other people wanted and must have, in the same proportion would he be respected.” (pg.103 Up From Slavery) (see Protestant work ethic)
“Then, when we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe. This is so to such an extent that Negroes in this country, who themselves or whose forefathers went through the school of slavery, are constantly returning to Africa as missionaries to enlighten those who remained in the fatherland. This I say, not to justify slavery- on the other hand, I condemn it as an institution, as we all know that in America it was established for selfish and financial reasons, and not from a missionary motive-but to call attention to a fact, and to show how Providence so often uses men and institutions to accomplish a purpose. When persons ask me in these days how, in the midst of what sometimes seem hopelessly discouraging conditions, I can have such faith in the future of my race in this country, I remind them of the wilderness through which and out of which, a good Providence has already led us.” (Pg.11 Up From Slavery)
The post war South and the War itself was not a simplistic, easy to manage ‘good guys against slavery’ verses ‘bad guys for slavery’ narrative commonly held today. There were economic interests, political ambitions, racial animosity, high level spiritual warfare occurring to ‘divide the house’ (Mt.12:25); and a number of actors on this stage using the circumstances and confusion to further their own interests. Blacks were being used in this politically charged atmosphere and Booker T. did not want his people in the South to be snared into this trap to the detriment of his long term goals to elevate them.
“In many cases it seemed to me that the ignorance of my race was being used as a tool with which to help white men into office, and that there was an element in the North which wanted to punish the Southern white men by forcing the Negro into positions over the heads of the Southern whites. I felt that the Negro would be the one to suffer for this in the end. Besides, the general political agitation drew the attention of our people away from the more fundamental matters of perfecting themselves in the industries at their doors and in securing property.” (pg.44 Up From Slavery) Washington was recognized by W.E.B. DuBois at that moment as “their greatest leader”; perhaps tongue in cheek (The Souls of Black Folk, DuBois pg.44). But he tipped his hat to at least some of his efforts stating: “So far as Mr. Washington preaches Thrift, Patience, and Industrial Training for the masses, we must hold up his hands and strive with him, rejoicing in his honors and glorying in the strength of this Joshua called of God and of man to lead the headless host.” (I think he conflated Moses with Joshua from here- see Ex.17:9-13)
There are those still to this day who benefit at the expense of the prospering of the black community, by maintaining and exploiting and weaponizing minority “classes” (Marx again). Their goal is Socialist revolution; to eliminate free market, private property rights. This then leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat (Marx again) which might last from a few months to a few years. But in actuality communists never seemed to get past this stage. Stalin for example believed he was establishing this stage. The last stage – the withering of the state- will follow next. That has yet to be seen on earth. Then finally the ‘classless’ society. Marx is popular in countries where there is economic depression and this class conflict can be weaponized. Liberation theology came from Marxism. (see here) Interestingly the 5th plank of the Communist Manifesto, regarding a central bank, would greatly benefit bankers and their associates. This is the sort of crony-capitalism creating problems in America today; the very problems they protest. They are clamoring for a cure worse than the disease.
Marxism is the doctrine being employed in this document for example: “Burn Down the American Plantation: Call for a Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement; Published in the United States by comrades of the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement”
“With the rise of 20th Century liberation movements in the United States and abroad—from socialist and national liberation struggles to the Black Panther Party—the US government fought to ensure its hegemonic dominance of the world system. The powerful proclaimed the “End of History,” the black revolution had been overwhelmed, and socialist movements discredited due to the Soviet Union’s centralization and collapse.” “It is in this context that a revolutionary political movement must reawaken. We cannot just rely on the movements of the recent past.” (Introduction) Contrast Washington’s faith and confidence in the providence of God with this Marxist dialectic victim thinking- “The desire to escape bondage, to rid oneself of the totalizing violence that is black life in America, has proven to be impossible since, as instituted in law, and in deed, black life is trapped in the captivity of black skin itself.”
They failed to recognize what the Austrian school of economics has discussed in great detail over the past 100 years, that some socialism inevitably leads to more socialism. They are revolting against the very thing they demand more of; the very structures devaluing their money and driving employment options out of their grasp.
While there was a place for political redress of legitimate grievances of blacks with regard to their God given rights (rights denied in Marxism), Booker saw the best route was patience and stedfastness in the self-development of character and skill for the Southern blacks. But many Northern black leaders (e.g. Niagra Movement) lacked the patience and vision Booker had for his people. They thought it most prudent to focus on political agitation and grew impatient with Booker T. for not being more vocal in this chorus. Booker had other objectives.
