Cause and Effect Part II: The Red Garden

This is the second part of an essay that was begun a little over a week ago. I hope to have Part III up this coming week. As always, please join in. Comments are very welcome.

In the first part we looked at Communism and some of its effects. The proposition that a certain form of atheism, or anti-theism, was the root cause of Communism was stated. At the end of part one I also proposed that the denial of God inevitably causes the value of mankind and of the material universe to be lowered, leading eventually to horrible abuses of both man and nature, as witnessed in Communism and many other philosophical and political systems. In this second part I wish to examine the reasons for this more carefully, and attempt to demonstrate this proposition through a comparison of Christian and atheistic thought, particularly by reflecting on the first chapters of Genesis.

First, however, I would like to clarify and refine the intention of this essay in a more specific way than was stated in Part I.

To begin with, let me state what this essay is not about; what it does not intend to do.
1. This essay is not fundamentally about Communism. It is not a thorough or scholarly examination of Communism. That would be far beyond the scope of my knowledge and abilities. Communism in Part I represents an ideal example, or historic "proof", of the destructive effects of a certain form of atheistic, humanistic materialism. Thus it simply serves as a starting point for a comparison.

2. This essay does not intend to prove that atheism is the only cause of the historic rise of Communism. To ignore or deny the economic, social, political, and other factors that contributed to its successful dominance would be naive and inaccurate. I merely propose that atheism is the fundamental cause. I doubt that all the other causes put together could have effected Communism without its atheistic backdrop.

3. In addressing atheism I do not intend to try to prove the existence of God. I believe that God's existence has been masterfully demonstrated many times by far abler minds and writers than myself. I hope that the thoughts expressed in this essay will be seen to offer a convincing possibility to the reader's mind, but in no way does this essay set out to be as a series of philosophical propositions, leading to a logical proof of God. St. Thomas Aquinas and many others have hashed out conclusions from those methods for centuries.

4. In the following comments on Creation, I am not attempting to address the problem of evolution, except in so far as it opposes traditional Christian dogma. This is not an attempt to avoid a difficult and often inflammatory discussion; my research on this topic has been limited and my own beliefs concerning it are poorly formed. I am aware of the proof of certain forms of micro-evolution, and am also aware of how limited and still uncertain are the proofs for macro-evolution (witness the changing hypotheses from Darwinism to the more recent punctuated equilibrium theory). As a Catholic, I also note that the Church has, as of yet, offered no official statements on many aspects of evolution. The Church has basically confined herself to three necessary tenets of faith on this subject. They are: 1. That God originally created all the material universe ex nihilo, 2. That God directly created(s) the human soul in His own Image, thus making man religious and answerable to God, 3. And that the human race sprang from one set of original parents (as opposed to polygenism). The methods God may have used in forming the contents and creatures in the universe are very much open for debate.

So what is this essay about? It is principally concerned with accomplishing two things:
1. It is fundamentally a comparison between Christian and atheistic thought as they relate to the subjects of man and matter.

2. It will attempt to demonstrate that the denial of God necessarily results in a humanism that destroys man, and a materialism that abuses nature; and that Christian philosophy offers a positive, constructive, and life-giving alternative in its treatment of those two subjects: man and matter.

Since the central thesis is concerned with the proposition that the denial of God leads inevitably to the abuse and/or destruction of man and nature, let us go to the beginning of the great Christian story of the history of man and nature.The story of Creation and the Fall as set out in the first chapters of Genesis offers us in a compact, kernel form a foreshadowing of all religious and atheistic history.

We have already seen how God created man in His own Image, and how He created and declared good the material universe. A few thing may be noted here concerning the original state of man.

First, man walked with God, a simple statement of pre-Fall religion, so to speak, of man's relationship to his Creator.

Secondly, man was given dominion over creation, not through tyranny, but by a right order of Divinely formed Government. This dominion was intended to be life-giving and natural, not oppressive and disordered.

Thirdly, man was intended to work, even before the Fall. It is a mistake to assume that work is part of the curse. The curse indicated that both the nature and the purpose of work would change, not that work was inherently unnatural to man. The work of man pre-Fall was in tending, keeping, and being fruitful. Hence, work was fundamentally creative, life-giving, and positive. Work in the era following the curse not only involved corruption, disorder, and suffering, but was now primarily concerned with survival. Dorothy Sayers brilliantly demonstrates this point in The Mind of the Maker. She explains that the statement that man now eats his "bread by the sweat of his brow" indicates that work is now fundamentally related to survival, to necessity. Work now becomes a necessary means of continued existence, not the creative and loving impulse of the Divine Image.

The subjects of man's relationships, procreation, and sexuality before the Fall are also important, but I would refer the reader to Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Although they are involved in this story as well, they are fundamentally outside the specific scope of the topics to be considered here.

Now we will see how the original state of man was corrupted and destroyed by the atheism of Adam and Eve. Yes, the Fall was fundamentally atheistic. Remember, there are many forms of atheism. It is not necessary to deny God's existence intellectually; atheism may be effected in a practical way by simply denying God's action in our lives, or by misunderstanding God's "character" or nature, to such an extent that we may be considered as virtually not believing in God. The temptation of Adam and Eve resulted in both conditions.
First, God's sovereignty was denied by man's rebellion. In his refusal to accept God's authority in his life, man came to act atheistically. God was no longer God to Adam and Eve.

