Nothing Beyond the Flesh: The Theocracy of Prima Materia

by Phillip D. Collins ©, Sept. 9th, 2006

Anatomy of a Weltanschauungskrieg

Historically, humanity has divided somewhat evenly into two diametrically opposed camps: those who subscribe to a spiritual, theistic Weltanschauung and those who do not. The philosophical milieu of ancient Greece illustrates this division. In the theistic camp, one would find the likes of Socrates and Plato. In the atheistic camp, one would find Democritus and Protagoras. While the more deistic philosophies of both Lucretius and Aristotle might present some exceptions to this division, one could convincingly argue that deism is little more than a camouflaged form of atheism.

Since the inception of the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung, numerous permutations of this philosophical camp have emerged. Materialists, behaviorists, physicalists, functionalists, secular humanists, and Marxists are just a few of the resulting variants. To be sure, the countless theoreticians of these anti-theistic and anti-spiritual camps have had their occasional epistemological feuds. Yet, all share the same core metaphysical convictions: matter holds primacy and the ontological plane of the physical universe constitutes the totality of reality itself.

Of course, the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung adamantly opposes most, if not all, religions. However, most contemporary movements that have ostensibly eschewed a spiritual outlook have sociologically behaved like religions. Communism and fascism are two such cases in point. How does one explain this paradox? It is this researcher’s contention that the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung was spawned by an older religion. This religion is purely occult in character and, because it acted as the progenitor for the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung, it remains deeply embedded within the ostensibly secular mind. Thus, even the most stridently secular movements are conceptually predisposed to religious thought and behavior. Ultimately, the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung is designed to relocate the Eschaton of Heaven and Hell within the ontological plane of the physical universe. Simultaneously, it relocates God within man himself. The final result is a control ideology devoted to the transformation of prima materia and a secular religion devoted to the apotheosis of man.

Secular Humanism: The Religion of Man Apotheosized

To be sure, not every claim of paranormal or supernatural experience is genuine. More than a few have been the products of sensationalism and superstition. However, the outright rejection of all extraordinary possibilities is symptomatic of epistemological rigidity, which can stultify the broadening of human knowledge and the expansion of methods for scientific inquiry. While institutionally accredited science has typically eschewed the paranormal and supernatural, segments of the scientific establishment are beginning to acknowledge the centrality of supra-sensible entities to the examination of sensible phenomena. In fact, many theoretical physicists and bio-physicists have observed that science and mysticism are assuming convergent trajectories. Scientific materialists typically suppress such contentions.

Regular viewers of the National Geographic channel have probably already noticed the cable station’s overall prejudice towards the belief in a supernatural reality and a transcendant God. Members of CISCOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) routinely appear on National Geographic programs, offering so-called “scientifically credible explanations” for otherwise unexplained phenomena. What the National Geographic channel fails to mention is the fact that CISCOP members are already ideologically predisposed to reject God and the supernatural. Many CISCOP members are also secular humanists. To understand what secular humanists believe, one need look no further than 1973’s second Humanist Manifesto for a succinct synopsis:

As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in a prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for personas, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means of survival. (No pagination)

Encapsulated within this declaration is the anthropocentric aphorism of Protagoras: “Man is the measure of all things.” Human reason dethrones God and becomes the chief facilitator for man’s salvation. Salvation is redefined within a purely Darwinian context as survival and the continuity of the species becomes synonymous with immortality. If this Weltanschauung seems religious in character, it is because it is actually the second oldest faith in existence. Whittaker Chambers, former member of the communist underground in America, eloquently observed:

“Humanism is not new. It is, in fact, man’s second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of Creation under the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil: ‘Ye shall be as gods.'” (Qutd. in Baker 206)

Simply stated, humanism is the religion of self-deification. Its god is Man, spelled with a capital M to connote the purported divinity intrinsic to humanity. Atheism provides the philosophical segue for the enthronement of this god. This enthronement begins with the recognition of a significant paradox inherent to atheism. Authors Ron Carlson and Ed Decker explain:

It is philosophically impossible to be an atheist, since to be an atheist you must have infinite knowledge in order to know absolutely that there is no God. But to have infinite knowledge, you would have to be God yourself. It’s hard to be God yourself and an atheist at the same time! (17)

Indeed, to conclude with all certainty that there is no transcendant God outside the ontological plane of the physical universe, one must first claim omniscience. However, omniscience is a trait reserved exclusively for deities. Therefore, the claimant must conclude that he or she is a god. In this sense, atheism is not the rejection of a deity. Instead, it is the belief in emergent deity. The god that is gradually evolving is Man himself and his development is guided by his own cognitive powers.

Again, this belief is nothing new. It was central to the religious doctrines of the ancient Mystery cults, which were prominent in Babylon and Egypt. Ever-present was the theme of humanity made divine through the enthronement of man’s reason. S. Angus contends that the central theme of the Mystery religions was “that the march of mankind is Godward” (43). Of course, not every adherent of the Mysteries necessarily subscribed to this doctrine of apotheosis. Numerous motives compelled people to accept the religion. Angus wisely observes:

Men entered the Mystery-cults for different purposes: there were all degrees of belief and unbelief, morality and laxity, mysticism and realism. The carnal could find in orgiastic processions and midnight revels opportunities for self-indulgence; the superstitious would approach because of the magical value attributed to the formulae and sacraments; the educated could, in the material and physical, perceive symbols of the truth dear to his heart; the ascetic would look upon initiation as a means of buffeting his body and giving freedom to the spirit; the mystic would in enthusiasm or ecstasy enjoy the beatific vision by entering into communion with God or by undergoing deification. (42)

Thus, only the most ardent mystics accepted the inner doctrine of apotheosis. For the more carnally inclined, such doctrine was seldom acknowledged. In fact, few were even aware of it. The ultimate objective of self-deification was veiled by secrecy and semiotic manipulation:

The secrecy with which the Mysteries terminated behind the veil of the temple, compared with the publicity with which they generally commenced in the streets, is explicable from the fact that the things “done” or “said” were not the things actually to be revealed but merely symbolic means of conveying the intended truth to the minds of the votaries. (62)

A similar culture of obscurantism exists in Freemasonry, which acts as the retainer of the ancient Mystery religion. In fact, humanism and Masonry have shared a long historical relationship. In The Keys of this Blood, deceased Vatican insider Malachi Martin examined the emergence of “a network of Humanist associations” throughout early-Renaissance Italy (518-19). These organizations represented:

a revolt against the traditional interpretation of the Bible as maintained by the ecclesiastical and civil authorities, and against the philosophical and theological underpinnings provided by the Church for civil and political life. (519)