“Despite this overlap, Washington and DuBois had some key differences, said Dr. Brian Johnson, the seventh president of Tuskegee University. DuBois was the first African-American to earn a Ph.D. from Harvard. He was a writer and a scholar based in the East Coast. Washington on the other hand, was an educator and businessman, building a black school in the Deep South. Let's not forgot that this was the Jim Crow era — a time of widespread mob lynchings and the Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" ruling from the Supreme Court. Their locations and social standing shaped their opposing views on education and "racial uplift." Washington saw the benefit of a gradual process. DuBois wanted more direct, immediate action. Washington pushed for vocational training. DuBois favored collegiate education… The roots of the Washington–DuBois conflict spark debate to this day. What's the best way to expand higher education access for minorities and other disadvantaged groups? What is the value of the liberal arts versus practical trade skills? Should social justice movements pursue reform through radical or incremental approaches? And in most of these discussions over the years, Washington has come off the loser. "This Washington versus DuBois idea has become a political construct," Johnson says. "Let's get a more nuanced, richly textured view of history, so that we can understand where they both joined together.” (see here)
There was a place no doubt for both approaches to recognize blacks equal access to their rights under God. We saw this debate of method arise with Charles Finney and William Lloyd Garrison before the Civil War in the abolition movement. (American Political Theology- Charles Dunn pg.30) But DuBois and many leaders were infected with the Socialist doctrines which took the black community into perilous dead ends. DuBois having forsaken Christianity went adrift into epistemological uncertainty only to cling to the flotsam of Marxism and Darwinism and began to interpret reality in terms of these wicked doctrines. This led to his being used as a tool to further destructive policies upon the blacks he loved.
Furthering his education in Germany, DuBois traveled widely throughout Russia and China in 1958-1959 and in 1961 joined the Communist party of the United States. The Soviet Union bestowed upon him the Lenin Peace Prize (8:45 mark). He can be heard giving a speech, heaping adoration upon Marxism and communism here. Tom Sowell records that “DuBois was so intrigued by the Nazi movement in the 1920’s that he put swastikas on the covers of a magazine he edited, despite protests from Jews.” “DuBois saw the Nazis as part of the political left. In 1936, he said, “Germany today is, next to Russia, the greatest exemplar of Marxian socialism in the world.” (Intellectuals and Society- pg.99) Ludwig Von Mises said of Germany with regards to the Communist Manifesto: "Eight of these ten points have been executed by the German Nazis with a radicalism that would have delighted Marx." (Omnipotent Government- Mises pg. 151)
DuBois took up residence in Ghana, Africa, in 1961, and at his death in Ghana he was paid homage by the likes of Khrushchev and Mao Zedong (around 8 min.) Being used as a tool of the Soviets and Chinese to spread their Communist propaganda, DuBois also found himself being used by Margaret Sanger
to advance her eugenics, and her “Negro Project”, which may well have been designed to completely exterminate the Black population. Her organization Planned Parenthood has murdered millions of black babies and continues to at fever pitch. DuBois was recruited to add legitimacy in the black community to her efforts. Marxism depends upon Darwin thus dovetailing with the Socialist views he held, DuBois obliged Sanger as well. This was not out of step with Darwin’s Hegelian influenced philosophy of biology summed up in his book title: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Sanger like Hitler and Himmler believed in determining the “Favoured Races” with eugenics, and blacks (at least most) were not one of them in their view. The NAACP likewise is a Socialist organization that DuBois help found with likeminded progressives (as here and here).
DuBois criticism of Washington may well have been partly motivated by his contempt for the free market (and maybe a little envy of his reputation). DuBois derides Washington here: “so thoroughly did he learn the speech and thought of triumphant commercialism, and the ideals of material prosperity, that the picture of a lone black boy poring over a French grammar amid the weeds and dirt of a neglected home soon seemed to him the acme of absurdities.” (Pg.34 The Souls of Black Folk) “Booker T. Washington arose as essentially the leader not of one race but of two,—a compromiser between the South, the North, and the Negro. Naturally the Negroes resented, at first bitterly, signs of compromise which surrendered their civil and political rights, even though this was to be exchanged for larger chances of economic development. The rich and dominating North, however, was not only weary of the race problem, but was investing largely in Southern enterprises, and welcomed any method of peaceful cooperation.” “This is an age of unusual economic development, and Mr. Washington’s programme naturally takes an economic cast, becoming a gospel of Work and Money to such an extent as apparently almost completely to overshadow the higher aims of life.” “Mr. Washington distinctly asks that black people… concentrate all their energies on industrial education, and accumulation of wealth, and the conciliation of the South.” (Pg.38-9 The Souls of Black Folk) DuBois did however respect Washington highly and spoke of his political efforts (pg.43); but it was not as much as his revolutionary thinking would like to have seen. Where he claims Washington “is especially to be criticised”, is to permit the North and South to “shift the burden of the Negro problem to the Negro’s shoulders and stand aside as critical and rather pessimistic spectators; when in fact the burden belongs to the nation, and the hands of none of us are clean if we bend not our energies to righting these great wrongs.” Booker, he thinks, “belittles the emasculating effects of caste distinctions, and opposes the higher training and ambition of our brighter minds,—so far as he, the South, or the Nation, does this,—we must unceasingly and firmly oppose them.”(pg.44) This sounds like an unfair characterization of a man trying to be ‘wise as a serpent’ rather than ‘a bull in a china shop’. He makes Washington’s goals sound like blacks should forsake higher learning, abandon their rights, and get to work making investors rich and maybe earn an acre of land they can toil on for themselves. I don’t think Booker had this in mind as the promised land. I also think Booker knew the South better than DuBois and was a practical man rather than an idealist, intellectual type. (Booker addresses those who styled themselves "The Intellectuals" in chapter 5 of his book My Larger Education- which see, specifically pg.114)
DuBois final appeal in the chapter we all agree: “By every civilized and peaceful method we must strive for the rights which the world accords to men, clinging unwaveringly to those great words which the sons of the Fathers would fain forget: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (pg.44) However, this appeal is contradictory to all Marxist doctrines. There is no Creator, and if there were you could not possibly know of Him following Marx epistemology. In materialism there are brute facts alone, not ‘self-evident truths’, no ‘unalienable rights’ not these abstract ideas of ‘liberty’. The only ‘life’ is a result of the survival of the fittest and blind chance. And Marx was not known for encouraging every “civilized and peaceful method”. Only upon Christian doctrines can DuBois mount any argument in any direction to support himself. (DuBois was not well versed in Marx at this time as he admits in his 3rd Appendix pg.208 But he appears to have had no cogent epistemology.)
I believe a fair review of Washington’s ‘Up From Slavery’ will show that he was for education, even higher education, but not to the dismissal of hard work or “mere book education”. A life of learning without the grounding of dignity from labor is what he was concerned with. This might have piqued DuBois’s view of himself and his efforts. Washington said “The ambition to secure an education was most praiseworthy and encouraging. The idea, however, was too prevalent that, as soon as one secured a little education, in some unexplainable way he would be free from most of the hardships of the world, and, at any rate, could live without manual labour. There was a further feeling that a knowledge, however little, of the Greek and Latin languages would make one a very superior human being, something bordering almost on the supernatural. I remember that the first coloured man whom I saw who knew something about foreign languages impressed me at the time as being a man of all others to be envied.” (Pg.42 Up From Slavery)
We must consider the foundations of the systems of thought competing for our obedience. What good does it do to decry injustice if your philosophy cannot provide an account of the idea at any level? Why speak of ‘Scientific Socialism’ when your philosophy cannot account for science? How can you reject scripture or a market economy when your philosophy does not allow you to speak one word of coherence in any direction? Our culture is seized by the Romantic intuitive means of divining truth (the heart) and arbitrarily appealing to sciences and logic (the head). They try to justify each in terms of the other although they are contradictory apart from a Christian worldview; they are blindly embracing the ‘rational, irrational tension’. And mostly they make no attempt at recognizing the dilemma or addressing it. How have these ideas come to dominate the world today?
