Q&A: Why is Atheism bad and Atheists and the West outsiders?
Asalamualikum Sull Kaak,
I was just engaging with your article, ‘Ancient Religiosity and Modern Atheism.‘ It’s so beautifully written, though the latter part of the article is mere rhetoric. The central argument was that belief systems and cultural practices (Nature worshipping/ holding nature in great esteem) emerged in ancient civilizations, not because they were just afraid of nature, but because they were keen observers who would reflect on the complexity of nature, providing them with transcendental insights, etc. So it’s not their ignorance or their lack of knowledge that led to the erection of the edifice of faith, but their spirituality and robust engagement with nature( And there is an anthropological evidence for that, that you’ve mentioned in the article).
Just for a moment, let me animate myself on the opposite and play devil’s advocate. Though the existence of fear and them being afraid of the wrath of nature being the driving force that had a robust bearing on how some elements of their faith systems were shaped can be validated by the Studies of Evolutionary biology and Evolutionary psychology, but let’s just say that it’s not entirely fear but their spirituality and their keen observation of nature.
So there exists nature, processes, and facts available to their senses. Now, they pay close attention and reflect on those facts. Now, they place an interpretation on those facts which provides them some insights. Different civilizations in the past have placed different interpretations on those facts, and as a consequence of that, different faith systems and philosophies have emerged. Now, these interpretations are the product of imagination and do not guarantee knowledge, unlike the kind of knowledge that science yields (Which is but arrogance masquerading as knowledge, kidding! lol).
The knowledge acquired by employing the scientific method, rooted in advanced observation and empirical evidence, offers interpretations on natural processes which at times challenge those ancient interpretations, does not necessarily deny the concept of ‘Creator’ per se but simply acknowledges the quality of this question being unknowable. That might push some segments of people into agnosticism not out of arrogance but out of humility given the limitations of human knowledge. These people might not be as sharp and keen observers as those in the past and just do not trust the wisdom of their traditions. They might want to be certain , precise and test things out before buying them. They might be people who are genuine ‘Truth Seekers’ and do not want to follow things just because their forefathers did. The quest for ‘knowing’ the nature of ultimate reality might eventually lead them to meaninglessness, fine! But what other option they have in their honest intellectual pursuit of inquiry than to operate on assumptions? In other words why is Atheism bad and Atheists and the West outsiders?
Wa alaikum assalaam,
The central argument of my essay underscores ancient civilisations’ profound engagement with nature not out of fear but through a deep, reflective observation that led to transcendental insights. This perspective challenges the notion that the foundations of faith and spirituality emerge from ignorance or mere fear of nature’s wrath. Instead, it posits that such spiritual and cultural practices are rooted in a rich, intuitive understanding of the natural world, suggesting a deliberate and sophisticated interplay between humanity’s inner life and the outer environment.
In response to what you ask I would first argue against the dichotomy between ancient spirituality and modern scientific inquiry. Both are endeavors to understand the truth of our existence, albeit through different lenses with one being at a higher pedestal (the former) and the other at lower (the latter). Where ancient civilizations interpreted the natural world through a spiritual framework, modern science seeks to understand it through empirical observation and rational analysis, the emperical observation existed in the ancients as well, it is not how they explain it but how they interpret it that makes their knowledge true and higher knowledge. The explanations of how a thing or phenomenon comes into being can vary according to how sophisticated the equipment aiding emperical insights is, but what the event means and why it would be the way it is is not a question of physics but of metaphysics which the ancients seem to be incorporating in their analysis, hence their superiority in knowledge. The assumption that modern scientific knowledge is inherently superior to spiritual insights or that it renders the concept of a Creator irrelevant is a reflection of the very materialism and skepticism I critique. It, first, downs knowledge to mere knowledge of phenomenon which is invariably material and then claims unshared authority over it, which reflects its arrogance not insight.
