Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Ian Kluge, Which World Are You In?, bahai-library.com.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Which World Are You In?

Ian Kluge

Introduction

This paper takes its cue from Shoghi Effendi’s statement that

Bahá’ís should consciously guard themselves against being caught
in what one might call the undertow of materialism and atheism,
sweeping the world these days. Skepticism, cynicism, disbelief, immoral-
ity and hard-heartedness are rife, and as friends are those who stand
for the antithesis of all these things they should beware lest the
atmosphere of the present world affects them without their being
conscious of it.1

It is noteworthy that the Guardian’s list of negative results of material-
ism and atheism (the two usually come together) are both intellectual
and affective, i.e. they refer to intellectual ideas but also to the feelings
and attitudes correlated with ideas. For example, cynicism is the belief
that people tend to be motivated by self-interest and are not usually
sincere.2 However, this belief also has an affective aspect, as a feeling
of distrust, suspicion, anxiety and pessimism about human nature.
In daily life such feelings easily inhibit the development of positive
relationships especially with individuals and/or groups that are ‘other.’
“Hard-heartedness” is both a way of thinking about or dealing with
others but also a feeling of indifference, callousness and lack of charity.
Here, too, the development of positive relationships is seriously eroded.

This paper explores the intellectual and affective consequences of
answering a single question, ‘Does God exist or not?’ There are three
main answers to this question. The first is theism, the belief in one

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

transcendent and personal God. The second is atheism which denies
that such a God exists or even could exist. The third is agnosticism, the
belief that there is no decisive evidence in favor of or against theism and
atheism. We shall also look at several subtypes of agnosticism, among
them apatheism, the complete intellectual and emotional indifference
to anything related to God or religion.

Following Shoghi Effendi’s guidance, we hope to make readers more
aware of the nature and consequences of committing to one of these
three viewpoints. Doing so allows readers greater freedom in choosing
their options.

This paper specifically references the Bahá’í Writings for two reasons.
They share the fundamental premise of the other theistic religions—
Judaism, Christianity and Islam—on the existence of one transcen-
dent personal God Who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent
and is the creator of the phenomenal world. Moreover, as a more recent
revelation, the Bahá’í Writings explicitly deal with issues that the other
scriptures do not cover directly but which have come to the forefront
of mankind’s development especially since the European Enlighten-
ment.3 In the words of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá,

The superiority of the present in relation to the past consists in this,
that the present can take over and adopt as a model many things
which have been tried and tested and the great benefits of which
have been demonstrated in the past, and that it can make its own
new discoveries and by these augment its valuable inheritance.4

As a result of our exploration of both intellectual and affective aspects
of theism, atheism and agnosticism we may gain three benefits. First, it
is hoped that readers may gain additional ways of understanding and
appreciating the foundational texts of Bahá’u’lláh’s revelation. This
contributes to Shoghi Effendi’s goal of helping people to “consciously
guard themselves against being caught in what one might call the
undertow of materialism and atheism.”

Which World Are You In?

Second, more complete understanding of different beliefs increases
the opportunities for positive dialogue. By ‘positive dialogue’ we
mean dialogue that encourages understanding and respect for differ-
ences. Achieving this goal requires at least some awareness of both the
intellectual and affective consequences of theism, atheism and agnosti-
cism since very few people are motivated to accept and maintain their
beliefs on purely intellectual grounds. Obviously, positive dialogue
makes Bahá’í teaching more effective.

Third, more complete understanding of other beliefs enable more
effective apologetics, i.e. defending the Bahá’í revelation against criti-
cisms of its teachings. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states that

The beloved of the Lord must stand fixed as the mountains, firm
as impregnable walls … Let them be a mighty fortress to defend His
Faith, an impregnable citadel for the hosts of the Ancient Beauty.
Let them faithfully guard the edifice of the Cause of God from
every side.5

1. Worldviews
If we found ourselves suddenly transported to another planet, we
would immediately be faced with a horde of questions about the nature
of this new reality in which we find ourselves. “What kind of a world
are we in?” “What are the potential physical threats we must overcome?”
“What kind of beings live here—if any?” “If so, how must be relate to
them?” “What is the nature of this new reality? Is it ordered and ruled by
certain laws or is it chaotic and unpredictable? “Are there non-physical
aspects of this new reality? “Are the things we see here real or illusory?
How much of this reality is knowable to us? Given this utterly unprec-
edented situation, asking such questions is, of course, plain common
sense since both physical and psychological survival and well-being
depend answering them with at least some degree of accuracy.

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

In answering these questions, we are consciously or unconsciously
engaged in the process of developing a world-view, i.e. an individual
and collective response to the reality in which we find ourselves. A
world-view is a synthesis—to various degrees of logical consistency—
of our intellectual, affective (emotional) and conative (intentional,
purposive) responses to our external environment. It is a complex of
observed facts, intellectual understandings, expectations, emotions
and intentions expressed in our values, attitudes, expectations, goals
and, perhaps above all, a sense of meaning. Such responses are not
merely abstract and intellectual, but also affective i.e. they shape our
feelings, attitudes and intended actions. World-views need not neces-
sarily be expressed in abstract philosophical discourse but can also be
expressed in art, music, poetry, myth, religious beliefs, narratives and
rituals as well as in secular and sacred imagery.

According to Wilhelm Dilthey, one of the founders of methodical
world-view studies,6

[t]here is in mankind a persistent tendency to achieve a comprehensive
interpretation, Weltanschauung , or philosophy, in which a pic-
ture of reality is combined with a sense of its meaning and value and
with principles of action ...7

In other words, all human beings—not just cultural elites—need
a world-view in order to make sense of and give coherent order to
their lives at both the individual and societal levels. Without a world-
view—whether invented or, or as in most cases, adopted from soci-
ety—effective action is impossible because we would lack a hierarchy
of ideas, values and feelings to motivate and guide action. Such a lack
makes survival let alone the optimization of well-being highly unlikely.
Indeed, we would not even understand our own identity because hav-
ing a personal identity assumes certain things to be true about oneself
and the world.

Which World Are You In?

James Sire, author of The Universe Next Door reiterates and expands
Dilthey’s claims about the universality of world-views and explains
why they are necessary.