Francis Schaeffer in his book ‘How Should We Then Live?’ gives us a thumbnail sketch. Schaeffer points out a shift in science and philosophy then theology as defining modern man. The Scientific Revolution rested on a Christian base and a concept of an open universe where God and man operated outside the cause and effect mechanics of the cosmos but able to influence it. Later (1800’s) God and man were subsumed into the universe as a closed system. This concept “arose not because of that which could be demonstrated by science, but because the scientists who took this new view had accepted a different philosophic base… They became naturalist and materialistic in their presuppositions.” “When people began to think in this way, there was no place for God or for man as man.” Thus, God and man died. (pg.146-7) Man has no freedom, he is “only a part of the machinery“ and the universe becomes God in that “matter and energy are eternal” (pg.148) Darwin’s theory of natural selection, while not answering key philosophical questions and generating a host of unanswered scientific questions, became the unifying principle to try and explain everything “on the basis of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system”. (pg.150) Charles Lyell (1797- 1875), in his Principles of Geology (1830-3) emphasizes uniformity of natural causes in geology that “there were no forces in the past except those that are active now”. (pg.148 A philosophical assertion, by the way.) The Nazis applied the idea of “favoured races in the struggle for life” from Darwin to the German people to insure their survival of the fittest. The German people now devoid of biblical Christianity and infected with this idolatry and suffering from economic pains recovering from WW1 were deceived into the National Socialist movement (Nazi). The “Christian consensus had largely been lost by the undermining from a rationalistic philosophy and a romantic pantheism on the secular side, and a liberal theology (which was an adoption of rationalism in theological terminology) in the universities and many of the churches. Thus, biblical Christianity was no longer giving the consensus for German society” (pg.151)
Rousseau would be considered the most important influence upon modern thought. “Rousseau’s concept of autonomous freedom led to the Bohemian ideal, in which the hero is the man who fights all of society’s standards, values, and restraints.” (Pg.156) Rousseau’s influence conceived the romantic movement in Germany through Goethe, Schiller and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–81). “All three of these men were at first followers of the Enlightenment before they turned aside to follow Rousseau. Reason was the hero of the Enlightenment: emotion became the hero of romanticism.”
In the Enlightenment era, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) needed to answer David Hume’s (1711-1776) extremely consistent empiricism (but didn’t) resulting in utter skepticism. Hegel tried to save logic that Kant couldn’t with his ’real being the rational’ doctrine. However, his pantheistic Absolute Spirit version of logic made everyone so disgusted they threw up their hands, forsook reason altogether and followed their hearts. Greg Bahnsen in his audio lectures on Western Philosophy said ”Hegel is the end of rationalism.” (23 min. Romantic era) Bahnsen summarizes, that in order to follow Romantic era thought you must understand the basic philosophies of Kant and Hegel. Kant divided reality to things in themselves which is ultimate reality, and things as they appear to us, thus you can know nothing about reality. In Kant (who was responding to Hume’s skepticism) rationality only applies to the phenomenal realm, that is the way things appear to us, because the mind of man makes or constructs the phenomena. Hegel and Schopenhauer both disagreed with Kant. (Audio 20 min mark) Hegel (1770-1831) argued that ultimate reality can be known through rationality, however he defines rationality as a dialectical logic of absolute evolving spirit. (Is this how you use the term reason or logic?) ”Hegel is the end of rationalism.” Then we enter into a “mystical mindset” to answer Kant through voluntarism, romanticism, and subjective individualism. Schopenhauer (1788-1860) rejected Kant’s notion that ultimate reality was unknowable since reason (meaning in Kant’s view the unknowable way our mind is constructed to operate- again is this how you use the term reason?) only applies to the way things appear to us and not ultimate reality. But unlike Hegel, Schopenhauer broke with the old rationalism. He agreed with Kant that reason only applies to the phenomenal realm and ultimate reality transcends reason, but he concludes that ultimate truth is known intuitively. That is to know ultimate reality by a direct savoring of experience rather than a rational reflection upon experience. Hegel and Schopenhauer both conclude that ultimately ‘all is one’, monism (all, including contradictions of course). That is, ultimate reality is not made up of distinct, separate, individual minds and the things known by minds. With Hegel there is a monism of absolute spirit into which all conflicts and contradictions resolve… eventually. (Again, is this what you mean when you speak of rationality?) Schopenhauer agreed that ultimate reality