Although these groups espoused an ostensible belief in God, their notions of a Supreme Being were largely derivative of the Kabbala:

Not surprisingly given such an animus, these associations had their own conception of the original message of the Bible and of God’s revelation. They latched onto what they considered to be an ultrasecret body of knowledge, a gnosis, which they based in part on cultic and occultist strains deriving from North Africa-notably, Egypt-and, in part, on the classical Jewish Kabbala. (519)

In Morals and Dogma, 33rd Degree Freemason Albert Pike reveals that “all the Masonic associations owe to it [the Kabbala] their Secrets and their Symbols” (Pike 744). According to Martin, however, this ancient Hebraic doctrine was modified considerably by the early humanists:

Whether out of historical ignorance or willfulness of both, Italian humanists bowdlerized the idea of Kabbala almost beyond recognition. They reconstructed the concept of gnosis, and transferred it to a thoroughly this-worldly plane. The special gnosis they sought was a secret knowledge of how to master the blind forces of nature for a sociopolitical purpose. (519-20)

Many of the semiotic artifacts comprising the early humanists’s iconography and jargon were also directly related to Masonry:

Initiates of those early humanist associations were devotees of the Great Force–the Great Architect of the Cosmos–which they represented under the form of the Sacred Tetragrammaton, YHWH, the Jewish symbol for the name of the divinity that was not to be pronounced by mortal lips. They borrowed other symbols–the Pyramid and the All-Seeing Eye–mainly from Egyptian sources. (Martin 520)

The Great Architect of the Cosmos, the All-Seeing Eye, and the Pyramid also comprise the esoteric semiology of Freemasonry. What is the explanation for all of these commonalities? According to Martin, these shared characteristics were the result of a merger between the humanists and the old Mason guilds:

In other northern climes, meanwhile, a far more important union took place, with the humanists. A union that no one could have expected. In the 1300s, during the time that the cabalist–humanist associations were beginning to find their bearings, there already existed–particularly in England, Scotland and France-medieval guilds of men who worked with ax, chisel and mallet in freestone. Freemasons by trade, and God-fearing in their religion, these were men who fitted perfectly into the hierarchic order of things on which their world rested. (521)

Evidently, there couldn’t have been two organizations that were more diametrically opposed than Masonry and humanism:

No one alive in the 1300s could have predicted a merger of minds between freemason guilds and the Italian humanists. The traditional faith of the one, and the ideological hostility to both tradition and faith of the other, should have made the two groups about as likely to mix as oil and water. (Martin 522)

Nevertheless, the late 1500s would witness the amalgamation of these two groups (Martin 522). The most evident corollary of this organizational coalescence was a noticeable difference in recruiting practices:

As the number of working or “operative,” freemasons diminished progressively, they were replaced by what were called Accepted Masons–gentlemen of leisure, aristocrats, even members of royal families–who lifted ax, chisel and mallet only in the ultrasecret symbolic ceremonies of the lodge, still guarded by the “Charges” and the “Mason Word.” The “speculative” mason was born. The new Masonry shifted away from all allegiance to Roman ecclesiastical Christianity. (Martin 522)

Indeed, the new Masonic doctrine appeared to be one that thoroughly eschewed Christian concepts:

There was no conceptual basis by which such a belief could be reconciled with Christianity. For precluded were all such ideas as sin, Hell for punishment and Heaven for reward, and eternally perpetual Sacrifice of the Mass, saints and angels, priest and pope. (522)

The new Mason was no longer an architect of freestone. Instead, he was an architect of a Novus Ordo Seclorum. Out of the Lodge would spring many varieties of sociopolitical Utopianism. Countless revolutionaries would rise up against the dominant ecclesiastical authority and attempt to install their own theocratic order. To be sure, much of the ecclesiastical establishment was corrupt and in desperate need of reform. However, the “alternative” offered by sociopolitical Utopians was far more authoritarian than any of its religious counterparts. Moreover, their Novus Ordo Seclorum was no less religious in character. The new secular faith eviscerated the heavens and relocated all of religion’s traditional metaphysical concepts within the ontological plane of the physical universe. The ultimate eschatological vision of this revolutionary faith was the enthronement of the secular humanists’ god: Man.

The Theocracy of Science

Of course, with human knowledge apotheosized, the instruments of knowledge attain a quasi-divine status as well. Commensurate with this deification of knowledge is the virtual canonization of science. The word “science” is derived from the Latin word scientia, which means “knowing.” As a form of “knowing,” science is inevitably consecrated as the new incarnation of divine revelation. In fact, the consecratory processing of science was consummated years ago with the Baconian dictum: nam et ipsa scientia potestas est (“Knowledge itself is power”). As a catalyst for the potential expansion of human power, science enjoys secular humanism’s deepest veneration and has been accorded absolute epistemological primacy. This is known as scientism.

Scientism is, in essence, the fetishization of science. It holds aloft the investigational methods of science as the sole criteria for establishing truth. Premised as it is upon empiricism and quantification, scientific observation is restricted to physical phenomena. Thus, only phenomena that are observable and quantifiably demonstrable are eligible for serious consideration. From the vantage point of scientism, research regarding supra-sensible entities does not qualify as a credible field of study. In his article “The Shamans of Scientism,” Michael Shermer describes scientism as:

a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science. (No pagination)

Scientism should not be confused with legitimate science. Its epistemological rigidity would probably discourage the genuinely investigative mind. Ironically, many of the minds that shaped modern science were not nearly as rigid. Arguably, if the innovators of previous generations had labored under such pathological skepticism, then many of them would have never discovered the breakthroughs in science and technology that this current generation enjoys. Researcher Michael Hoffman makes the distinction between science and scientism in his book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare:

Science, when practiced as the application of man’s God-given talents for the production of appropriate technology on a human scale, relief of misery and the reverential exploration and appreciation of the glory of Divine Providence as revealed in nature, is a useful tool for mankind. Scientism is science gone mad, which is what we have today. (Hoffman 49)

Concerning this important distinction, Rama Coomaraswamy states:

Traditional man, placing science in a hierarchal relationship to the totality of truth, sees no conflict between what is demonstrable by measurement and what he knows from Revelation. His attitude towards the “modern scientistic outlook” with its claim to the totality of truth and its refusal to recognize any moral master is, however, quite another matter. In no way can he give his assent to irrational postulates such as progress, evolution, and the perfectability of man qua man–ideas which have their origin in man’s collective subconscious rather than in God. If any conflict exists, it is not between science and faith properly understood, but between modern and traditional attitudes. (No pagination)

Convinced that their outlook encompasses the “totality of truth,” the shamans of scientism are overtly hostile towards supernatural explanations. According to their criteria, all inquiry must be restricted to this ontological plane of existence. Shermer succinctly voices this so-called “modern attitude”:

. . .cosmology and evolutionary theory ask the ultimate origin questions that have traditionally been the province of religion and theology. Scientism is courageously proffering naturalistic answers that supplant supernaturalistic ones and in the process is providing spiritual sustenance for those whose needs are not being met by these ancient cultural traditions. (No pagination)

Scientism is epistemological imperialism. It stipulates the ecumenical imposition of science upon all fields of study. No doubt, a majority of contemporary thinkers would regard this universal extrapolation of science as desirable. After all, science has contributed to the technological advancement of human society. It harnessed electricity through the light bulb, cured illnesses through inoculations, and traversed space through rockets. Surely, such a force could equally enhance the human condition if applied to questions of history, morality, and governance.

However, the contemporary mind, blinded as it is by its own chronocentricism, has failed to recognize a significant shortcoming in the investigational methods of science. Michael Hoffman reveals this shortcoming:

The reason that science is a bad master and dangerous servant and ought not to be worshipped is that science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its own agenda, be it Darwinism or “cut, burn and poison” methods of cancer “treatment.” (49)

Indeed, as a system of quantification, science can concern itself only with quantifiable entities. Items that defy quantification must be precluded. This prompts a disturbing question. Exactly what items must an exclusively scientific outlook omit? The answer is provided in The Report from Iron Mountain, a document purporting to be the product of a secret government think tank:

Previous studies have taken the desirability of peace, the importance of human life, the superiority of democratic institutions, the greatest “good” for the greatest number, the “dignity” of the individual, and other such wishful premises as axiomatic values necessary for the justification of a study of peace issues. We have not found them so. We have attempted to apply the standards of physical science to our thinking, the principal characteristic of which is not quantification, as is popularly believed, but that, in Whitehead’s words, “. . .it ignores all judgments of value; for instance, all esthetic and moral judgments.” (Lewin 13-14; emphasis added)

An exclusively scientific approach jettisons all “axiomatic values.” The “esthetic and moral judgments” that preserve man’s humanity must be totally disregarded in a purely scientistic society. In fact, man himself must be altered. Because man’s humanity poses a problem for a state governed according to a system of quantification, that particular attribute of his being must be expunged. Hoffman provides an eloquent summation:

The doctrine of man playing god reaches its nadir in the philosophy of scientism which makes possible the complete mental, spiritual and physical enslavement of mankind through technologies such as satellite and computer surveillance; a state of affairs symbolized by the “All Seeing Eye” above the unfinished pyramid on the U.S. one dollar bill. (50)

The truncated pyramid mounted by the “All Seeing Eye” represents the blueprint according to which society is being re-sculpted. It is the standard schematic for authoritarian governments, which ride into dominance astride the epistemological imperialism of scientism.

Techgnosis: The Mastery of Man and Matter

Martin explains that the humanist precursors to speculative Masonry desired “a special gnosis” (520). They believed that this “special gnosis” was a “secret knowledge of how to master the blind forces of nature for a sociopolitical purpose” (520). The subjugation and manipulation of nature is a theme consistently recapitulated by sociopolitical Utopians. For the sociopolitical Utopian, science represents a “special gnosis” designed to master man and matter. It is an instrument for the re-sculpting of prima materia and “ immanentizing the Eschaton.” Raschke explains:

The well-known maxim of Bacon, nam et ipsa scientia potestas est (“Knowledge itself is power”), is often commemorated as the credo of the new science, but it also suits quite precisely the magico-religious mentality of Gnosticism. (49)

Sir Francis Bacon was a member of a secret society called the Order of the Helmet (Howard 74). The organization’s name was derived from Pallas Athene, the Greek goddess of wisdom who was portrayed wearing a helmet (Howard 74). Although regarded as an innovator of science by orthodox academia, Bacon’s studies mostly embraced occultism. In his youth, Bacon was “a student of Hermetic, Gnostic, and neo-Platonist philosophy and had studied the Cabbala” (Howard 74).

Allegedly, Bacon was also a Grand Master of the secret Rosicrucian Order (Howard 74). The Rosicrucians were closely associated with Freemasonry (Howard 50). In fact, a Rosicrucian poem written in 1638 voices the organization’s close ties with the Lodge (Howard 50). It reads, “For what we pessage is not in grosse, for we brethen of the Rosie Crosse, we have the Mason’s Word and second sight, things to come we can foretell aright. . .” (qutd. in Howard 50). In other words, Rosicrucians knew the “inner secrets of Freemasonry and possessed the psychic power to predict the future” (Howard 50).

In 1627, Bacon published a novel entitled The New Atlantis (Howard 74). The pages of Bacon’s book were adorned with Freemasonic symbols, such as “the compass and square, the two pillars of Solomon’s temple and the blazing triangle, and the eye of God, indicating his association with the secret societies who supported his Utopian concepts” (Howard 75). The novel “describes the creation of the Invisible College advocated in Rosicrucian writings” (Howard 74). This Rosicrucian mandate for an “Invisible College” was realized with the formation of the Royal Society in 1660 (Howard 57).