Secondly, the Tempter led our first parents to misunderstand the nature of God. The highest forms of philosophy, and the basics of theology, teach us many things about the nature of God: omniscience, omnipotence, simplicity, eternity, transcendence, immanence, etc. In the minds of Adam and Eve the truths concerning God were twisted to such a degree that I believe it could be rightly said that they had nearly ceased to believe in the same God. They were told that God had lied ("you will not surely die"). It seems also possible that a very human form of jealousy or fear was imputed to God ("God knows in fact that the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods...."). It is written that the Tempter was subtle, and these passages would clearly indicate the truth of this. It would have been ridiculous to attempt to get Adam and Eve to deny God's existence. After all, they had walked with Him and known Him already. But through destroying their understanding of certain truths about God, and assisting them to refuse God's authority in their lives, the Serpent had effectively caused our first parents to become practical atheists.

And so the stage is set: the denial of God has entered the Garden. What will be the result? When God is denied, something must take His place. Nature (including human nature) abhors a vacuum. St. Augustine writes of the interior need for God, "Our hearts are restless, O God, until they rest in Thee" (The Confessions). The heart of man will necessarily seek another god to replace the One he left. I believe that the Genesis account offers us an example of every form of atheistic God-replacement that mankind has ever pursued. There are four options:

1. Humanism. "...you shall be as gods...." Man attempts to replace God with the elevation of himself, but the denial of his life-giving source ultimately results in his death. "The criticism of religion ends in the doctrine that man is the supreme being for man...." (Karl Marx)

2. Rationalism "...it was desired to make one wise." There is nothing wrong with seeking after wisdom, but just as a house with a faulty foundation is doomed to collapse, so too a wisdom that was already founded upon a lie is doomed to result in false knowledge. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that we are told that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

3. Hedonism. "...it was a delight to the eyes...." I suspect that this could cover both physical and emotional pleasures. Adam and Eve were naturally meant to experience both. But the disobedient pursuit of them causes two effects: slavery to the object desired ("...and he shall rule over you."), and the self-centered, lustful grasping of that object which results in its abuse, seen clearly in rape and theft, but elsewhere in less extreme examples as well.

4. Materialism. "...it was good for food...." Mankind is here reduced to basic, animal level. His concern is no longer even as high as wisdom or pleasure. Naked survival rules his action. Food, profit, and utter selfishness become his only motive; the material world his only point of reference. In falling this far man reduces himself to a mere economic principle, as witnessed in the severe materialism of Marx where the value of each individual is nothing more than an economic function.

In replacing God with these things man has not emancipated himself. Rather he has left the great liberty to be found in the Eternal One, and has become a slave to lesser masters, a worshiper of little gods. He defines himself by what he chooses to serve. If a man serves drugs, for example, we notice that he comes to have a very low self-image. This should come as no surprise. The lesser should naturally only be ruled by the greater. The drug addict has silently announced that white powder is greater than himself, that a pill is worthy to be his master. Understood in this light, we can see why the servants of God realize their true potential and experience their great dignity when they place themselves under their Maker. Obedience to the highest Master of all is not demeaning, but rather an honor. Which indicates greater dignity for mankind: to say that only the Almighty and Eternal Trinity has the innate right to rule man for his own good; or to say that almost anything else (money, pleasure, tyrants, etc.) has the right to be placed above him and demand his obedience?

Thus, we see two reasons why atheism leads to the destruction of man:
First, because man is no longer viewed as God's child, is no longer seen to be a creature made in the Image of God. The denial of the cause results in the denial of its proper effect. If God is denied, then there cannot possibly be anything divine about man. "God is dead," cried Nietzsche "we have killed him!" And, I would answer, you have therefore killed yourself. If man is not a child of God, then he is only an animal, or something less. Man's self-image, man's definition of himself steadily falls to a lower level with the onset of atheism, and his abuse and destruction at his own hands cannot be far behind.

Secondly, we have seen how man chooses to replace God with lesser objects of worship that are demeaning to himself. These new masters tend to be unkind, as history and reason show us. They cannot offer us life, participation in divinity, security, or any of the deepest wants and needs of humanity. And these tyrannous masters of humanism, materialism, hedonism, and rationalism tend to turn on their subjects in time and devour them. Slavery to man and material leads automatically to war, taxation, and tyranny. Rationalism that is founded on the Original Lie leads to ignorance at best, or madness at worst. And pleasure leads to gross slavery as well, with its helpless servants led to whatever end at its caprice.

Returning briefly to Communism, which example served as the starting point for this essay, we notice how closely it parallels the Fall. The human heart has been seeking Paradise ever since the Fall, but, without God, it sets up barren deserts rather than gardens. Communism offered a future paradise for mankind by destroying class distinctions. But its Utopian future was founded upon some of the basic principles that we noted in Genesis. It denied God. It set up humanity for its future goal and present worship. It offered no reality but materialism.

The Paradise of God was the place where man was robed in his Original Dignity, granted the opportunity to realize his calling, and offered a true future of endless Joy. The Red Garden of Communism is stained with the blood of countless of our brothers, still crying out from the ground.

God is our All, we are taught. If this is true, then when we leave Him we are left with nothing. Except perhaps ourselves....