Reflections on Voegelin Pt 1: The Challenge of Faith
Making sense of 'Science, Politics, & Gnosticism"
Introduction
For this series of posts, I will be drawing heavily on Eric Voegelin’s work “Science, Politics, and Gnosticism,” as well as his other works “The New Science of Politics,” and “Autobiographical Reflections.” I was first introduced to Voegelin years ago from an offhand comment James Lindsay made on his podcast ‘New Discourses’. I could sense a religious underpinning to the socio/cultural/political madness of our time, and the mystery surrounding the word ‘Gnosticism’ was intriguing. During the middle of the 2020 lockdowns I first read “Science, Politics, and Gnosticism” followed by “The New Science of Politics.” The ideas, especially from the former work1, have been rolling around in my mind for the past several years, so I decided to re-read it for this Substack (It is a short book – less than 100 pages, but it is very dense). Initially, I wanted to do a quick reflection like I do on most other books, but Voegelin spans so much (History, Philosophy, Theology, Psychology, Politics, and even Linguistics) that I wanted to break down a few ideas in my own words. Hopefully, by the end of this series, I’ll have a better grasp of Voegelin’s work.
Voegelin’s writing is difficult for me to read. He casually makes many specific references to (what some would consider) obscure people and events ranging across thousands of years. For example, he may mention the Valentian Heresy of the 2nd century, St. Iranaeus’ writings, Joachim Di Fiore’s writings of the 12th Century, and particular elements of German vocabulary chosen by Hegel in the span of a few pages. The first time I read this book, the feeling was akin to getting cut at a jam session. These references, as well as specific vocabulary Voegelin uses from Greek, Latin, and German2 were like chord changes to a Herbie Hancock tune that were so specific I had no chance of playing by ear3. On this second reading, I’d become familiar with many of the references through other reading, and whenever I came across a reference I was unfamiliar with, I put down the book and did some extra reading. For example, I had to read about the Valentian heresy, the root words in Greek that relate to Doxa and Pneuma, or sometimes just learning vocabulary I probably should have already known like ‘Ersatz.’ In pursuing these threads, I found more rabbit holes burrowing around the internet concerning Voegelin’s writing than anything I’ve ever come across — this speaks to the continued relevance of his work.
In the present day, an accusation of Gnosticism conjures images of candlelit ceremonies centuries old, but that is really not at all what the word means, especially as it pertains to Voegelin’s use. Because of this, I would like to discuss Voegelin’s ideas in a kind of reverse order. Rather than starting with the general in the past, I’d like to start with the particular and the present – with something we can all relate. Our Christian civilization naturally presents temptations to Gnosticism, and whereas “Science, Politics, and Gnosticism” ends with a chapter on the uncertainty and challenges of Christian faith (particularly from a psychological perspective) I would like to start here.
The Uncertain Truth
From Voegelin:
“The temptation to fall from uncertain truth into certain untruth is stronger in the clarity of Christian faith than in other spiritual Structures.”
“The prophet Jeremiah made the penetrating observation that nations in general do not desert their gods, although they are ‘false’; while Israel, who has the ‘true God,’ deserts Him.”
Christianity is hard because it requires us to believe in something we cannot understand. Voegelin uses the example of God speaking to Moses in what seems like more of a riddle than an explanation:
“God reveals himself in his nature to Moses with the expression, ‘I am who I am.’”
I am also reminded of St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians:
But as it is written: “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,”
— 1 Corinthians 2:9
As well as this other passage from Isaiah:
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts.” – Isaiah 55:9
Or Saint Paul again:
“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the eyes of God” – 1 Corinthians 3:19
The Temptation of Radical Materialism/Activist Mysticism
Belief in a God that cannot be grasped with human understanding reminds me of the music classroom. Some lessons will take students from an area of unconscious incompetence to conscious competence, but without first building up a relationship of trust, some students will not even attempt the exercise, others may try but only in a half-hearted fashion4, and finally others who have some trust with the teacher will try with full effort. The new-atheist movement is akin to one or both of the two former groups. Has Richard Dawkins ever read Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle? I am not aware of any of his work that would indicate that he has. I am also reminded of Sam Harris’ simple-minded observation: “Where is heaven exactly, given that we have multiple telescopes up there beaming back information?” They have no trust in the divine, so they make no attempt at belief – this is one reason reverent liturgies, beautiful churches, and well-rehearsed music are characteristic of Christian life, they open the heart to experience the divine. The intellect may or may not follow. This popular totalizing materialism of new atheism is one form of Gnosticism Voegelin describes:
“Under activist mysticism belong primarily movements that descend from Auguste Comte and Karl Marx.”
This activist mysticism in progress is a new kind of gnostic faith that sneaks in the back door of the self-proclaimed radical skepticism of many modern secularists.
Life is Good
There are many ways to interpret Jesus’ words on narrow and wide gates. Sometimes I think of it as a sort of metaphysical balancing act. If the temptation to positivism and a totalitarian materialism above is one side, the temptation to disregard the material world is another. Charles Taylor describes this phenomenon as ‘Hyper-Augustinian’ in his work ‘A Secular Age.’ This disdain for reality also undergirded various Gnostic cults like the Manicheans, Cathars, and Puritans.
As Tom Woods describes in his book ‘How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization,’ it is no coincidence that modern science arose in Christendom, because the presuppositions necessary to conduct science rest on Catholic dogma. In Augustine’s confessions, he shares how science could accurately predict the date of an eclipse. This simple observation turned him away from his nine year practice of the Gnostic Manichean religion. The reproducibility of an experiment is a pillar of the scientific method, but if reality is fundamentally irrational or unknowable5, there is no reason for an experiment to be reproducible6. From Genesis 1:31, we know that reality is good (and therefore rational). Without this revealed truth, science would be impossible. This is more explicitly stated by the author of the letter to the Hebrews:
“By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God” — Hebrews 11:3
Importance of the Church
“The substance and proof of the unseen are ascertained through nothing but faith, which man must obtain by the strength of his soul – in this psychological study we disregard the problem of grace. Not all men are capable of such spiritual stamina; most need institutional help, and even this is not always sufficient.” — “Science, Politics, & Gnosticism
In her book ‘How the West Really Lost God,’ Mary Eberstadt theorizes that although popular opinion states that a decline in religion crippled the family, she posits that the decline of family crippled religious practice. Much of the book looks at culture, lifestyle, and psychology. In a similar vein, the decline in Church attendance and practice of faith may at least be partially a symptom rather than cause of declining parish life.
A friend of mine who was raised protestant, but is now an atheist once pressed me on this – “Does your priest even know your name? I don’t know how Catholics can feel at home in Church.” My answer was yes, but perhaps only because I had volunteered as a lector. There are parishioners from my childhood parish I’d seen in Church for decades whose names I had never learned, and I’m not sure the priest had either.
According to the Queens city comptroller, some lonely individuals die with nobody noticing for months.7 Others’ absence is only noticed by their employer, or the parking authority. Some are discovered only from the smell of rotting flesh emanating from a one bedroom apartment. In this atomized society where one’s passing can go unnoticed by all except the largest, most systematic and dehumanizing institutions, how many parishes have someone check up on an absent parishioner struggling with their faith?
I’m always trying to bend myself away from my pessimistic tendencies in this substack, so for an alternate perspective, ask yourself this: Upon driving by a Church, what is the easiest way to tell if it is Catholic (without reading the sign of course)? It isn’t necessarily the architecture – many 19th century Episcopal churches are beautifully constructed. The easiest discernible difference is generally the presence of a rectory, and perhaps a school. As Catholics, we should take this as a sign that our Churches were, are, and can continue to be a center first of faith, but also of life. Unlike many protestant denominations, we have a place in our theology for a study and celebration of art, music, science, etc. Early in my reversion journey, I remember talking with a very bright Protestant friend of mine who told me, “That’s one thing you Catholics have I’m jealous of – a really serious intellectual tradition.”
Adventure of Faith
“Great masses of Christianized men who are not strong enough for the heroic adventure of faith became susceptible to ideas that could give them a greater degree of certainty about the meaning of their existence than faith. The reality of being as it is known in its truth by Christianity is difficult to bear, and the flight from clearly seen reality to gnostic constructs will probably always be a phenomenon of wide extent in civilizations that Christianity has permeated.” — ‘Science, Politics, and Gnosticism’
In my high school, one book of required reading was ‘The Poisonwood Bible.’ In this book, the antagonist is a closed-minded, willfully ignorant, and superstitious Christian minister who acts out few, if any Christian virtues. This caricature of an ignoramus quoting a few lines of scripture not only permeates our Gnostic8 public school system, but our media, entertainment industry, the academy, and every other element of the epistemological monopoly9 on public life.
Looking at one’s faith as an ‘heroic adventure’ to use Voegelin’s term, or an 'earthly pilgrimage' (my personal favorite) is far more accurate. Any honest Christian will admit that they have entertained the notion that God may not exist in their heart of hearts at one point or another. The Old and New Testaments are full of lamentations by those questioning their faith. Just as frequently, if not more frequently, it is the self-proclaimed atheist10 who has closed his mind to the existence of God. Demanding physical evidence of a metaphysical truth is an easy way to win a nonsensical argument.
To close with one (really two here) last example from the Gospels, my mind first goes to doubting Thomas, but a more powerful example is perhaps less explicitly stated. Thousands had seen Jesus’ miracles, yet when it came time for the Crucifixion, only a handful remained with him, and of the 12 Apostles, only John didn’t run away. If Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins were first century denizens of the Holy Land, would they convert upon encountering Jesus and witnessing his miracles? Moreover, would they accompany him all the way up to Calvary because they are motivated by the search for truth above all else? Or would find some new rationalization for their unbelief even if, like Thomas, they could put their hand in Jesus’ side?
As America drifts from a society of high trust to one of low trust; a country of complete families to broken families; and a country of strong communities to atomized individuals, it becomes harder, yet also more necessary to earnestly say with St. Faustina, “Jesus, I trust in you”. Trust, adventure, strength, and stamina — these are defining elements of faith, not superstition and willful ignorance.
Afterword
I realize I took a few pot-shots at Gnostic elements in atheism, puritanism, and contemporary society without elaboration in this post. Here is my CYA for the time being:
“The essence of modernity is gnosticism” — Eric Voegelin
I will explain these asides in future posts.
Thanks for reading!
which was written second
Voegelin spoke 6 languages – I made a glossary for myself as I read. Maybe I will share it at a later date.
my first attempt at Dolphin Dance comes to mind
a defense mechanism against the pain of failure
a key element of postmodernism is an attack on the idea of an objective reality
this reproducibility of scientific experiments seems to fading from today’s Gnostic approach to science – i.e. small sample sizes and little testing in vaccine trials, or speculative and inaccurate ‘climate models’
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/nyregion/dying-alone-in-new-york-city.html
Try getting through a year in public school — even at the kindergarten level — without hearing a sermon on becoming an activist and/or changing/saving the world. If America’s public school system ever was truly secular, this is no longer the case.
some refer to this as 'the Cathedral,' but I dislike that term because I like cathedrals
Who are Gnostic in practice as described above.