Author Frank Fischer provides a most elucidating description of Bacon’s “Utopian concepts”:

For Bacon, the defining feature of history was rapidly becoming the rise and growth of science and technology. Where Plato had envisioned a society governed by “philosopher kings,” men who could perceive the “forms” of social justice, Bacon sought a technical elite who would rule in the name of efficiency and technical order. Indeed, Bacon’s purpose in The New Atlantis was to replace the philosopher with the research scientist as the ruler of the utopian future, New Atlantis was a pure technocratic society. (66-67)

A technocratic society, or Technocracy, can be defined as follows:

Technocracy, in classical political terms, refers to a system of governance in which technically trained experts rule by virtue of their specialized knowledge and position in dominant political and economic institutions. (Fischer 17)

“Technocracy” is a very interesting appellation to assign such a form of governance. It is attached to the Greek word techne, which means “craft.” Simply defined, “crafting” is the skillful creation of something. Hence, expressions such as “outstanding craftsmanship” or a “master of the craft.” In the context of sociopolitical Utopianism, “crafting” is the skillful creation (or, more succinctly, re-sculpting) of reality itself. The “special gnosis” of science has provided the means through techne. Mark Pesce, co-inventor of Virtual Reality Modeling Language, elaborates: “The enduring archetype of techne within the pre-Modern era is magic, of an environment that conforms entirely to the will of being.” (No pagination)

Commenting upon techne’s role in manipulating matter, Pesce writes: “Each endpoint of techne has an expression in the modern world as a myth of fundamental direction–the mastery of matter. . .” (no pagination; emphasis added). This may, in part, explain the sociopolitical Utopian’s preoccupation with the physical universe. One of its chief constituent components is matter, which can be mastered through the sorcery of science. Again, all the elements of a mystical belief system are present. All that the modern scientific materialists have done is exchange one form of mysticism for another. Technocracy is merely the modern incarnation of occult theocracies like Babylon and Egypt. It is the latest political expression for a system of manipulation through sorcery and alchemy.

Bacon’s Utopian vision a technocratic world government ruled by “experts,” particularly scientists was a “scientific dictatorship.” In Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley defines a “scientific dictatorship” as follows:

The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries.

Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown. (116)

Wielding ostensible epistemic primacy, the “experts” of Technocracy employ the gnosis of science to produce “enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries” for their subjects. Distracted by all of the comforts that technology can supply, most men and women would never dream of revolting against the new theocracy of science.

Argument From Abstraction: The Teleological Case for Supra-sensible Entities

Knowledge of a transcendant, supra-sensible realm is made possible by man’s innate cognitive power of abstraction. Abstraction is the ability to observe the sensible world and extrapolate from it universal principles. In Summa Theologiae, Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas explains abstraction:

Our intellect cannot know the singular in material things directly and primarily. The reason for this is that the principle of singularity in material things is individual matter; whereas our intellect understands by abstracting the intelligible species from such matter. Now what is abstracted from individual matter is universal. Hence our intellect knows directly only universals. But indirectly, however, and as it were by a kind of reflexion, it can know the singular, because. . .even after abstracting the intelligible species, the intellect, in order to understand actually, needs to turn to the phantasms in which it understands the species… Therefore it understands the universal directly through the intelligible species, and indirectly the singular represented by the phantasm. And thus it forms the proposition, “Socrates is a man.” (Pt. I, Qu. 86, Art. I)

This argument reiterates the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:20:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

Through abstraction, Paul recognizes the intrinsic finality of creation. Sensible objects gesticulate toward universal principles. Although these principles are inherently intangible, they find tangible expression when applied to corporeality. In turn, these universal principles gesticulate toward a universal Creator. The axiomatic nature of such finality leaves man with no excuse for doubt and unbelief. This argument is teleological. That is, it recognizes a directive principle intrinsic to nature.

In Confession of Nature, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz uses abstraction to establish the centrality of a supra-sensible God to the temporal spatial universe. According to Leibniz, the proximate origins of “magnitude, figure, and motion,” which constitute the “primary qualities” of corporeal bodies, “cannot be found in the essence of the body” (de Hoyos). Linda de Hoyos reveals the point at which science finds a dilemma:

The problem arises when the scientist asks why the body fills this space and not another; for example, why it should be three feet long rather than two, or square rather than round. This cannot be explained by the nature of the bodies themselves, since the matter is indeterminate as to any definite figure, whether square or round. For the scientist who refuses to resort to an incorporeal cause, there can be only two answers. Either the body has been this way since eternity, or it has been made square by the impact of another body. “Eternity” is no answer, since the body could have been round for eternity also. If the answer is “the impact of another body,” there remains the question of why it should have had any determinate figure before such motion acted upon it. This question can then be asked again and again, backwards to infinity. Therefore, it appears that the reason for a certain figure and magnitude in bodies can never be found in the nature of these bodies themselves. (No pagination)

The same can be established for the body’s cohesion and firmness, which left Leibniz with the following conclusion:

Since we have demonstrated that bodies cannot have a determinate figure, quantity, or motion, without an incorporeal being, it readily becomes apparent that this incorporeal being is one for all, because of the harmony of things among themselves, especially since bodies are moved not individually by this incorporeal being but by each other. But no reason can be given why this incorporeal being chooses one magnitude, figure, and motion rather than another, unless he is intelligent and wise with regard to the beauty of things and powerful with regard to their obedience to their command. Therefore such an incorporeal being be a mind ruling the whole world, that is, God. (de Hoyos, no pagination)

This argument refutes the scientistic claim that the physical universe constitutes the “totality of reality.” In fact, the ontological plane of the physical universe cannot be considered a per se subsistent form of substance. It is underpinned by an immaterial order. The manifestation of sensible objects within corporeality is the result of the unseen interchange of transcendant principles outside of the temporal spatial realm. Rene Guenon recapitulates:

The truth is that the corporeal world cannot be regarded as being a whole sufficient to itself, nor as being isolated from the totality of universal manifestation: on the contrary, whatever the present state of things may look like as a result of “solidification,” the corporeal world proceeds entirely from the subtle order, in which it can be said to have its immediate principle, and through that order as intermediary it is attached successively to formless manifestation and finally to the non-manifested. If it were not so, its existence could be nothing but a pure illusion, a sort of fantasmagoria behind which there would be nothing at all, which amounts to saying that it would not really exist in any way. That being the case, there cannot be anything in the corporeal world such that its existence does not depend directly on elements belonging to the subtle order, and beyond them, on some principle that can be called “spiritual,” for without the latter no manifestation of any kind is possible, on any level whatsoever. (213-14)

Although the transcendant principles discerned through abstraction are not quantifiably demonstrable, they do find tangible expression in their practical application. For instance, the principles of geometry are actuated through architecture. Although geometry makes possible the quantification of certain physical entities, its principles did not stem from any previous system of empirical measurement. Instead, they stem from man’s abstraction of the subtle, incorporeal order from the temporal spatial realm. To assert otherwise is to ontologically sever humanity from its true source of knowledge.