Everyone has a world-view. Whenever any of us thinks about any-
thing—from a casual thought (Where did I leave my watch?) to a
profound question (Who am I?) we are operating within such a
framework. In fact, it is only the assumption of a world-view—how-
ever basic or simple—that allows us to think at all.8

Thinking—as well as feeling and willing—always occurs in the context
of a world-view, a paradigm or framework either consciously known
or unconsciously assumed. If we have no intellectual criteria to tell
us what is worth thinking about and to distinguish error from truth,
right from wrong, and reasonable from unreasonable, we become
unconcerned and blasé about things a nd spend no more time and
energy thinking about them.9 Such pre-reflective, uncritical responses
subject to little if any questioning and/or rational discourse are simply
accepted at face value because they are assumed to be true. 10 They
remain “prephilosoophic.”11

The existence of other—sometimes competitive—world-views presents
an important challenge: what is the most effective way of understand-
ing them? Dilthey concluded that abstract intellectual knowledge of
their beliefs is insufficient; the feelings correlated with the abstract
ideas are must also be taken into consideration for an accurate under-
standing of our own and others’ world-views. To achieve this, he devel-
oped his method of “verstehen,” or ‘understanding’ as the evidence-
informed “imaginative re-experiencing of the subjective point of view
of the actor”12 in regards to other world-views. This requires empathy
or “einfühlen” (literally ‘feeling into’) not just for abstract ideas but also
for feelings and emotional states.13 “Einfühlen” uses evidence-based
imaginary exercises us to understand human existence empathetically,
i.e. subjectively from within the standpoint of an ‘other.’14 Subjectively

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

oriented fact-based imaginative understanding is necessary for deeper
intellectual and affective understanding of all world-views.

The underlying premise of Dilthey’s method is the oneness of human
nature regardless of race, gender, culture or any other accidental fac-
tors. A. H. Hodges points out that Dilthey’s method of fact-based
imaginative and “sympathetic insight”15 provides genuine knowledge
of other world-views because it is “based on the identity of nature
between ourselves and what we study [i.e. human expression].”16 In short,
human nature is one. (The “oneness of mankind” 17 is a common
teaching by all the Manifestations of God.) Dilthey’s method of “ein-
fühlen” or ‘feeling into’ shows that humans essentially share a similar
inner life, and, thereby, encourages “discovering myself in the Thou.”18
Furthermore, Dilthey’s method of verstehen and einfühlen provides a
disciplined scholarly practice built on a universal religious teaching.
The modern historian and political philosopher Isaiah Berlin agrees
with Dilthey on this issue.

Members of one culture can, by force of imaginative insight under-
stand (what Vico calls entrare) the values, the ideals, the forms of life
of another culture or society, even those remote in time and space …19

Contrary to Spengler and contemporary theorists and practitioners
of ‘identity politics,’ world-views are not isolated and impermeable
monads with insuperable barriers between them. On the basis of our
common human nature, we can gain genuine knowledge and under-
standing about different cultural and ethnic groupings. The key to
gaining such knowledge is an open-minded and open-hearted willing-
ness to do so. The Roman poet and playwright Terence (2nd century
BCE) sums up this approach to understanding humanity in a single
line: “I am a man and nothing human is alien to me.”20

The contemporary philosopher of religion, Linda Trinkaus Zogzebski
builds on Dilthey’s practice of “einfühlen,” pointing out there is a close
connection between the abstract beliefs expressed in a world-view and

Which World Are You In?

their concomitant feelings and emotions. She is particularly emphatic
about the need for affective or emotional understanding, stating that
“many emotion-dispositions … have an important role in evaluating any
kind of belief.”21 Her statement reminds us that very few people adopt
a world-view on strictly logical and intellectual grounds. Almost invari-
ably, personal and affective components are involved, e.g. feelings of
loyalty to a parental tradition, an emotionally overpowering experience
of some kind, or an unshakeable intuition that some idea is ‘right.’

Perhaps the best known work of connecting emotions with the concept
of the divine is Rudolf Otto’s The Idea of the Holy. This famous text
asserts that beliefs in the “holy,” the divine, the “numinous”22 “cannot
strictly speaking, be taught, it can only be evoked”23and such evoca-
tions elicit intellectual, affective and conative responses. Otto’s goal is
not only to provide intellectual understanding but also to enable the
reader to “feel” the experiences associated with “the holy,” i.e. to under-
stand through “einfuehling” (‘feeling into’) why the experience of the
holy is so compelling. He identifies the important emotional states the
holy evokes, for example, “the consciousness of creaturehood”24—as
seen for example in the Bahá’í Noonday Prayer—a sense of the “wholly
other”25 and a feeling of “wonderfulness and rapture which lies in the
beatific experience of deity.”26

Following the example provided by these scholars, this paper exam-
ines the connection between theistic, atheistic, agnostic and apathetic
world-views and the correlated intellectual, conative and especially the
affective responses they are most likely to arouse. Knowledge of this
connection is essential to answering the question, “What is the nature
of the world in which I find myself?” We shall pay special attention
to the way in which certain affective states encourage a sense of confi-
dence in and worthiness of human nature and the decisively important
concepts that grow out of these feelings.

Guidance from the Manifestations of God is necessary to inspire such
confidence in the spiritual aspects of human nature because, all too

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

easily, especially in the autumn and winter season of civilizations,27
human beings fall into the “Slough of Despond.”28 Judaism, Chris-
tianity and Islam provide this guidance in a general way. The Bahá’í
Writings do as well but add explanations about the declining condition
of the post-Enlightenment world. Shoghi Effendi calls for greater hero-
ics from Bahá’ís “as humanity plunges into greater depths of despair,
degradation, dissension and distress.”29 He continues,

People are so markedly lacking in spirituality these days that the
Bahá’ís should consciously guard themselves against being caught
in what one might call the undertow of materialism and atheism,
sweeping the world these days. Skepticism, cynicism, disbelief,
immorality and hard-heartedness are rife”30

In “an age of scepticism and unbelief” 31 a loss of confidence in the
spiritual nature and destiny of mankind takes hold, leading to a deep
scepticism, discouragement, pessimism, cynicism and that hinders
mankind from living up to its God-given spiritual nature and its poten-
tials. Especially the history of the 20th century CE has normalized this
inward condition with it degraded view of humans as no more than an
animal-like material being without any spiritual aspects. When such
viewpoints become wide-spread, human self-understanding becomes
fore-shortened, seeing only the material world and its temptations and
rewards as ‘real.’ It is denigrated by a pervasive philosophical and con-
sumerist materialism that reduces humankind to an electro-chemical
process without any spiritual features whatever. Such attitudes are not
only reflected in serious literature and philosophy—vide Sartre’s Nau-
sea and Being and Nothingness, George Orwell’s 1984 or Camus’ The
Stranger and William Golding’s Lord of the Flies but also in popular
literature such as Agatha Christie’s The Murder at the Vicarage. Chris-
tie’s aging spinster heroine, Miss Marple reflects that “At my time of
life, one knows that the worst is usually true.” 32

The development and strengthening of human self-confidence
and feeling of worthiness is one of the “eternal verities”33 of God’s

Which World Are You In?

Manifestations. Here, too, there is agreement among the four global
theist religions. In the Qur’an, God says, man is His “vicegerent on
earth” 34 whereas Judaism, Christianity and the Bahá’í Faith teach that
mankind is made in the spiritual image of God,35 i.e. the imago dei.
In addition, the Manifestations provide guidance to help humanity
gain courage, confidence in its own nature and a sense of worthiness
to overcome the seemingly overwhelming power of matter and our
animal aspects.

We shall find, among other things, that ideas and feelings are in a recip-
rocal relationship, each feeling often leads to certain ideas, and certain
ideas lead to particular feelings, emotions and attitudes. For example,
the deeply felt intuition that non-physical, i.e. transcendental forces,
processes and/or entities exist encourages theistic belief. In turn, theistic
belief encourage feelings about the value of mankind’s spiritual nature
and destiny. These results shapes our attitudes to and about the world.
Four general answers to this question are available in contemporary
Western societis:

1. Theism i.e. reality cannot be adequately explained in strictly
material terms; that there is one God only who possess the
attributes of personhood;

2. Atheism i.e. non-material entities, processes and forces do not
exist; belief in them is delusional and harms mankind in innu-
merable ways;

3. Agnosticism, i.e. the limitations of human understanding pre-
vent us from deciding between the previous two viewpoints.

We may, of course, ask why not simply survey ‘practicing’ theists, athe-
ists and agnostics about how they experience/feel their beliefs. Such
a study of actual adherents would, provide valuable information for
the sociology of belief. However, our focus is philosophical: on explor-
ing the logically necessary intellectual and affective consequences
of these beliefs and how they shape our theories of reality. These

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

two approaches are not mutually exclusive since they study different
aspects of these beliefs. Indeed, sociology can gain new data by using
the logical philosophical template to measure the logical coherence of
actual beliefs among practitioners of these world-views.

2: Theism Part I
Explicitly or implicitly, all belief systems whether religious or secular,
embed certain metaphysical principles about the basic, “most general
structure of reality.”36 Theism is no exception. For theism, although
matter and spirit both originate from and depend on God as their
necessary and sufficient condition for existence, they are ontologically
different insofar as they have mutually exclusive attributes.37 While
matter is perceptible by the physical senses, spirit is an “intelligible real-
ity[ ] which [has] no outward existence.” 38 In Christianity, this distinc-
tion is made in the statement “That which is born of the flesh is flesh;
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”39 Judaism’s view of the
difference between matter and spirit evolved in the direction of clearly
distinguishing the two.40

The matter/spirit distinction has far-reaching intellectual and affective
consequences. Recognizing the existence of non-material aspects of
reality—identified in the Bahá’í Writings as “intelligible realities”41—
determines how we orient ourselves in the world. Because reality is not
metaphysically one-dimensional42 but dual, we cannot limit our atten-
tion to sensible things but must also take account of aspects of reality
that cannot be physically perceived or measured and quantified. The
matter/spirit distinction may be described as being ‘open’ insofar as it
does not confine our intellectual and affective knowledge to the mate-
rial world. It opens new possibilities for human growth and evolution.

The presence of the unseen may arouse fear (more on this below) but it
also encourages us to be more curious about and more conscious about
our surroundings and to pay more attention to the natural world as a
carrier of ‘signs’ of its divine origin. This heightened attention to the

Which World Are You In?

nature of reality may plausibly be regarded as one of the factors in the
beginnings of science and theology, since both start with the need to
understand the real world more adequately. As we try to explain what
we observe and/or intuit, “the rational soul” develops new capacities
of thinking, such as the use of analogical reasoning, i.e. explaining the
unseen by references to the seen.43

From the human perspective, the difference between matter and non-
material spirit is exacerbated because spirit has powers denied to mate-
rial things. It can, for example, exist invisibly and, thereby, can observe
us without being observed itself. Unlike material bodies, the intuited
non-physical reality can be everywhere at the same time, i.e. omni-
present. Whereas non-physical, spiritual entities are immune from
physical harm, material bodies of all kinds are subject to accidents to
diseases and all manner of natural disasters, to starvation and attacks
by human and animal foes, and eventually death. This, too, suggests
supernatural powers not available to humans (though there will be
some who seek to acquire such powers). Such differences encourage
humans to distinguish among (1) the most powerful and the less pow-
erful or powerless44; (2) the contingent and non-contingent; and (3) the
unlimited and the limited.

These conclusions regarding our ontological situation vis-à-vis non-
physical aspects of reality awaken deep and unshakeable feelings of
human dependence and weakness vis-à-vis the invisible entities, forces
or processes. However, as will be shown below, they also lead to certain
insights about human strengths that we can build on. Indeed, doing
exactly that is the purpose of God’s Manifestations on earth.

The combined effect of the powers of the non-physical entities and
forces easily lead to an overpowering feeling of mankind’s vulner-
ability and even powerlessness, and, with it, to a sense of ontological
dependence and inferiority. For good or ill, non-material entities can
act on us in enigmatic ways, i.e. unseen, by unknown means and
for unknown purposes. These abilities can arouse not only wonder,

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

respect, awe, curiosity and a desire to investigate but also suspicion
vis-à-vis nature and other people, fear and even inhibit the ability to
act. The labyrinthian tangle of contradictory feelings may also gener-
ate a strong overwhelming sense of the inherent mysteriousness of and
fascination with the non-material aspects of existence.

Fascination, be it the fascination of the wonderful or the fascination
of the horrible or a convoluted snarl of both that we find difficult if
not impossible to untangle, leads to what Rudolf Otto in The Idea of
the Holy identifies as the “mysterium tremendum.”45 His emphasis is,
rightly, on the feelings, not on the merely abstract intellectual knowl-
edge about the reality and truth of the unknowability, omnipresence
and omnipotence of the “numinous” or “the holy.” According to
Otto, the complexity of our experience and feeling of the “mysterium
tremendum”46 unleashes a wide range of emotions ranging from the
sudden transformative feeling-knowledge of “transport and ecstasy,”47
to “intoxicated frenzy”48 and even to “wild and demonic”49 emotional
episodes. The intrinsic mysteriousness of reality, encourages a welter of
seemingly contradictory feelings. Among them we find the feelings of
uncanniness and dread; bafflement, perplexity and confusion as well
as curiosity, wonder and amazement.

Rudolf Otto associates the recognition of inferiority and dependence
as “the element of absolutely mysterious power over which humans
have no control. The various beings hypothesized—gods, ghosts, ani-
mal spirits—“retain numina,”50 i.e. an aura of power, “awefulness” and
the “uncanny.”51 We feel surrounded by mysterious forces, processes
and beings, and, therefore, easily fall prey to feelings of cosmic para-
noia exile and existential homelessness, (reflected in the story of the
expulsion from the Garden of Eden), isolation, estrangement from the
world, hopelessness and meaninglessness in the face of human tran-
sience. According to Rudolph Otto, at best we can propitiate these
super-human powers by attaining “consciousness of createdness and
the consciousness of creaturehood”52 by means of humble acceptance,

Which World Are You In?

individual and communal prayer and ritual, and by practices to foster
a feeling of harmony with the unseen powers. Indeed, recognizing that
“Thou art all,”53 and becoming “weary of self”54 we may even seek “the
annihilation of self”55 by following a mystical or monastic path.

However, as noted above, there are positive intellectual and affective
gains to be derived even from these seemingly invincible negative
feelings. In fact, these positive gains are unachievable without first
directly facing the negatives because they are the necessary condi-
tions for awakening humanity’s consciousness of its own powers of
mind, of its own “rational soul”56 which distinguishes it from the rest
of creation. Without the challenges presented by the material world
mankind would have little if any opportunity to discover its own
mental and spiritual powers because there would be no pressing rea-
son to actualize these potentials. This actualization entails realizing
that “Man possesses conscious intelligence and reflection; nature does
not.”57 Consequently, mankind’s self-confidence is promoted and sus-
tained. Consciousness and reflection give humans power over physi-
cal nature.58 Even more, consciousness—an “intelligible reality”—is
experienced or felt (through intuition59) as a non-physical process
diminishes the ontological distance between humankind and the non-
physical or spiritual aspects of reality. Recognition of similarity to the
spiritual beings and forces, encourages feelings of self-confidence and
worthiness in human nature. Among other things, such consciousness
of our pre-eminence in the created world and the resulting confidence
is the basis for diminishing the propensity to “To act like the beasts
of the field.”60 Consciousness is what gives humankind a sense of its
superiority over material reality and, thereby, strengthens humanity’s
self-confidence in the struggle to survive—and thrive—in an often
hostile and dangerous world. Even more, it encourages confidence in
our ability to control—not suppress—our lower animal nature and,
thereby, continue our evolution as moral beings. Without the feeling
of confidence in our mental and spiritual powers and a sense of worthi-
ness as human beings, it is easy to ignore our potentials as moral and

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

spiritual beings. The Manifestations of God inspire us to outgrow this
diminished, self-inhibiting and depressed understanding of ourselves,
often as no more than one animal among all the others.

Uncanniness need not necessarily provoke only negative reactions. It
can also stimulate a feeling of astonishment and with it, curiosity not
only about “the Holy” but about ourselves as well. Awareness of our
limitations combined with a “fascination”61 with the ultimate source
of this experience prompts—at least in some—an epistemological
quest for ‘other ways of knowing’ appropriate to this mysterious aspect
of reality. Obviously, sense perception is not well-suited to this quest.
Therefore, we seek “other forms of experience which deserve to be
called cognitive.”62 Among these ways are an openness to intuition,63
an “awaken[ing] [of] spiritual susceptibilities,”64 inspiration, i.e. the
“promptings of the Holy Spirit”65 and meditation practices.66 Even such
relatively common experiences as dreams, visions, physical disciplines
such as fasting or self-isolation, and NDE’s can provide knowledge,
especially about ourselves. Again, the feeling of confidence in our
potentials for acquiring all kinds of knowledge plays an important role
in pursuing knowledge.

Moreover, overpowering awe in the presence of “the holy” inspires
worship and praise along with a feeling of gratitude for the unearned
and unasked for gift of existence. Reminding us of existence as a
good is an essential task of theistic religions amid the sufferings of the
world. We sense that life has intrinsic value and that human existence
is ‘ontologically right,’ despite what our own personal fate may be and,
thereby, transcend these events.67 Once this good is forgotten or worse,
never recognized, despair and nihilism with their attendant cynicism
and self and socially destructive attitudes and actions, individuals and
societies have come to the ‘end of the road.’ Like Oedipus in Oedipus at
Colonus, they will feel and act out the belief that it is best not to be born
and if this catastrophe happens, it is best to return to non-existence.

Which World Are You In?

Not to be born at all
Is best, far best that can befall,
Next best, when born, with least delay
To trace the backward way. 68

This existential optimism is a necessary motivator for good will to all as
well as affective and intellectual progress. As will be shown below, this
feeling is enhanced by the theist doctrine of a personal God.

The mysterious nature of transcendent beings and/or forces may also
cause us to experience what Otto calls “creature-consciousness or crea-
ture feeling … [which] is the note of submergence into nothingness
before an overpowering absolute might of some kind.69 Such feelings
are easily understood given the unknown and, thereby unpredictable
reality seems to surround us at all times and all places; its omnipres-
ence—and knowledge of our secret deeds—can easily unnerve us.
The Bahá’í Writings—in agreement with Judaism, Christianity and
Islam—teach that compared to God’s absolute, i.e. unconditionally
independent existence, mankind does not exist, is ‘as nothing’ because
humans are totally dependent on God.70

However, an acute feeling of mankind’s intrinsic deficiencies need
not necessarily lead to a “peculiar dread” but can also lead to positive
intellectual and affective results. Dread can activate as well as paralyze
us. A sense of deficiency can prompt a desire to improve which, in
turn, requires the slow and careful cultivation of humankind’s latent
intellectual and affective capacities needed for ethical, material, cul-
tural and psycho-spiritual progress. Among these necessary skills are
self-observation, reflection, self-critique, a sense of humility, a sense of
responsibility and a deeply felt commitment to do better in the future.
These practices also require an unflagging dedication to truth, which
itself requires a willingness to distinguish between preferences and
fact and a willingness to override personal preferences for truth. We

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

may call this complex of feelings and their ensuing beliefs ‘conscience’
which depends on the independent investigation of truth. ‘Abdu’l-
Bahá praises those who have

investigated the truth and have been freed from imitations and
superstitions, that ye observe with your own eyes and not with
those of others, hearken with your own ears and not with the ears
of others.71

Furthermore, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá points out that God “has endowed [man-
kind] with mind, or the faculty of reasoning, by the exercise of which
he is to investigate and discover the truth, and that which he finds72
real and true he must accept.” 73 It is noteworthy that both religion and
science have their roots in the skills and commitments acquired from
“dread” and a consciousness of human deficiencies. In other words,
both science and religion have the same existential origins and the
same purpose.

The tendency to reflect on our own thoughts and actions encourages
greater social and moral self-consciousness which are required for
human psycho-spiritual progress both in individuals and societies. For
this reason Bahá’u’lláh admonishes us to

[b]ring thyself to account ere thou art summoned to a reckoning, on
the Day when no man shall have strength to stand for fear of God, the
Day when the hearts of the heedless ones shall be made to tremble.74

Affectively, such growing powers of self-consciousness can stimulate
feelings of self-confidence and with it, hope for oneself and even
humanity in general as seen, for example, in the Bahá’í doctrine of
progressive revelation. We shall discuss below how hope is enhanced
and becomes one of the great gifts of belief in a personal God.

Which World Are You In?

3. Theism Part II
The consequences of recognizing the existence of non-material reali-
ties become intensified and expanded with the theist principle that
the world is the creation of a single, transcendent and personal Being
Who is actively involved in the life of mankind. This development is
not merely an arbitrary anthropomorphic imposition prompted by
‘pre-philosophic’ i.e. unreflective and uncritical thought or by “vain
imaginings.” 75 There is also an underlying logic that is not difficult to
discern. It is based on the previously examined distinction between
matter and spirit and its consequences as well as on empirical observa-
tion of human actions.

The unusual and seemingly ‘supernatural’ powers of the non-material
aspects of reality—especially in contrast to the contingency of material
things and life—suggest that spirit is permanent and, therefore, more
real than matter. Since material things are never observed to come into
existence from nothing by their own power, i.e. they are contingent,
analogical reasoning on the basis of this evidence suggests that the
physical world itself originated from or was created by external per-
manent i.e. non-contingent spiritual agency. In other words, there is
a distinction between (4) the Creator and the created, or, the Origin
and the originated; (5) the independent and the dependent; and the (6)
the essence and the accident. The existence of the contingent material
world depends on non-contingent external action by non-material, i.e.
spiritual agent. In addition, because the physical world is accidental,
i.e. contingent and the spiritual power is essential, i.e. it is the necessary
and sufficient conditions for the existence of the physical world.

Logic supports this view. Because the universe is existentially consti-
tuted entirely of material, i.e. contingent entities, it follows that the
universe itself is contingent. 76 If every part of a machine is destruc-
tible, the machine itself is destructible, i.e. its existence is not necessary.
Claiming otherwise implies that machines, mountains, plants—or the
universe—can exist separately from their parts. Such a claim—that a

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

mountain or tricycle can exist separately from their parts—is, in effect,
an admission of non-material realities, akin to Plato’s theory of Ideas.
The readily apparent consequence is that the contingency of the uni-
verse requires a Creator Who is not subject to the limitations of physical
existence. In the same way, a pot requires a potter, i.e. an external entity
possessing consciousness, the ability to make choices and intentionally
work towards a purpose and desiring the existence of the pot. Such
an entity also possesses individuality because it is a particular kind of
being, i.e. it has an identity—whatever that identity may be.

Direct experience also teaches that effects must in some way or degree
resemble their cause. A piece of ice will not light a fire in kindling
because ice and fire do not share any relevant attributes, namely, heat; a
lit match, however, will do so because it also possesses heat and, there-
fore, can impart heat to kindling. From this, it is only a small logical
step to realize that even if other lesser spirits exist, there must be a single
supremely powerful being to create the vast complexity of the world.
The vastness of the world requires a commensurate cause,77 namely, a
single all-powerful Being beyond any conceivable limitations.78

These necessary attributes of the potter are also the qualities neces-
sary for personhood, thereby making it rational to conclude that the
superior non-material power must be a person or, at least, have the
attributes of personhood.79 For Bahá’ís as well as other theist thinkers,
Shoghi Effendi confirms these conclusions about a personal God by
stating,

What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His
creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many
scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined
force operating in the universe. Such conception of the Divine
Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not
anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms,
and does by no means attempt to define the essence of Divinity which
is obviously beyond any human comprehension. To say that God is a

Which World Are You In?

personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does
in any way resemble a human being.80

Of course, God has these powers in a super-eminent way that I, they
are only analogically reflected in human nature. Shoghi Effendi’s list
of attributes—consciousness, a mind, a will and a purpose—are the
necessary and sufficient conditions for possessing personhood. With-
out these foundational attributes there can be no meaningful moral
agency; no love, care or concern; no sense of justice; no freedom of
action; no scale of values, obligations or rights; no sense of meaning
and no intentional relationships. Impersonal, unconscious forces, pro-
cesses or machines—not even computers—cannot feel love, concern
and self-motivation, demonstrate moral agency, establish a sense of
values or initiate and sustain desired relationships. Unconscious, non-
personal entities, processes and forces, like computers, can, of course,
imitate the actions and procedures we associate with these attributes 81
but it is a superficial imitation insofar as it lacks the attributes listed by
Shoghi Effendi.82

The Bahá’í Writings themselves also teach the personhood of God on
the basis of a metaphysical argument: God must have the attributes
of personhood because these attributes are evident in mankind. As
previously noted “Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the
earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and
names of God.” 83 Mankind—wholly dependent and created—cannot
possess spiritual capacities not super-eminently present in the Creator.
Otherwise, not only would the created be superior to the Creator but
also such capacities in mankind would have arisen from nothingness,
i.e. without a sign in God’s essence.84 Humans can only possess per-
sonhood because the foundational attributes of personhood as well
as their consequences such as moral agency and the ability to love are
present—albeit in super-eminent form—in God. This line of reason-
ing is confirmed by the Manifestations of God.

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

Perhaps the most far-reaching consequence of God’s possession of the
attributes of personhood is that it strengthens humanity with what we
may call ‘cosmic confidence,’ i.e. the conviction that mankind’s ‘being’
or existence is good in and of itself and this good exceeds whatever nat-
ural and moral disasters may occur to individuals and/or entire soci-
eties.85 Given the persistent physical, moral, social, political economic
and psychological obstacles that beset our lives, humans would—and
do—lose any hope for the future, fall into discouragement and despair
about the value, purpose and meaning of life. Too easily they would
fall into “the station of the ignorant ones who are as animals, follow-
ing every croaker and shaken by every wind. ‘Forsake them to play in
their shallow waters.’ ”86 If human existence is not considered a good
in itself, affectively, conatively and intellectually, then the value of love
and care, whether physical, social, moral or spiritual care or whether
for ourselves or others is, in effect, denied. Such negative emotions are
exacerbated when a society succumbs to a materialist view of humans
as electro-chemical machines and/or animals ‘just like the others’ with
everyone fighting a feverish ‘war of all against all’ to acquire satisfac-
tion in the material world.

In sharp contrast, in the four global theist religions, cosmic confidence
is `based on the personhood of God Whose love for humanity is the
ultimate reason for our existence. ‘Love’ expressed by an impersonal
force or process—like ‘love’ expressed by a machine—would be utterly
meaningless and contribute nothing to our confidence in the face of
the powerful challenges of the physical world. We exist because we
our existence is loved by a personal God. Through Bahá’u’lláh, God
reminds us of this basic principle of theism: “I loved thy creation,
hence I created thee.”87 Since God is “conscious of His creation” and
has, among other attributes “a Mind, a Will [and] a Purpose,” it fol-
lows logically that creation as a whole and especially humans are inten-
tionally “call[ed] into being”88 by a transcendental Being Who wishes
mankind’s existence. We are not simply “accidental composition[s]
and arrangement[s]”89 resulting from a long series of random physi-
cal processes and coincidences i.e. a long serendipitous sequence of

Which World Are You In?

coincidences no less miraculous then a virgin birth. This heightens
humanity’s feelings of self-esteem as divine creations.

The Quran shows God’s love for mankind when He says, “and behold,
We said to the angels: “Bow down to Adam” and they bowed down.”90
Similarly, Judaism, Christianity and the Bahá’í Writings portray
humanity as the spiritual image of God, the imago dei. Because our
individual and collective existence is an intentional creation of divine
personal love, mankind can not only trust God—even when things go
wrong as in the story of Job—but can also have full confidence in our
own objective intrinsic value.

