Scan barcode
A review by rotorguy64
God and the State by Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin
2.0
I read God and the State back when I was interested in left-wing anarchist theory, and believed that the anarchocommunists, anarchosocialists, anarchosyndicalists and us libertarian capitalists could come to a mutual understanding. Alas, I was wrong.
I did not know what I was getting myself into. I read it, and I do not remember, for the love of it, a single occasion where I could apply what I read. It was uninspired, it offered no positive vision, or even a coherent whole. Bakunin offered no compelling proof or argument for his own position, only a disjointed critique of others. I will focus on what Bakunin has to say on Christianity, because that is of the most relevance to me, and because it is sufficient to demonstrate his lack of academic virtues.
The book begins with a critique of the account of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis. He paints God as an arbitrary tyrant, and titles Satan "the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds". I don't think [a: Origen|299395|Origen|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1393697301p2/299395.jpg] spelled out how allegorical exegesis works so that Bakunin could forget all about it, but in between trying to ruin the economy and trying to ruin the economy, I suppose it is not so easy to find the time to actually read about the very thing that you're criticizing.
Bakunin also offers his critique of the doctrine of original sin:
Everyone who has bothered to read the theologians knows that there are various perspectives on original sin. Moral guilt does not feature in all, or perhaps even most of them. What Bakunin here is doing is a common feature of anticlerical propaganda: Take the Christian ideas that you find most repugnant, ignore all others, criticize those. Like other anticlerical ideologues, Bakunin has never heard of charitable interpretation, or of the faithful representation of Christian doctrines.
Then Bakunin offers his opinion on soteriology:
Not just that a good number of theologians rejected the idea that hell is everlasting, it is also well-known that an even greater number believed that those who died before Christ arrived could also reach Heaven, or at least everlasting life in Limbo, just without the bliss of being with God. I have never even read the Divine Comedy and I know that last part is in there.
Bakunin goes on and on like this, and I do not feel like debunking all of his wild claims. I believe I have shown that he has nothing to offer against sound doctrine or the Scriptures. He is simply ignorant of his subject matter. Should I criticize every single one of his claims, on the off-chance that one of them carries some weight? I don't think so. But what I think I should do is warn people who have little knowledge of Church history, theology or religious philosophy against reading this work. In fact, I don't think anyone should read this, except for research purposes. Its lies and falsehoods are poison for ignorant minds, and an insult to those who are more knowledgeable.
The book gets a bit better when he picks the positivists and statists as a target. Still, I don't remember it being in any way extraordinary. There are better critiques of positivism and statism from more honest and learned characters.
I did not know what I was getting myself into. I read it, and I do not remember, for the love of it, a single occasion where I could apply what I read. It was uninspired, it offered no positive vision, or even a coherent whole. Bakunin offered no compelling proof or argument for his own position, only a disjointed critique of others. I will focus on what Bakunin has to say on Christianity, because that is of the most relevance to me, and because it is sufficient to demonstrate his lack of academic virtues.
The book begins with a critique of the account of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis. He paints God as an arbitrary tyrant, and titles Satan "the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds". I don't think [a: Origen|299395|Origen|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1393697301p2/299395.jpg] spelled out how allegorical exegesis works so that Bakunin could forget all about it, but in between trying to ruin the economy and trying to ruin the economy, I suppose it is not so easy to find the time to actually read about the very thing that you're criticizing.
Bakunin also offers his critique of the doctrine of original sin:
We know what followed. The good God, whose foresight, which is one of the divine faculties, should have warned him of what would happen, flew into a terrible and ridiculous rage; he cursed Satan, man, and the world created by himself, striking himself so to speak in his own creation, as children do when they get angry; and, not content with smiting our ancestors themselves, he cursed them in all the generations to come, innocent of the crime committed by their forefathers.
Everyone who has bothered to read the theologians knows that there are various perspectives on original sin. Moral guilt does not feature in all, or perhaps even most of them. What Bakunin here is doing is a common feature of anticlerical propaganda: Take the Christian ideas that you find most repugnant, ignore all others, criticize those. Like other anticlerical ideologues, Bakunin has never heard of charitable interpretation, or of the faithful representation of Christian doctrines.
Then Bakunin offers his opinion on soteriology:
Then, remembering that he was not only a God of vengeance and wrath, but also a God of love, after having tormented the existence of a few milliards of poor human beings and condemned them to an eternal hell, he took pity on the rest, and, to save them and reconcile his eternal and divine love with his eternal and divine anger, always greedy for victims and blood, he sent into the world, as an expiatory victim, his only son, that he might be killed by men.
Not just that a good number of theologians rejected the idea that hell is everlasting, it is also well-known that an even greater number believed that those who died before Christ arrived could also reach Heaven, or at least everlasting life in Limbo, just without the bliss of being with God. I have never even read the Divine Comedy and I know that last part is in there.
Bakunin goes on and on like this, and I do not feel like debunking all of his wild claims. I believe I have shown that he has nothing to offer against sound doctrine or the Scriptures. He is simply ignorant of his subject matter. Should I criticize every single one of his claims, on the off-chance that one of them carries some weight? I don't think so. But what I think I should do is warn people who have little knowledge of Church history, theology or religious philosophy against reading this work. In fact, I don't think anyone should read this, except for research purposes. Its lies and falsehoods are poison for ignorant minds, and an insult to those who are more knowledgeable.
The book gets a bit better when he picks the positivists and statists as a target. Still, I don't remember it being in any way extraordinary. There are better critiques of positivism and statism from more honest and learned characters.