The Modern Mythmakers

Of course, scientific materialists would love to believe otherwise. According to the modern theory of Darwinism, living matter willed itself into existence out of non-living matter. This notion, dubbed “spontaneous generation,” excludes the involvement of a supernatural Creator. Thus, nature became a god creating itself. Louis Pasteur, whose work established the Law of Biogenesis, provided the most succinct summation of this anthropomorphic mysticism:

To bring about spontaneous generation would be to create a germ. It would be creating life; it would be to solve the problem of its origin. It would mean to go from matter to life through conditions of environment and of matter [lifeless material]. God as author of life would then no longer be needed. Matter would replace Him. God would need to be invoked only as author of the motions of the universe. (Dubos 395)

Like all of the false gods of antiquity, the voracity of this new deity was soon demolished. The Law of Biogenesis proved “spontaneous generation” impossible. However, this fact did not stop certain “men of science” from chronically deifying nature. For instance, Charles Darwin unconsciously revealed his idolatrous impulses through statements like “natural selection picks out with unerring skill the best varieties” (Hooykaas 18). Evident in such statements is the idea that nature is sentient. After all, only a sentient being holds discriminative tastes and, therefore, “picks out” the recipients of its favor. Moreover, such statements reveal that “nature” itself is a sovereign deity acting as the ultimate arbiter of life and death. There is a name for such a religious institution: idolatry. The apostle Paul observed that the practice of idolatry involved the worship and service of “created things rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). The apotheosizing of nature, a “created thing,” whether dignified by institutionalized mysticism or so-called “science,” is tantamount to idolatry.

The religious institution of “nature worship” is certainly nothing new. The ancient Mystery religion of Babylon and Egypt venerated an impersonal force as “God.” This force was an immanent energy that channeled itself through all things–rocks, trees, oceans, clouds, animals, humans, and, ultimately, the universe itself. As antiquity gave way to modernity, this religious Weltanschauung eventually provided a conceptual segue for the enthronement of scientific materialism. Father Clarence Kelly observes that pantheism:

can be used as a stage in bringing people from theism to atheistic materialism. In religion, pantheism is most often expressed as Naturalism–“the doctrine that religious truth is derived from nature, not revelation…” (17)

Meanwhile, the idea that non-living matter somehow willed itself to become living matter is also derivative of older occult doctrines. The idea can be found in the ancient Hebraic Kabbalah. Within this occult text, readers will find the legend of the golem, an artificially created man generated from lifeless matter. The late Isaac Bashevis Singer, who studied the Kabbalah extensively, explained:

“the golem is based on faith that dead matter is not really dead, but can be brought to life. What are the computers and robots of our time if not golems? The Talmud tells us of an interpreter by the name of Rava who formed a man by this mysterious power. We are living in an epoch of golem-making right now. The gap between science and magic is becoming narrower.” (Qutd. in Hoffman 115; emphasis added)

According to the evolutionary Weltanschauung, nature is “God” and man is its artificially created golem. In short, evolutionism is religious in character. In fact, Darwinian evolution constitutes merely another link in an unbroken ideational chain that has traversed centuries. W. Warren Wagar elaborates:

Nineteenth-and early twentieth-century thought teems with time-bound emergent deities. Scores of thinkers preached some sort of faith in what is potential in time, in place of the traditional Christian and mystical faith in a power outside of time. Hegel’s Weltgeist, Comte’s Humanite, Spencer’s organismic humanity inevitably improving itself by the laws of evolution, Nietzsche’s doctrine of superhumanity, the conception of a finite God given currency by J.S. Mill, Hastings Rashdall, and William James, the vitalism of Bergson and Shaw, the emergent evolutionism of Samuel Alexander and Lloyd Morgan, the theories of divine immanence in the liberal movement in Protestant theology, and du Nouy’s telefinalism–all are exhibits in evidence of the influence chiefly of evolutionary thinking, both before and after Darwin, in Western intellectual history. The faith of progress itself–especially the idea of progress as built into the evolutionary scheme of things-is in every way the psychological equivalent of religion. (106-07)

There is one invariant feature within this long ideational chain: the worship of “progress” itself. In fact, the terms “evolution” and “progress” can be used interchangeably. Expanding on the religion of progress and its numerous permutations, Rama Coomaraswamy makes the following observation:

In point of fact, the idea of “progress,” used in this sense, pre-dated Darwin by decades if not by centuries. One finds it used during the English Reformation where the “Recussants”–those who refused to abandon the Catholic faith–were described as “backward,” while those who accepted the “established” state-enforced religion–were “progressive.” The concept was further developed during the so-called “age of enlightenment” when people like Rousseau, Voltaire and Diderot dreamed of creating a perfect society without God. Kant embraced it in his “Idea of a Universal History on a Cosmopolitical Plan,” a text in which he taught that history followed predetermined laws and revealed what be called “a regular stream or tendency” which demonstrated a “natural purpose” which would end in a “Universal civil society.” Spencer spoke of the “law of progress” and defined evolution as “a change from an indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity through continuous differentiations and integrations.” He went on to teach that “the operation of evolution is absolutely universal. . .Whether it be in the development of the earth, in the development of life upon its surface, in the development of society, of government, of manufactures, of commerce, of language, of literature, science, art, this same advance from the simple to the complex, through successive differentiations, holds uniformly. . .” Hegel taught that humanity was driven ceaselessly upwards by an all-powerful, all-rational “It”, and that the path of the ascent was an eternal, immutable, predestined, zigzag–his thesis and antithesis–always resulting in a higher synthesis. Evolutionary theory developed as a result of applying these ideas to biology. It provided a “scientific” basis for man’s belief in progress and found ready acceptance in a world that sought to free itself from all divine sanction. From the time of Darwin, progress and evolution have become almost interchangeable terms that are mutually supportive and pervasive influences in our lives. (No pagination)

This religion was the edifying force behind the sociopolitical Utopian radicalism of the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century. It found expression in the secular humanism of the Enlightenment and the violent Jacobinism of revolutionary France. Eventually, it would birth the Promethean faith, which James H. Billington describes as follows:

A recurrent mythic theme for revolutionaries–early romantics, the young Marx, the Russians of Lenin’s time–was Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods for the use of mankind. The Promethean faith of revolutionaries resembled in many respects the general belief that science would lead men out of darkness into light. (6; emphasis added)

Automatically, astute readers will identify the Promethean faith’s inherent scientism. It was the Promethean revolutionary’s religious conviction that science would facilitate humanity’s salvation by insuring the survival of the species and guiding it along its alleged political evolution towards a global society. Astute readers will also recognize this ideology’s mythical character. Historically, myths have played an integral role in the maintenance of socialist totalitarian governments. For instance, Nazism was premised upon the religious conviction that Germany’s eugenical regimentation would result in the reemergence of the mythical Aryan. Likewise, communism was underpinned by the myth of a “worker’s paradise” and a “classless society.”