The spiritual knowledge that ancient peoples possessed, and which I advocate for, is not antithetical to scientific knowledge per se but represents a different, superior form of understanding which acknowledges emperical knowledge and its utility. It is rooted in an innate recognition of a higher order and purpose in the universe, which I believe is accessible to all human beings through reflection and intuition. This form of knowledge acknowledges the limitations of human understanding and the possibility of truths that transcend empirical evidence. And since it is more human in its taste and odour it only means that it has better explanatory power and if that is the case, it’s rejection can be merely on the grounds either of ignorance or of arrogance. This ignorance isn’t because one is unaware, it is ignorance because one choses to ignore out of arrogance the explanation that does justice to a man’s cognitive, conative and affective elements. This arrogance which masquerades as agnosticism is designated by the term kufr in Islam which literally means “concealing”.
Atheism, from my perspective, is inherently “bad,” because it is denial of the fundamental reality which is cognitively ascertainable, conatively attainable and affectively fulfilling. Such rejection can be purely from arrogance and/or by ignorance by choice, it is definitely not stemming our of understanding of any sort. Understanding leads to certainty not uncertainty, certainly can’t be replaced by doubt. And the West are “outsiders” in a moral or intellectual sense for they have collectively chosen to ignore the collective testimony of entire human race that has existed over millennia in general, and of a complete individual’s response to nature which is “awe” in particular. It is hence unjust and bad and an outsider. Though that is not the point I am trying to make in this essay, I, rather, argue that atheism and the dismissal of spiritual knowledge often stem from an over-reliance on materialist and skeptical philosophies that deny the intrinsic human capacity for spiritual insight. This denial, I contend, leads to a fragmented understanding of reality that overlooks the interconnectedness of all existence and the profound insights that can be gained through spiritual practices and beliefs, and is an incomplete man’s response to reality. An incomplete man is the one that places his cognitive self above everything else a man is.
In essence, the quest for truth and understanding, whether through ancient spirituality or modern science, is a noble endeavour. However, it is crucial to recognise that a comprehensive understanding of our world and our place within it requires a synthesis of both empirical knowledge and spiritual insight. Rejecting the spiritual dimension of human experience in favour of a solely materialistic worldview, as I argue, not only limits our understanding but also distances us from the profound sense of connection and purpose that has guided human civilisations throughout history.
In the end let us circle back to your point about the end of my article being all about fancy talk, rhetoric? It is kinda funny you would mention. It’s like saying, ‘Hey, this party’s cool, but the music’s just noise, right?’ But here’s the thing, the way we chat, tossing words around like a football, that’s got its charm. Rhetoric isn’t just some old-school trick; it’s like the spice in your favourite dish, makes everything taste better. In this dance of words, where the cognitive and affective pirouette around the maypole of understanding, one cannot help but admire the music they create together. So, when we mix up our brainy talks with a bit of heart, it’s not just blah blah blah. It’s about making the whole chat more relatable to the complete human self that just one of its aspects. Like adding emojis to a text, makes it pop. So, cheers to keeping things real, mixing the smarts with the feels.
Rhetoric is not just a fool’s mask in the court of truth which the real fools think is convened by mere rational. It is the minstrel that sings songs of the depth of the truth while the rational and empirical only scratches the surface. It is the brush that paints the sunset hues of human emotion, without which we seize to be human, onto the canvas of our intellect, welding thought with feeling producing insight in the process. If not for this what remains but a sophisticated GPT with auditory skills incorporated into a Tesla Robot, while the modern man may say that it is what he is, I am an ancient and think I am much more than that. And so, in the spirit of light-hearted joke that you made in the beginning, let me borrow from the ancient playbook and say: just as the moon borrows its light from the sun, our discussion borrows its sparkle and our humanity borrows life from the interplay of mind and heart. May we always find the path that leads us not into the barren lands of dry analysis alone but into the lush gardens where knowledge blooms with the flowers of empathy and understanding. Mere cognition leads into the allays of doubt, dark and unending, the heart takes you into gardens that are green. After all, isn’t it the marriage of the cognitive and affective that births the child of wisdom? And on that note, let us toast to the humaneness of my writeup, in contrast to the dry spells of academic papers. My writeup dresses truths in the finery of human experience, making our intellectual journey not just enlightening, but enchantingly human and complete.
