Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1 1988 Page 101
emotionalism and irrationality, which would be the prelude for the increase of centralized political
power.
If we read the Humanist Manifestos of 1933 and 1973 or innumerable documents from educators,
lawyers, political parties, professional groups, and journalists, we see that, by and large, they‘re
expressions of the Kantian phenomenal branch of modernism. They assume that history is self-
contained that legal and ethical norms are mere conventions that salvation comes by human
endeavor that science has provided (or will provide) all that we need to know and to have that
there is no valid expression of the supernatural possible that all meaning comes from human
definition and, hence, is arbitrary. In other words, these writings are forms of what has come to
be called in some circles ―secular humanism.‖ This is what is on the way out. But what is going
to replace it? Will it be the Christian alternative that it began displacing in the 18th century, or
will it be something else?
Gary North, in Unholy Spirits, sees the crucial phase of the change in the United States as the
mid-1960s. The open eccentricities of the counterculture provided the most visible
manifestations, but the essence of the movement -not widely recognized at the time -was a
rejection of the merely phenomenal in favor of the noumenal. As the leaders of a Satan-
worshipping cult put it, ―When people come in here, they‘re expected to park their brains at the
door.‖ It was the end of what Weber had called the "disenchantment of the world‖ -which had
been mainly the contribution of Christian ideas in the West, the thinking which had made science
possible. The spooks had returned, with a vengeance.
The remarkable thing was that it seemed to happen overnight. In the dim recesses had lurked
philosophical idealism religious mysticism, Eastern religion, the remnants of witchcraft and other
esoteric manifestations of the noumenal but now, as if they had received the long-awaited signal
that the Trojans were asleep, they sprang fully formed from where they had lain hidden. Hard as
it is to believe, the spooks were joined by science. The work of Heisenberg and Planck had
undercut the hard atoms and determinism of the Newtonian world view, replacing the old
certainties with new uncertainties.
If physics -supposedly that hardest of the hard sciences -could foster mysticism then why be
surprised that the social sciences should follow suit? Carlos Castaneda was able to use his alleged
conversations with a Mexican shaman as the basis for a sympathetic portrayal in a doctoral
dissertation that made witchcraft respectable. The popularity of his later books is convincing proof
that the public caught up to -or did it lead? -the academics.
My favorite prophet in this noumenal change is the Harvard theology professor Harvey Cox. Cox
is not the sort of seer who hears the voice of God or uses sheep entrails to divine the future. He‘s
an expert, rather, at doping out changing trends and recutting his philosophy to fit. Cox is the
preeminent theologian of fashion. In 1965 he published The Secular City, his paean to secularity,
to the phenomenal world which was leading us to an earthly paradise. Cox relied heavily on the
German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who argued that in the 20th century man would not need
religion as a shield or as an explanation for reality. But Cox published his book at precisely the
moment in history when it was being proved wrong. He repented swiftly and began work on The
Feast of Fools, which appeared in 1969. The subtitle of this volume was, A Theological Essay on
Festivity and Fantasy, and that was a good indication that he had rejected the gray-flannel-suit
mentality that had dominated his earlier book. Looking around at all the bizarre goings-on of the
60s -the denial of rationality and the exaltation of fantasy -Cox pronounced it good: For him
irrationality had become a Christian virtue.
In retrospect, we can see that The Feast of Fools was only a way station. ―There is, after all,
certain flimsiness, hence instability, to a position that says that human rationality is a function of
our creation in the image of God, on the one hand, and denying the efficacy of reason on the
other hand. To exalt the irrational on a basis that has some inner consistency, one would have to
depart more frankly and decisively from the biblical roots. Cox did that in 1977 with the
emotionalism and irrationality, which would be the prelude for the increase of centralized political
power.
If we read the Humanist Manifestos of 1933 and 1973 or innumerable documents from educators,
lawyers, political parties, professional groups, and journalists, we see that, by and large, they‘re
expressions of the Kantian phenomenal branch of modernism. They assume that history is self-
contained that legal and ethical norms are mere conventions that salvation comes by human
endeavor that science has provided (or will provide) all that we need to know and to have that
there is no valid expression of the supernatural possible that all meaning comes from human
definition and, hence, is arbitrary. In other words, these writings are forms of what has come to
be called in some circles ―secular humanism.‖ This is what is on the way out. But what is going
to replace it? Will it be the Christian alternative that it began displacing in the 18th century, or
will it be something else?
Gary North, in Unholy Spirits, sees the crucial phase of the change in the United States as the
mid-1960s. The open eccentricities of the counterculture provided the most visible
manifestations, but the essence of the movement -not widely recognized at the time -was a
rejection of the merely phenomenal in favor of the noumenal. As the leaders of a Satan-
worshipping cult put it, ―When people come in here, they‘re expected to park their brains at the
door.‖ It was the end of what Weber had called the "disenchantment of the world‖ -which had
been mainly the contribution of Christian ideas in the West, the thinking which had made science
possible. The spooks had returned, with a vengeance.
The remarkable thing was that it seemed to happen overnight. In the dim recesses had lurked
philosophical idealism religious mysticism, Eastern religion, the remnants of witchcraft and other
esoteric manifestations of the noumenal but now, as if they had received the long-awaited signal
that the Trojans were asleep, they sprang fully formed from where they had lain hidden. Hard as
it is to believe, the spooks were joined by science. The work of Heisenberg and Planck had
undercut the hard atoms and determinism of the Newtonian world view, replacing the old
certainties with new uncertainties.
If physics -supposedly that hardest of the hard sciences -could foster mysticism then why be
surprised that the social sciences should follow suit? Carlos Castaneda was able to use his alleged
conversations with a Mexican shaman as the basis for a sympathetic portrayal in a doctoral
dissertation that made witchcraft respectable. The popularity of his later books is convincing proof
that the public caught up to -or did it lead? -the academics.
My favorite prophet in this noumenal change is the Harvard theology professor Harvey Cox. Cox
is not the sort of seer who hears the voice of God or uses sheep entrails to divine the future. He‘s
an expert, rather, at doping out changing trends and recutting his philosophy to fit. Cox is the
preeminent theologian of fashion. In 1965 he published The Secular City, his paean to secularity,
to the phenomenal world which was leading us to an earthly paradise. Cox relied heavily on the
German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who argued that in the 20th century man would not need
religion as a shield or as an explanation for reality. But Cox published his book at precisely the
moment in history when it was being proved wrong. He repented swiftly and began work on The
Feast of Fools, which appeared in 1969. The subtitle of this volume was, A Theological Essay on
Festivity and Fantasy, and that was a good indication that he had rejected the gray-flannel-suit
mentality that had dominated his earlier book. Looking around at all the bizarre goings-on of the
60s -the denial of rationality and the exaltation of fantasy -Cox pronounced it good: For him
irrationality had become a Christian virtue.
In retrospect, we can see that The Feast of Fools was only a way station. ―There is, after all,
certain flimsiness, hence instability, to a position that says that human rationality is a function of
our creation in the image of God, on the one hand, and denying the efficacy of reason on the
other hand. To exalt the irrational on a basis that has some inner consistency, one would have to
depart more frankly and decisively from the biblical roots. Cox did that in 1977 with the