is a continuity of being. That there is a reality that transcends and is larger than the appearance of finite, discreet, individual things. Schopenhauer distrusted reason and endorsed feeling instead (although defining the difference between both requires reasoning). And likewise, he rejected grand systems of philosophy and proofs but emphasized practice, how you live your life. Bahnsen asserts that Schopenhauer is not a romanticist but rather a mystic and voluntarist, even though he shared their dislike of reason, systems of theory and proof as well as their dependence upon feeling and practice. (Greg Bahnsen- audio course, History of Philosophy, Hegel & Intro to Schopenhauer 2) The Romantics did not see man as unique as the Enlightenment thought he was, man is just a part of the greater whole of nature. The Enlightenment saw man and things as sharply distinct individuals in the world where the Romantics saw the universe as one continuous, living, dynamic being. (21min Greg Bahnsen- audio course, History of Philosophy, Romaticism & Subjectivism) An interesting note, ”In an essay published in 1835 Heinrich Heine observed that pantheism had by this time become “the secret religion of Germany”. (under heading 2)
These ideas were infecting minds all during the 1800’s and changing the face of churches and nations. Basically they abandoned their faith and decided the mind of man could somehow penetrate the infinite mysteries of existence apart from God’s revelation (the bible). Once their epistemology (how we know things) was changed from God dependent to man centered, contradiction became the stock in trade. It was a lot easier to just follow your heart without question or reason. Once the idea was rejected that an omnipotent, omniscient God is the foundation of logic and science, man could no longer know if God exists or if he does what he would say. For the definition man uses of knowledge is basically what his own mind constructs in response to sense data. (Is this what you mean when you talk about knowledge?) God can’t speak to man about himself or creation by their very definition of knowledge. Here is what follows: Themes of 19th century liberalism.
1. Naturalism: anti-supernaturalism, closed universe. God is seen in natural events in unfolding history. No miracles.
2. Immanentistic as opposed to transcendent: Deism would be an example of extreme transcendence. Immanentism’s extreme would be pantheism.
3. Humanism: Emphasizing man’s virtue. “God’s not so mad, man’s not so bad.” God is close to us, not separated by our sin.
4. Optimism: Man is getting better; society is evolving because God is building his kingdom through history unfolding.
New methods of biblical interpretation arose during this time. Jesus feeding the 5000 with the boy’s lunch could be an example of a moral ‘miracle’. Others were inspired to share after the boy did and so everyone got fed. There arose a Historic criticism of scripture. The bible reports miracles, but since we now know miracles don’t happen, how did the bible come to record these events? The notion of accumulated traditions and embellishments from various communities developed. This gave rise to the quest for the real historic Jesus. (see here)
Once Kantian ideas of knowledge leavened the churches and schools, ministers realized our finite minds (operating in the phenomenal realm) cannot reach an infinite God (existing in the noumenal realm). So, God can’t be the conclusion of an argument. You can’t prove God by human reasoning or really know anything about him in reality. Therefore, we must jettison teachings about God, Self/freedom, and Things/laws of nature. Since we Kan’t actually know anything about them, only our concepts from percepts; only the things our minds generate about them. Theology is really a waste of time. Therefore, theology becomes Religion. Theology studies God but religion studies man’s behavior with respect to human beliefs about God; how people react to ideas about God. Self and freedom become psychology. You are not a free person but a machine who can only be studied phenomenologically. Consciousness is explained mechanistically, the product of conditioning. Thus, there is no morality, choices or freedom; and you become a specimen of evaluation. Kant’s philosophy causes the abandonment of metaphysics. (see here) Then men like Ludwig Feuerbach show up and begin to transform Christianity. Feuerbach (1804–1872) Hates the Hegelian dialectical triad (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) and traditional Christianity. Although studying under Hegel he didn’t like the mystical side of his theory and wanted to make it material and practical. He aligned with the ‘young Hegelians’ who wanted to take his ideals and translate them into concrete political theory (e.g. Marx). Feuerbach is a bridge between Hegel and Marx (Marx draws from both and is a dialectic materialist- material things: economics, capitalism, workers, etc.). Hegel’s dialectical Idealism describes the conflict of ideas where progress is developed, and ‘God’ is seen in them through history unfolding dialectically. Feuerbach describes his view as nominalistic materialism. Similar to Aristotle disagreeing with Plato, Feuerbach saw the human power of abstraction in naming events and things as determining reality. Nominalism is in