Interestingly enough, Darwinism edified both Nazism and communism. The interest of both Hitler and Marx in Darwinian evolution is a matter of history. In his comprehensive book, American Socialists and Evolutionary Thought 1870-1920, author Mark Pittenger describes Marx’s elation over the publication of Darwin’s theory and its subsequent adoption by socialist movements:

In December of 1859, shortly after the publication of The Origin of Species, Friedrich Engels wrote to Marx: “Darwin, whom I am just reading, is splendid.” Marx responded: “Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” Over the ensuing decades, the theorists of scientific socialism would often praise Darwin for having convincingly historicized nature, naturalized humankind, and discredited all metaphysical and teleological world-views. (15)

In the late 1860s, Marx was reported to have declared: “Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to have my name linked onto Darwin’s. His wonderful work makes my own absolutely impregnable. Darwin may not know it, but he belongs to the Social Revolution” (Pittenger 17). While he was living in London, Karl Marx attended lectures on evolutionary theory delivered by T.H. Huxley (Taylor 381). Recognizing the odd synchronicity between the communist concept of class war and the Darwinian principle of natural selection, Marx sent Darwin a copy of Das Kapital in 1873 (Taylor 381). Within this work, Marx called Darwin’s theory “epoch-making” (Pittenger 17). Enamored of evolution, Marx asked Darwin the permission to dedicate his next volume to him six year later. Troubled by the fact that it would upset certain members of his family to have the name of Darwin associated with an atheistic polemic, Charles politely declined the offer (Taylor 381).

Numerous authors have established firm connections between Darwinism and Hitler’s Nazism. Evolutionary theory underpinned the very philosophy of the Third Reich:

One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was. . .evolutionary theory [and]. . .that all biology had evolved. . .upward, and that. . .less evolved types. . .should be actively eradicated [and]. . .that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate. . .Jews, and. . .blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped” (Wilder-Smith 27).

Commenting on the Darwinian influence upon Hitler, historian Hickman writes:

(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the Darwinian notion of perpetual struggle was significant because]. . .his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society (51-52) .

The title for Hitler’s own manifesto, Mein Kampf (translated: My Struggle), was inspired by the Darwinian concept of the struggle for survival. In an analysis of Mein Kampf, contemporary author Werner Maser reveals that Darwin was the crucible for Hitler’s “notions of biology, worship, force, and struggle, and of his rejection of moral causality in history” (Taylor 409). In fact, in Evolution and Ethics, Darwinian Sir Arthur Keith candidly stated: “The German Fuhrer as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution” (230).

Thus, evolutionary theory is one of the crucial ties that bind the governmental aberrations of communism and fascism. Ian Taylor concludes:

However, Fascism or Marxism, right wing or left–all these are only ideological roads that lead to Aldous Huxley’s brave new world [i.e. scientific dictatorship], while the foundation for each of these roads is Darwin’s theory of evolution. Fascism is aligned with biological determinism and tends to emphasize the unequal struggle by which those inherently fittest shall rule. Marxism stresses social progress by stages of revolution, while at the same time it paradoxically emphasizes peace and equality. There should be no illusions; Hitler borrowed from Marx. The result is that both Fascism and Marxism finish at the same destiny totalitarian rule by the elite. (411)

According to Dr. Wolfgang Smith, Darwinism itself qualifies as a Gnostic myth:

As a scientific theory, Darwinism would have been jettisoned long ago. The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is in essence a metaphysical claim. . . Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb. In other words, it is a scientistic myth. And the myth is Gnostic, because it implicitly denies the transcendent origin of being; for indeed, only after the living creature has been speculatively reduced to an aggregate of particles does Darwinist transformism become conceivable. Darwinism, therefore, continues the ancient Gnostic practice of depreciating “God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth.” It perpetuates, if you will, the venerable Gnostic tradition of “Jehovah bashing.” And while this in itself may gladden Gnostic hearts, one should not fail to observe that the doctrine plays a vital role in the economy of Neo-Gnostic thought, for only under the auspices of Darwinist “self-creation” does the Good News of “self-salvation” acquire a semblance of sense. (Smith 242-43)

Communism and fascism, which were both edified by the Gnostic myth of Darwinism, were little more than forms of secular Gnosticism. In fact, the same could be said for almost all forms of contemporary sociopolitical Utopianism. Sociologically, all of these ostensibly secular revolutionary movements have behaved like religions. Many sociopolitical Utopians typically rejected the traditional Abrahamic faiths in favor of a radically secular Weltanschauung. However, they would simultaneously transplant the traditional metaphysical concepts of these faiths within the ontological plane of the physical universe. Smith explains:

In place of an Eschaton which ontologically transcends the confines of this world, the modern Gnostic envisions an End within history, an Eschaton, therefore, which is to be realized within the ontological plane of this visible universe.” (238; emphasis added)

The final product of such religious engineering projects would be entire movements devoted to the erection of an anti-theistic, anti-spiritual theocracy. Ever-present was a religious fanaticism that rivaled even that of the traditional jihadist. Yet, because of their secular veneer, these neo-Gnostics were seldom discernible from any other common revolutionary. James Webb observes:

In this century, with the presentation of traditional religious positions in secular form, there has emerged a secular Gnosticism beside the other great secular religions–the mystical union of Fascism, the apocalypse of Marxist dialectic, the Earthly City of social democracy. The secular Gnosticism is almost never recognized for what it is, and it can exist alongside other convictions almost unperceived. (Webb 418)

Radical movements require radical myths and the Gnostic myth of Darwinism has served its purpose well. This is possibly the function being served by the modern mythmakers of scientism: the perpetuation of sociopolitical Utopianism. While scientific materialists and their fellow travelers (e.g., behaviorists, physicalists, functionalists, secular humanists, Marxists, etc.) relegate texts such as the Biblical Eden account to mere myth, an Edenic motif remains firmly embedded within their own Weltanschauung. In the beginning of this secular mythology, Eden was a singularity, which was eventually divided into countless pluralities by the Big Bang. According to the myth, the reconstitution of Eden is achieved through evolution, which invariably requires the assistance of Man (spelled with a capital M to signify humanity’s potential to achieve apotheosis through the evolutionary process). Man unites evolution with the science of “progress,” which is bodied forth through biological methodologies(e.g., eugenics, population control, etc.) and social methodologies (e.g., communism, fascism, and other forms of sociopolitical Utopianism). As evolution is guided down the desired course, Man returns to the singularity (i.e., a world government and a unified consciousness). Thus, Eden is reborn. However, Eden is confined to this ontological plane and immortality is attainable only through the continuity of the species.

