A Red Flag Rises, Part VI: Blind Faith

Today we will look at a third aspect of Marxist thought: a blind faith in evolutionary social advancement.

We have already spent a great deal of time noting the influence of Hegel and Feuerbach on Marx, and here we will see yet another similarity between these three thinkers. All three of them hold to a dialectical viewpoint of history, with its steady evolution of synthesis. It seems to be ingrained in their theories that this dialectic will turn out well, indeed that it must turn out well. Mankind will continue to advance to some state of perfection. In Hegel we see the final advancement of man in the god-like knowledge of pure spirit; in Feuerbach (renouncing the idealism and individualism of Hegel) we see the perfection of abstract humanity reaching a final self-fulfillment; in Marx, the future perfection of the classless society of Communism.

What made three such brilliant atheists take such a rosy view of the future is still strange to me. As a Catholic, I believe in a hopeful end to history as well, yet it requires the thought of Divine intervention to hold to such a hope with any conviction. What, in all the long annals of human history, would lead us to assume that things will just keep getting better and better, without some miraculous assistance, I simply cannot imagine. Perhaps I will be accused of being pessimistic about human nature or the nature of the universe, but I would think that Hegel, Feuerbach and Marx would have had every bit as much reason (if not more) to be pessimistic as well.

At any rate, personal considerations aside, these three German philosophers did imagine that things were going to work out well in the end, that mankind would achieve some enduring state of perfection, that heaven would appear on earth.

The idea of heaven is cause for two common criticisms against Christianity and other religions that believe in the possibility of an a happy afterlife. The first criticism is the devotee focused upon heaven will be a person remarkably unconcerned with the problems of this present life and world. He or she will be expected to do nothing about the evils and sorrows which afflict our fellow men, or do anything to leave a better world for future generations. It is even possible to do remarkably evil things here (jihad comes to mind) because of one's belief the next life. All eyes on the afterlife, none here. The second criticism is that the idea of heaven is nothing more than a sort of sacred bribery, a promise of something nice in the future if we behave well now. It seems a little less than noble, a little "not-quite-manly". Instead of pursuing truth and justice for its own sake, we are all just striving for a slice of that pie-in-the-sky, which is probably not really there anyway.

Now, there is something to be said for both of these criticisms. It is quite true that certain people focus on heaven in such a way as to completely ignore the needs of this world. This habit is probably even worse among certain Christians who are convinced that the world is ending in the very near future. Why plant trees? We won't be around to see them. Why worry about pollution? The world won't escape the Apocalypse another twenty years anyway. Why bother about hunger and malnutrition in third world countries? Just give 'em the Gospel-- suffering makes you a better Christian anyway. And on we could go. And as for the bribery issue, well yes, I think that there is something to be said about that as well. I am afraid that many, perhaps most of us, haven't really gotten the Gospel into our hearts, so most of our behavior is based on alternating fear and bribery, not on a real desire to do good.

This is not the place to respond to such criticisms in detail, except to note that one would be hard pressed to find an institution in the last two millenia  that has been more concerned with the problems of life on this earth, than the Hell-and-Heaven-preaching Catholic Church. The roster of the names of saints who spent their entire lives helping the poor, the handicapped, and the sick, would fill pages. The reasons behind this apparently contradictory phenomenon will be left for a different post and a different day.

The really interesting thing about the materialistic and atheistic philosophies which we have been discussing is that they create a certain faith in heaven here on earth, yet few, if any, human institutions have done more damage to people here on earth than the utopian institution of Communism. Here is a contradictory phenomenon worth noting as well!

However, leaving these ramblings aside, I would simply like to point out three criticisms of this idea as found in Marx:

1. To view the advancement of mankind from past history is, at least, a rational idea. To assume that our species will automatically continue to advance, or even survive, is wishful thinking, and opposed to the basic principles of evolution which underlie the idea itself. In other words, to use biological evolution as an analogy, if we can demonstrate that some aspect of evolution actually happened, against astronomical odds, well and good. To be certain that this aspect of evolution will continue in the same manner against the same astronomical odds, is blind fortune telling. 

2. To assume that change is always improvement is a dangerous and somewhat naive viewpoint. In the atheistic constructs of the philosophies we have examined, with no Divine Power guiding our destiny, it seems to me that the idea that the syntheses of Hegelian-Fichtean dialectic should always represent unending improvement is a blindly optimistic view of the universe.

3. The idea that this future utopian state will be permanent seems to directly disagree with the basic premises of Hegelian dialectic. This was mentioned in the last post, so there is no need to go back over here. Suffice it to say that that the synthesis of utopia ought to have its own antithesis.

Finally, I would like to add that this blindly optimistic viewpoint of man's future is still very much with us today. There seems to be a feeling of man-come-of-age, man-controlling-his-destiny, man-as-the-summit-and-intention-of-evolution, that breeds a certain dangerous hubris, especially in matters of science and sociology.

At least the Christian's certainty of some heavenly place or state is founded upon the idea of an omnipotent Divine Being Who controls the odds, and is thus, ironically, a far more rational form of optimism.