History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

R48G: theistic confusions…

May 15th, 2017 · No Comments

Our analysis travels along a precipice of intepretative confusion and we can see from the ‘history’ generated by the ‘eonic model’ that the transitions produce contrary realizations, especially in antiquity in the Axial Age (which is an aspect of our system). We confront the fact that the Israelites in their clearly demarcated ‘transition’ (900 to 600 BCE, roughly, note that Abraham to Moses are not included) began to observe an ‘eonic effect’ and thought it was sign of ‘god in history’. Trouble, big trouble.

We can see in retrospect that the birth of monotheism is strongly amplified by the eonic transition of the Israelites. We must be wary to move to some kind of neutral higher ground because theistic interpretations will corrupt our model. It is easy to correct this by simply seeing the counterpoint spectrum of relative opposites, e.g. the parallel of classic Greece in the Axial, or Indic buddhism. We have forgotten what monotheism was and the task that it performed in the rationalization of polytheism and the social progression beyond paganism. It created a social ideology that in retrospect we might well critique. We must be wary of theistic evolutionism because it clearly falsifies itself. We must be wary here and stick with our neutral model because the minute we inject theology here the whole game is shot. But it is also true that the eonic effect shows clear evidence of a mysterious design. We have tried to analyze this in Enigma of the Axial Age, but the modern world shows a clear trend to move beyond the Israelite-generated ideology of monotheism (which never really became global) which may have served its purpose…The question of ‘god’ is cosmic’, if it has any meaning at all. God would be external to the system (unless we mean by ‘god’ some gnostic or sufi type variant). It doesn’t follow there are not ‘spiritual/material’ agencies, had we evidence of such. But ‘god’ ideas are a debased currency and we steer clear of it ruthlessly, and that is not atheism. The idea of ‘god in history’ is almost more confused than polytheistic paganism…

We stick carefully to a robust ‘secularized’ interpretations based on systems analysis and this can explore ‘agents of design’/and or teleology in nature if necessary but with a ruthless skepticism that will stick to systems analysis until it can reach a real science here.

Marxism was a clear effort to try and clean up monotheistic confusions (Feuerbachian era), and that was all well and good. But atheism and theism both tend to fail. And the socialist left is really a descendant of the Reformation. A leftist communism might stick to its post-theistic guns and yet create a ‘big tent’ that can merge several movements into a complex association of counterpoints.
The eonic effect shows a clear path for monotheistists into a more settled view of history and can provide an exit path here…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment