Eric Voegelin...Right or Wrong?--"Science, Politics, and Gnosticism"

This is an Analytical Response to Voegelin’s Science, Politics, and Gnosticism
Science, Politics, and Gnosticism was originally a lecture given by Eric Voegelin in 1958 at the University of Munich. Voegelin explains the purpose of the lecture in the foreword to his book, “was an attempt to apply the Gnosticism of Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and Heidegger the insights gained by the predecessors, as well as by my own New Science of Politics, and to draw more clearly the lines that separate political Gnosticism from a philosophy of politics” (XXI). “The Murder of God” and “Ersatz Religion” were added for the publication of that original lecture. Although I disagree with aspects of Voegelin’s argument, his premise is put together very well.
Gnostics believe God is evil and modern man needs to reject the world of religion to liberate himself. Voegelin was motivated to settle the confusion that arises from the dominance of Gnostic thought; Voegelin further strives to classify distinctions between political Gnosticism and the philosophy of politics. Voegelin goes on to assert that certain modern movements, including positivism, Hegelianism, and Marxism are variations of the Gnostic tradition. He describes how Gnostic movements attempt to bring about the death of God, turning man into God, inadvertently bringing about the death of man.
In the first essay, “Science, Politics, and Gnosticism” Voegelin examines the meaning of what politics is, as well as dissecting Marx, Nietzsche, and a bit of Hegel. Voegelin clearly believes that politics is the asking of certain questions, such as; What is happiness? How should men live? What kind of government is best? Et cetera. He goes back as far as Aristotelian and Platonic thought. In doing so, he concludes that science is answering these questions. For the average being the answers are simply opinions, but for the philosophers the answers are “truth.” Voegelin then examines Marx’s prohibition of questions. Voegelin quotes Marx, “When you inquire about creation of nature and man, you abstract from nature and man. […] Give up your abstractions and you will give up your question along with it. […] Do not think, do not question me” (19). Voegelin then exclaims that under Marxian thought, ‘“when the “socialist man” speaks, man must be silent” (19). Voegelin deduces that this is fundamentally wrong and that it is important not only to ask these questions, but also to answer them. He indicates that Marx is an “intellectual swindler” (21).
Voegelin then uses his analysis of Nietzsche to examine what would prompt Marx to commit such a swindle. Voegelin’s first example is that of Nietzsche’s introduction of the will to power, “as the passion that accounts for the will to intellectual deception. Nietzsche contends that because of one’s “fundamental will of the spirit” that “wants to feel itself master” (22), one will allow themselves to be deceived on occasion as well as to deceive. According to Nietzsche, “To rule and to be no longer a servant of god: this means was left behind to ennoble man. To rule means to be God; in order to be God Gnostic man takes upon himself the torments of deception and self-laceration” (23). However, Voegelin goes on to evoke, through the use of excerpts from Nietzsche’s “Night Song”, that man does not want to be God, but rather that he must be God. Therefore leading Voegelin to ask, “Does a man really have to make a virtue out of the misery of his condition, and set it up as a superhuman ideal? […] and if his [Nietzsche’s] lament were more than a mask, if it were genuine, if he suffered from his condition, would he not be speechless” (24)? It is then concluded by Voegelin that the revolt against God is the motive of the swindle.
Another historical figure that Voegelin believes is a Gnostic is Hegel. Voegelin discusses the “new philosophy” of Hegel. He quotes Hegel, “To contribute to bringing philosophy closer to a form of science—the goal of being able to cast off the name love of knowledge and become actual knowledge—is the task I have set for myself” (30). Voegelin uses Plato’s analysis of philosophy of this manner to clarify his own feelings, “’[…] “actual knowledge” is reserved to God; finite man can only be a “lover of knowledge”, not himself the one who knows”’ (32). Voegelin advocates that if a thinker attempts what Hegel suggests then they are, in fact, abandoning philosophy to become a world denying Gnostic.
Another point Voegelin examines is the Gnostic cry for the “death of God”. Voegelin writes, “The murder of god is committed speculatively by explaining divine being as the work of man” (40). He directs one to look at Nietzsche, Marx, Hegel, as well as, the golem legend. Nietzsche contends that to believe in God is to believe in something that man has created. It is irrational and therefore useless in a progressing society. Marx believes that religion is “the opiate of the masses” and Hegel cogitates that reason is the all-important aspect of being and deduces that the concept of God is not reasonable. In order to take control of one’s own being one must be able to cast aside the dependent human that is created by God. According to Voegelin the golem legend is a warning, “because man cannot become God. If he tries, in the process of self-idolization he will become a demon willfully shutting himself off from god” (47).
In the last essay, “Ersatz Religion” Voegelin relates Gnosticism to some major mass movements, not all being political. For example, progressivism, positivism, Marxism, psychoanalysis, communism, fascism, and national socialism. In order to understand the relation one must understand what Gnostic belief is. First, the concept that this world is vile and things need to change. Second, that the ability to change it is within human ability. Voegelin portends,
All Gnostic movements are involved in the project of abolishing the constitution of being, with its origin in divine, transcendent being, and replacing it with a world- immanent order of being, the perfection of which lies in the realm of human action. […] This endeavor can be meaningfully undertaken only if the constitution of being can in fact be altered by man. The world, however, remains as it is given to us, and it is not within man’s power to change its structure. 75
Thus, it is clear that Voegelin believes that God is an important aspect of peoples being and the order of the world is as it is, unchangeable. He also remains adamantly against what he calls Gnostic thinkers (prophets) and the movements that follow them.
Voegelin puts forth an entertaining, well thought out argument. Science, Politics, and Gnosticism was an extremely challenging read, but worth the effort in the end and I will have to periodically reread this selection to fully comprehend everything that is being examined. Initially, however, I do not agree with him concerning his assumption that the murder of God will mean the death of man. Throughout my studies, I have learned of many horrific things done in the name of God and therefore tend to agree with, what Voegelin calls, the Gnostic man and the sentiment that God was created by man and religion is the “opiate of the masses”. Although there are many good aspects of religion, people’s dependency on something transcendent limits their ability to knowingly control their own destiny and relinquish their assumed “god-given right” to pass judgment on others that do not believe what they believe. Perhaps it is a bit optimistic to believe that with the death of God, peace would actually be something that could be achieved, but for now, with my limited education, that is what I will continue to believe. On the other hand, with my continuing studies this, in time, could change. If Voegelin is correct in his opinions, then man will bring about the death of God, therefore, leading to the death of man. Thusly creating a world of, as Hobbes puts it, a "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes).

For all you political junkies out there, do you think Voegelin is right or wrong? Why?
I am very interested in hearing (reading) your responses.