I was going to call this “The End of Atheism,” just to tease everyone, but I was afraid the joke would be too subtle. By entelechy I mean what Aristotle meant, which is given in the Oxford English Dictionary as follows:
1. In Aristotle’s use: The realization or complete expression of some function; the condition in which a potentiality has become an actuality.
The entelechy of something is therefore the perfection of it, the final expression of its true nature.
I don’t think much of the uproar over “The New Atheists” because I see them as more ignorant and less honest than the old atheists. Lacking the cultural basis of the old atheists and an honest acceptance of radical secular humanism, the New Atheist leaders will quickly burn out and the low-IQ acolytes will revert to pantheism, due to their natural propensity for superstition and idolatry:
Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.” [World Pantheism]
In other words, atheists are just repressed pantheists. I have previously expressed my belief that there are three natural default states for anti-Christians who are also anti-religious:
- Radical secular humanism: “Man is the measure of all things. I am my own god and I can do whatever I want. Might makes right. PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS … Itty-bitty living space!”
- Deism: “Something created the universe and all of life, giving it order and maybe even purpose. However, it doesn’t talk to me or listen to me and it doesn’t care what I do or what happens to me. I don’t know what it was and I don’t really want to know, because I’m satisfied just contemplating what was created.”
- Pantheism: “The universe is self-created, self-ordering, and self-sustaining. Everything is cyclical and recurring; there is no first cause or final end. Humans come from nature and their souls return to the universal soul after death. Everything in nature has consciousness and everything is sacred.”
Radical secular humanism is usually considered to have its ultimate modern expression in Nietzsche’s writings, which is appropriate since he eventually went insane. Variant forms can be found among fascists, secular Nazis, Randian Objectivists, communist intellectuals, moralistic sociopaths, and atheist existentialists. In the past, Objectivists have shown up here and whined about being lumped in with Nazis; but despite the fact that they may quibble about the use of state power and who gets to be the Supreme Leader, they still agree on worshipping their own awesome selves.
I associate Deism with Tom Paine, Voltaire, John Davison, the Intelligent Design movement, the motto “In God We Trust,” politically acceptable civic religion, 19th-century Unitarians, lapsed Catholics, and a lot of almost-Christians who really hate being around judgmental pseudo-Christian WASP Republicans. Deism is for rationalists who love physical order or social order but not moral accountability; for materialists who don’t like quantum physics and string theory; and for “Pascal’s Wager” losers who don’t like Christians but are afraid to be called atheists.
Pantheism is the modern, socially acceptable form of heathenism. It encompasses New Age Spirituality, panpsychism, Green Nazis, neo-paganism, Unitarian-Universalism, shamanism, Hinduism, popular communism, Gaia-worship, Native American religion, and philosophical naturalism. It is anarcho-primitivist, irrationalist, collectivist, and morally incoherent. The numbing effect of pantheism among the general populace results in the degradation of technological ability and scientific inquiry, accompanied by the idolization of gadgets and the scientific priesthood. Furthermore, a pantheistic society devalues the individual and institutionalizes caste tyranny.
The radical secular humanists are relatively unpopular now in the USA. All their glorious eugenics plans have been disowned by their ungrateful intellectual stepchildren, and their twentieth-century projects are generally disparaged as anomalies of a perverse age.
For some reason, scientific atheists and conservative Christians seem to think that most Deists are Christians and all Christians are Deists; most of the arguing about atheism and religion involves Deist arguments. Sometimes they say “theist,” but if you don’t know who your god is, you don’t know what he wants from you, you don’t think he cares what you do or think, and you’ve never talked to him—you are a Deist. And if you don’t know or care about Jesus, you are not a Christian. Why should I care if my worldly rulers argue over whether to promote Deism as the state religion? The Christian obsession with the atheist/Deist debate is tiresome and irrelevant.
Scientific atheists and conservative Christians seem to be most resistant to the idea of atheists ultimately becoming pantheists. They just can’t believe that most so-called atheists are not smart enough or strong-willed enough to become Nietzschean alpha males, that most “freethinkers” just want to dissolve their egos into puddles of superstitious idolatry. Yet, World Pantheism is standing there with open arms, awaiting the crowds of low-church atheists yearning for anonymous Unity:
Are you sceptical about a “God” other than Nature and the wider Universe?
Yet do you feel an emotional need for a recognition of something greater than your own self or than the human race? …
Pantheism is older than Buddhism or Christianity, and may already count hundreds of millions among its members. Most Taoists are pantheists, along with many Chinese, Japanese and Western Buddhists, deep ecologists, pagans, animists, followers of many native religions, and many Unitarian Universalists. The central philosophical scriptures of Hinduism are pantheistic. Many atheists and humanists may be naturalistic pantheists without realizing it.
Scientific or natural pantheism is a modern form of pantheism that deeply reveres the universe and nature and joyfully accepts and embraces life, the body and earth, but does not believe in any supernatural deities, entities or powers.
When some moron chooses to disable his intellect and his will in awe of the sacred cosmos, as revealed to him by a science reporter who is cribbing from a press release, that has nothing to do with the depredations of Darwin or Dawkins. Stop blaming those second-rate theologians for the adulterous irrationalism and lurching zombie mobbing of the typical “Friends of A.”
Everyone who wants to avoid accountability for their sadistic tendencies and victimization complex points to some big villain who personifies all of their own sinfulness, someone who put the “bad ideas” in their head and made them want to hurt other people, or someone who convinced them that slavery was a good thing. This denial of personal sin is sickening. If someone is vicious, immature, addicted, egotistical, malicious, thieving, hypocritical, and adulterous, it isn’t the fault of Darwin or Nietzsche or anyone else in the world; it is their own fault for seeking salvation in the world and for rejecting God’s grace, so that God has handed them over to suffer in their depravity.