If elements of this mythology sound familiar, it is because it is certainly nothing new. It is derivative of ancient occult cosmologies, particularly Gnosticism. The only difference is that the scientistic version stipulates an Eschaton residing entirely within this physical universe. However, the scientistic myth resembles a religion in every way. This is a reality the shaman of scientism cannot deny, even though their scientistic hubris prevents them from acknowledging it. Shermer candidly delineates the scientist’s new role as a mythmaker:

. . .because of language we are also storytelling, mythmaking primates, with scientism as the foundational stratum of our story and scientists as the premier mythmakers of our time. (No pagination)

As mythmakers, modern scientific materialists have sought to supplant the traditional religious systems of the past with their own theocratic order. This new configuration of society demands a new myth. Rene Guenon eloquently synopsizes:

Thus it comes about that there has grown up in the “scientistic” mentality. . .a real “mythology”: most certainly not in the original and transcendent meaning applicable to the traditional “myths,” but merely in the “pejorative” meaning which the word has acquired in recent speech. (151)

Until the Eschaton has been fully immanentized, the Novus Ordo Seclorum of sociopolitical Utopianism shall require more myths. Thanks to the shamans of scientism, the purveyors of Technocracy shall always have them.

The World Kingdom of Prima Materia

The sociopolitical Utopians of the Promethean faith sought to reconfigure society according to the technocratic blueprints of Sir Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis. Essentially, Bacon’s New Atlantis was a scientifically managed world society or, more succinctly, a global scientific dictatorship. Likewise, the Promethean Novus Ordo Seclorum was a scientistic society where man’s reality was altered by the transformational powers of techne. James H. Billington describes this new reality:

The new reality they sought was radically secular and stridently simple. The ideal was not the balanced complexity of the new American federation, but the occult simplicity of its great seal: an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid over the words Novus Ordo Seclorum. (Billington 6)

It is interesting that such a “radically secular” order would be premised upon “occult simplicity.” Secularism is commonly associated with atheism. However, as sociologist William Sims Bainbridge makes clear, secularization does not represent the complete obliteration of religion. Instead, it represents the opening stage of an occult counterculture movement:

Secularization does not mean a decline in the need for religion, but only a loss of power by traditional denominations. Studies of the geography of religion show that where the churches become weak, cults and occultism explode to fill the spiritual vacuum. (“Religions for a Galactic Civilization,” no pagination)

Indeed, occultism did explode to fill the spiritual vacuum. It found a vehicle within the Promethean faith itself. Several Promethean radicals entertained a preoccupation with the occult. Billington states:

In search of primal, natural truths, revolutionaries looked back to pre-Christian antiquity–adopting pagan names like “Anaxagoras” Chaumette and “Anacharsis” Cloots, idealizing above all the semimythic Pythagoras as the model intellect-turned-revolutionary and the Pythagorean belief in prime numbers, geometric forms, and the higher harmonies of music. (6)

The occult theocracies of antiquity had found a way of perpetuating themselves. The Mystery priesthoods of ancient Babylon and Egypt found their modern counterparts in the revolutionary ideologues of contemporary totalitarianism. Out of the Promethean movement would spring Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, two technocratic regimes premised upon the Gnostic myth of Darwinism. Envisioning an Eschaton within the physical universe and a “new man” who would overcome his humanity in exchange for apotheosis, these secular theocracies carried out religious crusades that were far bloodier than any of those conducted by their religious precursors.

Even after the fall of both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, the Promethean crusade survives. Secular humanism is one of its many vessels. Interestingly enough, the Humanist Manifesto II echoes the Baconian mandate for the creation of a global scientific dictatorship:

We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. (No pagination)

The globalist elements of this declaration should be painfully obvious. Encapsulated within this mission statement is the mandate for the dissolution of sovereign nation-states and the erection of an omnipotent, supra-national governmental entity. The vision of secular humanists is virtually identical to the revolutionary vision of their Promethean progenitors: “an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid over the words Novus Ordo Seclorum.” The apostle Paul eloquently synopsizes such hubris in Romans 1:25: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised.” In short, the secular humanist wishes to see the glorification of the creation rather than the Creator.

There should be absolutely no confusion over the secular humanist’s motives when he or she seeks to expunge the elements of traditional theistic faiths from the public arena. There can be no heaven apart from the Eschaton that the secular humanist seeks to immanentize. There can be no divine revelation apart from the principles and concepts attained through humanity’s own Reason. There can be no theocentric faith to oppose their anthropocentric religion. Most importantly, there can be no God outside the ontological plane of the physical universe who could dethrone the secular humanist’s god: Man. This is the jihad to which the secular humanist is committed.

Beyond the Flesh

There is no question that corporeality has a legitimate place within the hierarchical order of God’s creation. Man’s own physical body holds reverence in the eyes of the Lord. The apostle Paul argued this position several times in his first letter to the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 6:15, Paul writes: “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?” Later, in 1 Corinthians 6:19, Paul recapitulates this message: “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”

Christ Himself was the Word made flesh. Through His incarnation, Jesus demonstrated the centrality of the physical body to man’s communion with God. Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias eloquently expands on this theme: “…in His [Christ’s] incarnation He exalts the body, first by being conceived in the womb of a virgin, then by taking on human form and giving it the glorious expression of God in the flesh” (72). Thus, the physical body is not simply analogous to a temple. It is the temple itself! Zacharias explains:

The Christian does not go to the temple to worship. The Christian takes the temple with him or her. Jesus lifts us beyond the building and pays the human body the highest compliment by making it His dwelling place, the place where He meets with us. (73)

The resurrection of Jesus Christ vividly illustrated the important role served by the physical body within the continuum of eternity. Zacharias recapitulates:

Jesus made it clear that the body is not just informationally different from other quantities; it is purposefully different. That is why the resurrection is a physical one at its core. The body matters in the eternal sense, not just the temporal. (71)

Yet, while the Lord honors the physical body and corporeality in general, He has made them ontologically subordinate to the spiritual realm. In Mark 8:36, Jesus posed an interesting question: “What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul?” Indeed, the physical world with all of its splendors would be worthless to a soulless individual. The soul, which is a spiritual entity, is the energizing mechanism of the corporeal body. It animates the hylomorphic composite of man. This is an appropriate portrait of the soul, especially given its etymological origin. “Soul” is derived from anima, which also provides the root for the word “animation.” Thus, while the spirit requires corporeality for embodiment, corporeality requires the spirit to be animated with life.