the names we assign. Idealists have external objective truths, a greater mind outside of us. Nominalists believes reality is in our identifying and naming and categorizing experience. Matter is all that exists. His theology wants to show us the anthropological sense of all religions, especially Christianity. Since we categorize things by abstraction (nominalistic epistemology- we look at a number of ducks and abstract ‘duckness’) when we identify ‘God’ we are actually identifying ourselves since we only observe others. ‘Love’ is a name we give to things we experience. In Feuerbach’s “psycho-genetic” method we take the words that describe things we admire, and we project them to a sense of ultimacy. Sort of like projecting the idea of love out into the sky as the ideal exaggerated expression. But we learned it from observing each other; we abstract it from an anthropological basis, give it a name and project it out as an ideal as ultimate love for example. I generate it from my psyche. So this is how Christians decided ‘God is love’ he thinks. Thus, we worship ourselves; we create God in our image. Basically we are to worship the idea of man; the unlimited essence of man. Auguste Comte also sang the songs of Humanism around this time, saying “Humanity… is for us the only true Great Being” (Growth in America, Clarence Carson, pg.34)
How we get to the idea of ultimacy already in our minds is not addressed; importing Platonic metaphysical ideas it would seem. The social gospel thus emerges focusing on Jesus as the example of how to save humanity from social problems and usher in God’s kingdom. There arose a tension between these social gospellers and traditional Christian preachers of the fundamental gospel. (see here)
Then we see Karl Marx (1818-1883) show up. Marx was influenced by Feuerbach and Hegel. He didn’t like the idealism of Hegel’s dialectical idealism, although he liked the dialectics. He didn’t like the nominalism in Feuerbach’s nominalistic materialism, but he liked the materialism. So he frames himself as a dialectical materialist. It was not ideals or philosophical/spiritualism but materialism he saw as evolving these opposing forces- capitalism, labor, money, war, class, economics, oppression, etc. He seemingly embraces a utopia of communism arising from selfish, evil, oppressive, hateful society of people. Why assume the workers are angelic and the capitalists are evil and that the workers won’t become evil like the capitalists? Why the inherent virtue? (see here)
Marx followed the Rationalists in their opposition to the Romantics. He wanted to be scientific and is thought of as the man who claimed to have made socialism scientific. Marx contends that we know things as part of a process of acting upon them. Any theory which leaves out action is a misleading abstraction. Marx theory of history is a blend of Hegel and British economics. He denies Hegel’s mystic entity called Spirit which causes human history to develop according the dialectic stages of Hegel’s logic. For Marx matter is the driving force not spirit. As atheist Bertrand Russell pointed out- Since Copernicus, it has been evident that Man is not cosmically significant. No philosophy assimilating this fact can be called scientific. Along with this man centered view is the belief that ‘progress is a universal law’. Thus, if Socialism was coming it must be an improvement. “Marx professed himself an atheist, but retained a cosmic optimism which only theism could justify.“ (History of Western Philosophy Pg.753-4) Although Marx bitterly denounced utopias, all socialists are basically utopians. (Growth in America, Clarence Carson, pg.63)
We don’t have space here to trace all the roots from Kant’s failed epistemology, the many denominations abandoning orthodox views of the Bible, and Marx’s influence upon intellectuals who slandered Booker T. Washington and lifted the banner of Socialism as the way of salvation for Blacks in America. But I would contend that had they employed his teachings and followed the Bible the nation as a whole would have been greatly elevated. What honor and integrity and wisdom has Socialism and anti-Christian dogmas brought to the Black community or America in the last 100 years? It continues its murderous and destructive path all over the world like an opiate. And like an opiate those under its delusion are incapable of letting it go. Is omnipotent intrusive government an improvement? Is the devaluation of the dollar and your savings and impossible national debt a great achievement? Is moral relativism and man centered reason a light springing up in gross darkness? I think our ‘trailblazers’ have started wildfires. And our maternal leaders have given us stones for bread.
“Just remember that the Negro came out of Africa a few centuries ago…chains upon his ankles and wrists. He came out of that…with a hammer and a saw in his hands and a Bible in his hands. No man can read the Bible and be lazy. Christianity increases a man’s…capacity for labor. The Negro doesn’t run from the Bible, either.” Booker T. Washington stated: “If you want to lift yourself up, lift up someone else.” Booker T. Washington believed that to be great, one should read the Bible, (The Booker T. Washington Papers, Vol. 3: 1889-95, ed., Louis R. Harlan, Univ. of Illinois Press, 1974, p. 93)
Comments