The issue of ‘demiurgic powers’ we discussed yesterday is a useful exercise in the middle of endless theism/atheism debates. The question of ‘god’ goes into antinomial limbo for both groups, theist or atheist. The idea of ‘demiurgic powers’ forces the issues into a real discussion of the potential of future science, by examining a category that is possibly too speculative, but not inherently metaphysical. Let us note the way Marx stumbled into this realm with his reflections on ‘Prometheus’.
The question requires care: the term ‘demiurgic powers’, its source being in the works of J.G.Bennett, has no clear referents, points to agencies that are anonymous, cloaked, not objects of worship, prayer or communication. But we suspect that higher agencies in nature should logically exist, and confront the reckoning of those such as Bennett who thought so, and, remarkably, gave hints of a radical component in this domain. We are so totally confused by reactionary spiritual agencies at the human level that we tend to associate religion with conservatism. But we must suspect this represents the human element leading to the destruction of real religion.
We fail to see the revolutionary character of religion as we see it in history.
In any case, having cited the idea of demiurgic powers we must be alert to just this reactionary character in the format of Bennett’s sources: he slipped in a radical idea, but the centre of gravity of his sufi sources is grossly retrograde and no doubt one of the hidden components of middle eastern brands of despotism.
But the simple point is that real spirituality has a radical component and this is perhaps why in the desolation of human religion there is a gesture of hope that cosmic sources can guide (once again) the revolutionary thrust of futurism. In fact, they are probably doing just that, but we would have no way to be sure: our efforts must be spontaneous and centered on humanist foundations, theist, atheist or, better both/none.