In rejecting the spirit and bestowing absolute metaphysical primacy upon matter, the modern Promethean revolutionary rejects life. Theirs is a culture of death and their Novus Ordo Seclorum is Thanatos extended to the entirety of human civilization. Both communism and fascism, which were the ideological progenies of the Promethean faith, murdered millions. Professor R.J. Rummel estimates that the Nazis slaughtered roughly 20,946,000 (Freedom, Democide, War, no pagination). Meanwhile, the Soviet communists exterminated approximately 61,911,000, surpassing even their fascist brethen (Freedom, Democide, War, no pagination). In essence, the scientific dictatorship pursued by adherents of the Promethean tradition amounts to little more than an enormous suicide pact.

Yet, deluded as they are, the Promethean technocrats believe that they can transform the ontological plane of the physical universe into Heaven itself. They have become lovers of the world, so-to-speak. To be sure, there is nothing wrong with loving the workmanship of God and the world qualifies as such. However, the Promethean veneration for the world is an idolatrous love. Concerning this idolatrous love of the world, 1 John 2:15-17 states:

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

In the original Greek version of 1 John, the word “world” is translated from the term kosmos. Kosmos means “ordered space” or “ordered arrangement.” This sort of order is not to be confused with legitimate order. It is a rigid, confining order not unlike the sort imposed by the socialist totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Interestingly enough, the term “establishment,” which is used in reference to the elitist network for consolidating power and erecting a Novus Ordo Seclorum, is derived from the Latin root stabilis. Stabilis means “stable” or “ordered.” To understand this so-called “order,” one might find the poem “Creed” by Steve Turner helpful:

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin.
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone,
to the best definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything’s getting better,
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
and you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe that there’s something in horoscopes,
UFOs and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher although we think
His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same —
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then it’s compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.

This poem is followed by a postscript entitled, “Chance.” It reads:

If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear,
“State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!”

It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.

Indeed, it is the sound of humanity worshipping its new god. His name is Man, apotheosized and enthroned to preside over his own crumbling Novus Ordo Seclorum. This is the sort of world that the Lord stands against. Is there any wonder why? It is the contract of self-immolation where humanity is sacrificed on the altar of apotheosized Man. It is precisely the world sought by secular humanism, which contends that there is nothing beyond the flesh.

Sources Cited

• Angus, S. The Mystery-Religions: A Study in the Religious Background of Early Christianity. New York: Dover Publications, 1975.
• Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Pt. I, Qu. 86, Art. I, in Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Ed. Anton C. Pegis (New York: Random House, 1945), I.
• Bainbridge, William Sims. “Religions for a Galactic Civilization.” Excerpted from Science Fiction and Space Futures, edited by Eugene M. Emme. San Diego: American Astronautical Society, pages 187-201, 1982.
• Baker, Jeffrey. Cheque Mate: The Game of Princes. Springdale, PA: Whitaker House, 1995.
• Billington, James H. Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith. New York: Basic, 1980.
• Carlson, Ron, Ed Decker. Fast Facts on False Teachings. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1994.
• Coomaraswamy, Rama. “The Fundamental Nature of the Conflict Between Modern and Traditional Man–Often Called the Conflict Between Science and Faith.” 2001. Coomaraswamy Catholic Writings. 26 August 2005.
• de Hoyos, Linda. “The Enlightenment’s Crusade Against Reason.” The New Federalist 8 Feb. 1993.
• Dubos, Rene J. Louis Pasteur: Free lance of Science. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1976.
• Fischer, Frank. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1990.
• Guenon, Rene. The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times. Trans. Lord Northbourne. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books Inc, 1953.
• Hickman, R. Biocreation. Worthington, Ohio: Science Press, 1983.
• Hoffman, Michael. Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare. Coeur d’Alene, Idaho: Independent History & Research, 2001.
• Hooykaas, Reijer. Religion and the Rise of Modern Science. London: Chatto and Windus, 1972.
• Howard, Michael. The Occult Conspiracy. Rochester, Vermont: Destiny Books, 1989.
• Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World Revisited. New York: Bantam Books, 1958.
• Kelly, Rev. Clarence. Conspiracy Against God and Man. Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1974.
• Kurtz, P. and E.H. Wilson, eds. Humanist Manifesto II. 1973.
• Lewin, Leonard, ed., The Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace. New York: Dell Publishing, 1967.
• Martin, Malachi. The Keys of this Blood. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991.
• Pesce, Mark. “Ontos and Techne.” Computer-Medicated Magazine, April 1997
• Pittenger, Mark. American Socialists and Evolutionary Thought, 1870-1920. Madison: Wisconsin UP, 1993.
• Raschke, Carl A. The Interruption of Eternity: Modern Gnosticism and the Origins of the New Religious Consciousness. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1980.
• Rummel, R.J. Freedom, Democide, War. 13 March 2000. U of Hawaii. 19 September 2003.
• Shermer, Michael. “The Shamans of Scientism.” Scientific American. 13 May 2002.
• Taylor, Ian T. In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order. Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1999.
• Wagar, W. Warren. H.G. Wells and the World State. New Haven, CT.: Yale UP, 1961.
• Webb, James. The Occult Establishment. Open Court, 1976.
• Wilder-Smith, B. The Day Nazi Germany Died. San Diego, CA: Master Books, 1982.

About the Author

Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for The Hidden Face of Terrorism. He has also written articles for Paranoia Magazine, MKzine, NewsWithViews, B.I.P.E.D.: The Official Website of Darwinian Dissent, the ACL Report, Namaste Magazine, and Conspiracy Archive. In 1999, he earned an Associate degree of Arts and Science. In 2006, he earned a bachelors degree with a major in communication studies and a minor in philosophy. During the course of his seven-year college career, Phillip has studied philosophy, religion, and classic literature.

He has recently completed a newly expanded and revised edition of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship (ISBN 1-4196-3932-3). He is also currently co-authoring a collection of short stories, poetry, and prose entitled Expansive Thoughts. It will be available late July 2006.