The Bahá’í Writings enlarge the scope of mankind’s intrinsic value and
purpose by teaching that humankind has a specific place and purpose
in cosmic evolution: “If man did not exist, the universe would be without
result, for the object of existence is the appearance of the perfections of God.91
Indeed, God created humanity with a unique nature

Human nature is created with a special essence—the capacity to
reflect all the names of God—which distinguishes us from all other
things and gives humankind a special position in the scale of being.
Mankind, i.e. human nature, stands out because … for each name,
each attribute, each perfection which we affirm of God there exists
a sign in man.92

Cosmic confidence is supported not only by mankind’s special and
necessary place in the hierarchy of existence but also by the knowledge
that our unique essential nature is created by God and, therefore, “his
species and essence undergo no change.93 Even “education cannot alter the
inner essence of a man.” 94 We are, so to speak, safe from ourselves! This
is important in modern, post-Enlightenment times in which the denial
of human nature and the concept of its complete malleability have led
to catastrophic experiments to design and create a ‘new man’ accord-
ing to the desires of fallible—though fashionable—philosophers and
ideologues.95 The theist religions agree here as well. This not only

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

provides confidence in humanity’s essential nature but also gives us
relief by freeing us from the pressures exerted by the ideological delu-
sions of our time.

Knowing that we are conscious and intentional creations of God, Who
gifted us with a purpose in cosmic evolution also gives mankind the
courage not to succumb to the intimidation of a vast and overwhelm-
ingly powerful physical universe. We remember that because “Man is,
in reality, a spiritual being,”96 and that “the rational soul is the sub-
stance, and the body depends upon it. If the accident—that is to
say, the body—be destroyed, the substance, the spirit, remains.97 Leav-
ing aside the technical Aristotelian terminology, the gist of this state-
ment is that matter cannot harm the “rational soul.”98 This assures
not only the ontological superiority of the “rational soul” against
overwhelming physical force, but also its immortality. In other words,
our feelings of being intimidated and even fatally discouraged by the
physical universe and its catastrophes—bodily diseases, droughts,
floods, crop failures, earthquakes, genetic disabilities, sheer accidents—
are irrational and unjustified. Spiritually, we are not entombed in the
world of matter though, of course, our bodies are.

In addition, confidence in ourselves as God’s creations strengthens the
courage and willingness to actualize our potentialities not only as indi-
vidual self-improvement but also as societies in establishing education
systems for public well-being. The quest for individual self-improve-
ment often begins with an intuition that there is ‘something more’ we
feel compelled to do to feel fully ‘at home’ with ourselves, i.e. we are
spurred on by what choreographer Martha Graham called a “divine
dissatisfaction” with what we are compared to the inner potentialities
we feel or intuit within ourselves. Bahá’u’lláh affirms the reality of this
feeling, saying, “All men have been created to carry forward an ever-
advancing civilization.”99

Not being completely entombed in matter and time generates hope,
in other words, a positive attitude or feeling about the future, and,

Which World Are You In?

consequently, a certain enthusiasm and willingness to attain this
future by appropriate conduct in the present. Such confidence encour-
ages virtues necessary for survival and growth, as, for example, perse-
verance, open-mindedness, intellectual and affective flexibility, and a
willingness to experiment. Equally important, hope for a better future
generates a willingness to engage in self-criticism for self-improvement
as well as a willingness to sacrifice for others even if only to receive
a just reward beyond the material world. Kantian deontologists may
object that acting for a reward is not a virtue but in the case of attaining
heaven (however defined), why wouldn’t it be? How can we rationally
assert it is not a virtue to choose to act in favor of one’s own spiritual
well-being and progress in the eternal afterlife? Indeed, it would seem
to be the only rational thing to do. Nor would doing so lead to out-
rightly selfish acts because these would hinder our spiritual and moral
progress throughout eternity.

However, hope for immortality also engenders a healthy and rational
fear—if for no other reason than that no one wants to encounter the
consequences of their misdeeds for eternity!100 In other words, the
hope for immortality also helps humans take their moral responsibili-
ties more seriously; they become ‘morally engaged’ and develop greater
willingness to assess their own actions more seriously. As `Abdu’l-Bahá’
points out, disbelief in personal immortality easily leads humans to
neglect the acquisition of virtues:

The conception of annihilation is a factor in human degradation, a
cause of human debasement and lowliness, a source of human fear
and abjection. It has been conducive to the dispersion and weak-
ening of human thought, whereas the realization of existence and
continuity has upraised man to sublimity of ideals, established the
foundations of human progress and stimulated the development of
heavenly virtues; therefore, it behooves man to abandon thoughts
of nonexistence and death, which are absolutely imaginary, and see
himself ever-living, everlasting in the divine purpose of his creation.
He must turn away from ideas which degrade the human soul101

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

Moreover, the deep convictions allows feelings of hope for ultimate
justice, the confidence that even though economic, political and moral
criminals may escape justice on earth, their deeds will be judged in the
next life. This certainty has tremendous societal implications. In the
first place, cosmic confidence and hope make the effort to improve our-
selves and society worthwhile despite the trouble that we may have to
endure. More specifically, hope for God’s justice helps curb the desire
for personal revenge that can tear entire families, societies and even
countries apart. Such hope helps sustain good order and peace in society.

Without the vital feelings of confidence, hope and courage in the face
of overwhelming physical power, it is difficult to see how science could
have evolved. `Abdu’l-Bahá’ makes it clear, that humanity

wresteth the sword from the hands of nature, and giveth it a griev-
ous blow … Man hath the powers of will and understanding, but
nature hath them not. Nature is constrained, man is free. Nature is
bereft of understanding, man understandeth. Nature is unaware of
past events, but man is aware of them.102

In other words, mankind’s intellectual and scientific progress depends
on the feelings of confidence inspired by the theist doctrine that
humankind is made in the spiritual image of God. Humanity occu-
pies a special place in the scale of being. Indeed, human nature is the
vanguard of the spiritual aspects of the evolutionary process. There is,
for example, no common denominator between animal behavior and
such human behaviors as writing operas, establishing public schools,
engaging in religious services, creating legal systems with codified
laws and a charter of individual rights or the systematic pursuit of
scientific knowledge.103

The cosmic confidence that forms a foundational part of theism is
also strengthened by its ability to provide logical and coherent solu-
tions to four fundamental problems in ethics. By ‘logical and coherent’
we mean solutions that follow from a basic premise—the distinction

Which World Are You In?

between matter and spirit—and suggest certain conclusions by infer-
ential and/or analogical reasoning. In short, the theist solutions form a
part of a unified whole.

The first question is, ‘Who—if anyone—has the legitimate authority or
the right to lay down moral principles and precepts for the human race?’
Given God’s His knowledge of His creation, it is difficult to imagine
who else could have genuine ethical legitimacy since His knowledge
is the only reliable guide to ‘the good.’ In addition, it is virtually self-
evident that no human and no collection of human beings inherently
possess such legitimacy by virtue of their human nature. The reasons
are obvious: humans are fallible and fickle, have personal interests, lack
absolute independence from all things, i.e. are susceptible to outside
influence, interference and coercion. Thus, humans cannot guarantee
objectivity and justice. They also lack the unlimited knowledge needed
to establish viable ethical and judicial standards. God is unaffected by
the aforementioned deficiencies.

The second aspect of authority is the question of power. Without
legitimacy, power is tyranny and forceful enslavement but without
power, legitimacy remains purely theoretical, i.e. impotent. Thus, to
see how legitimacy is actually put into practice we must ask ‘Who—
if anyone—has the power necessary to enable people to follow these
rules despite their short-comings and weaknesses?’ ‘Who—if any-
one—has the power to impose His will and His ethical judgments on
humankind? Who—if anyone—can impose both obligations or laws
and consequences for committed or omitted acts? The belief in one
personal God allows a logically consistent answer to these questions—
God alone has that power. He exercises it through the “eternal verities”
taught by the Manifestations as well as in the attributes and potentials
of human nature. Humans may stray from these for a time, but in
the long run, they return to the guidance implicit in their God-given
essence. Human powers, at best, are able to violate mankind’s essential
nature, but all too

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

often mainly by violence, legalized oppression and vast amounts of
collective self-deception. God-substitutes such as governments, priest-
hoods or ideologies lack this power because they are subject to the
vicissitudes of ubiquitous change and they lack the legitimacy and the
power to make their ethical requirements effective. Inherent human
limitations prevent this.

The third aspect of authority is ‘universality.’ Here, the most funda-
mental question is, ‘Is there such a thing as a universal human nature
that underlies personal and societal ethics?’ The four theist religions
answer this question positively, i.e. that a common human nature
allows us to identify and build on our inherent nature that will—in the
Bahá’í teachings—lead to a unified federal world state. Such a future
is at least possible—if humans choose to follow the guidance of the
Manifestations and above all, the ‘law of love.’ Mankind originated
with God’s love and so this divine motive is the fundamental feature
of our existence. `Abdu’l-Bahá warns us that “No worldly power can
accomplish the universal love.”104

The fourth problem is the traditional problem of moral ‘evil,’ i.e. con-
sciously chosen and harmful acts against others. How can a beneficent
God allow such horrible events to happen? Either He cannot stop
them, in which case He is not omnipotent, or He will not stop them, in
which case He is immoral by allowing needless suffering to continue.
Though this subject has been voluminously debated, in our view, only
two points need to be understood.

First, no ‘solution’ to these concerns can and should ever satisfy us. Satis-
faction with any answer encourages a careless attitude, especially towards
human suffering. As a result, we would be less determined to mitigate or
end suffering and that, in turn, leads to the emotional, intellectual and
conatative coarsening, demoralizing and animalizing of human exis-
tence. However, because there is no satisfying explanation of suffering
does not mean that there is no framework to provide at least some degree
of understanding. Theism provides such a framework.

Which World Are You In?

The first and most obvious is that unlike God, we do not and cannot
know all of the relevant facts about human existence. Therefore, should
not rush to judgment that suffering is ultimately meaningless because
within the context of the physical world, we can see no meaning in it.

4. Atheism Part I
This paper concerns itself with one form of ‘positive atheism’ which
directly asserts that non-material beings, forces and processes do not
exist and even more, cannot exist. Positive atheism advocates meta-
physical naturalism, claiming that only material nature is real and
that any contrary beliefs are false. Consequently, it rejects as false the
concept of God found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá’í
Faith. More specifically, it denies the existence of any being that is sup-
posedly supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal
and morally good. The concept of such a being is logically self-contra-
dictory and cannot even be properly explained.

At this point it necessary to distinguish ‘atheism’ from ‘anti-theism.’
The so-called ‘New Artheism,’ best represented by Dawkins, Hitchens,
Harris, and Stenger, is militantly anti-theist. These authors proclaim
that God does not exist, that “faith is inherently an enemy of reason
and science and no reconciliation between them is possible,”105 and
that religion harms individuals and societies. Hitchens claims religious
instruction for children is “child abuse”106 and Harris questions the
validity of religious tolerance, stating that “the very ideal of religious
tolerance—born of the notion that every person can believe whatever
he wants about God—is one of the principle forces driving us toward
the abyss.107 They New Atheists agree that religion “must be actively
resisted and attacked whenever possible.108 Openly ridiculing theists
and theism is an important part of their strategy.109 Of course, the New
Atheism far from ‘new. Indeed, it has not added a single new argument
against God and religion. Furthermore, it was already in vogue in
the late 18th C with the popular writings of Diderot, d’Holbach and
D’Alembert who regarded religion itself as a set of vile deceptions and

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

an obstacle to human progress and maturity. Although Kant himself
was not an absolute anti-theist,110 his essay “What is Enlightenment?”
established the motto of anti-theism, “Sapere Aude” i.e. dare to think
for yourself. Anti-theists strongly believe that theists are inherently,
thoughtless, brain-washed, irrational, intellectually ignorant and easily
led. (They have obviously never debated with a Jesuit!) In contradic-
tion to anti-theist biases, Bahá’u’lláh makes this concept one of the
foundational teachings of His revelation.111

Marxism and its variants are the most wide-spread forms of anti-theism.
Marx writes,

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heart-
less world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the
people … The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the
people is the demand for their real happiness.112

In the Soviet Union and other Communist nations, religious life was
actively, often harshly suppressed and “scientific atheism” courses were
mandatory from school to university. The failure of this atheist edu-
cation program became apparent as soon as Communism failed as a
system of government in 1990 and the Russian Orthodox re-emerged
as a potent force in Russian society.

The one issue on which atheists and anti-theists agree is the metaphysical
denial of God’s existence. Metaphysically, they assert that reality is one-
dimensional, i.e. strictly material, and that there are no transcendental
aspects, levels or planes of reality from which the material world is origi-
nated or ruled. All apparently non-physical phenomena such as thought,
‘magical’ powers or paranormal events can be adequately explained in
strictly physical terms. The metaphysical denial of God, is, of course, a
form of faith in itself since there is no empirical, scientific proof for this
view—which invalidates it on the basis of its own principles.

Which World Are You In?

Let us look at atheism in general and then examine particular kinds
of atheism. Having stated the essential intellectual principles of athe-
ism, our discussion will examine the affective or emotional aspects of
denying God.

One of the most frequently cited affective consequence of disbelief in
God is a feeling of relief and freedom from the dictatorial demands of
God Who arbitrarily prescribes human nature, mankind’s moral obli-
gations and the meaning of our lives. Moreover, He does so without
consulting us, the recipients of His ‘largesse’ and thereby de-values us
as unworthy of consideration in matters that concern us more than
Him. Fortunately, no such Being exists. We are free, i.e. there are no
a priori commands requiring universal obedience or worship both of
which demean human nature by enslaving us to an ontologically dif-
ferent Being Who does not have our interests in mind. Without this
tyrant overshadowing us, we can at last, exercise our freedom to make
individual and collective choices as we see fit and can concentrate on
being human beings instead of puppets trying to dance on someone
else’s string. Not only that, but we are no longer subject to the humili-
ating bribery of heaven or threats of eternal torment in hell. As a result,
we are free to develop a genuinely human morality based on human
standards and choices and not subject to a pseudo-morality based on
obedience imposed from the outside.

The freedom of atheism is also used to support the concept of human
dignity. We are free to be themselves, albeit within the limits of their
society. Humans can finally attain the dignity of taking responsibil-
ity for their own actions for good and/or ill. Without that, we remain
perpetual children who expect someone else to ‘die for our sins,’ or
to offer us mandatory ‘guidance.’ Both ‘gifts’ discourage individual
and collective thought and action and, in effect, hold back whatever
moral or psychological progress we might make. Why think, when we
can ‘shift the blame’? Such seemingly well-meaning ‘offers’ not only
demean us by assuming we cannot take responsibility for ourselves but

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

also infantilizes us by teaching permanent dependence on others for
ethical integrity. No society can function with such intellectual lazi-
ness since viable societies require individual decisions and responsibil-
ity commensurate with the age we live in.

The problem with the idea of human dignity based on the non-
existence of God is that it provides no intrinsic reason to draw that
conclusion. There is no necessary logical inference leading from the
non-existence of God to the concept of human dignity. The atheist
view that humans,—like animals and plants—are no more than pack-
ages of bio-chemical processes, are “accidental composition[s] and
arrangement[s]”113 resulting from a long series of random physical
processes and coincidences.114 Feelings of discouragement and despair
about human nature and its value are a far more likely outcome than
any feelings of gratitude for existing. Recognizing the intrinsic ‘good-
ness of being’ has no rational basis in the belief that humanity is the
outcome of a long chain of cosmic accidents and mutations.

Consequently, atheist views of human dignity can only based on per-
sonal subjective feelings and beliefs—and these are notoriously unreli-
able and malleable according to the needs and preferences of the hour.
In contrast, theism provides a necessary logical inference from mankind
as God’s willful creation to human dignity.115 Because humans are
intentionally “call[ed] into being”116 by God, theism provides an objec-
tive i.e. not a purely subjective basis for the intrinsic dignity of mankind.

Pride and courage are two other liberating emotions encouraged by
atheism. When we are free to stand up for ourselves, especially against
an overwhelming but unworthy power, we tend to feel a need to be
true to ourselves and live ‘at our best’ for the obvious reason that doing
so is the only available—and rational—choice. Few people wish dif-
ficult lives on themselves, and those who for medical or anti-social rea-
sons ‘go too far’ are restrained by society. Positive atheism frees us from
needlessly demeaning human dignity by replacing divinely mandated
‘sin’ with socially legislated ‘crime.’

Which World Are You In?

Pride and courage also inspire a passion for cosmic justice. Why should
humankind be burdened with demands not imposed on the rest of
nature? We are, in fact, animals like the others, i.e. simply a part of
nature; our seemingly special brain powers have traceable roots in the
animal world and make us different in degree but not in kind. Impos-
ing ‘spiritual’ rules on us and requiring us to ‘live up to’ our spiritual
destinies is simply rank injustice. Humans neither asked for nor were
asked about these impositions and there is no reason we should accept
them. Like Lao Tzu or Henry David Thoreau, we can draw our moral
guidance from nature without the help of divine Manifestations, and
make adjustments due to human peculiarities as necessary. Finally, we
must accept that, like all species, we will eventually be superseded by
other kinds of being that—see the dinosaur-bird connection—may be
totally different from us.

However, there are also problematic intellectual affective and conative
consequences of positive atheism. While Judaism, Christianity and
Islam implicitly teach that morals ultimately originate with God and
are not from nature, the Bahá’í Writings explicitly explain why this is
so. The natural world is essentially different from humankind:

Man hath the powers of will and understanding, but nature hath
them not. Nature is constrained, man is free. Nature is bereft of
understanding, man understandeth. Nature is unaware of past
events, but man is aware of them. Nature forecasteth not the future;
man by his discerning power seeth that which is to come. Nature
hath no consciousness of itself, man knoweth about all things.117

In other words, nature’s lack of a “rational soul” and its lack of spiri-
tual capacities make it an unreliable guide for human morals. Lao Tzu,
Thoreau and other ethical naturalists select the aspects of nature care-
fully to exclude the life and death struggles for survival and nature’s
carelessness about human well-being. Interestingly enough, these
‘negative’ attributes of nature is precisely what other ethical natural-
ists—National Socialists in Germany—take as their models.

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

The most basic of these is that, despite protestations to the contrary,
atheism is out of step with or contrary to human nature as encoun-
tered by historians, archeologists, sociologists and anthropologists.
None of these academic disciplines have ever found a society at any
level of development without beliefs about a spirit world distinct from
the material world, or without belief in God or gods or spiritual beings
of some kind. It is clear that societies and cultures operate on certain
religious premises. The persistent and globally pervasive presence of
religion would not be the case if cultures and societies did not find
such beliefs congruent to human needs and, thereby, successful in
ordering individual and collective life.

This conclusion is supported by the resurgence of religious belief—not
necessarily church attendance—in Russia despite seventy years of
programmatic education in “scientific atheism” throughout the Soviet
school and university system.118 Developments in Eastern Europe are
similar but not so in parts of Western Europe where explicit atheism
reaches levels as high as 15% in the Czech Republic.119 Research seems
to show that in the United States at least, the number of people who
explicitly identify as atheists, i.e. deny the metaphysical existence of
God, has moved from 2% to 4% by 2019.120 In Canada, 8% identify as
atheists.121 However, it should be noted that there is some fluidity in
the concepts of atheism, agnosticism, and ‘spirituality.’ Beliefs are not
always consist, as shown by the fact that some who claim to be atheists
also believe in ‘spirituality’ or a ‘higher power’ that is not personal.

The pervasiveness of religion in societies and cultures does not require
every individual to be a bona fide believer. However, it does mean that
societies find the prevalence of and adherence to religious belief to be
necessary for stability and well-being. For this to be viable—and soci-
eties find it so—religion must meet genuine needs of the vast major-
ity of its members and of society itself. ‘Obedience’ is a case in point.
Societies of all sizes from families to multicultural nation states require
a certain amount of ‘obedience’—otherwise known as ‘co-operation,’
‘team spirit,’ ‘unity,’ ‘self-discipline’ and ‘family loyalty.’ This need is

Which World Are You In?

undermined by the atheist emphasis on personal freedom, i.e. its essen-
tially atomistic and antinomian nature with its stress on the priority
of personal choice in matters of morals (both private and public), and
societal, cultural and legal norms. In other words, positive atheism
encourages a feeling of rightful self-confidence and independence to
the point where it can become anti-social and feels fully justified in
being so. Such behaviors can range from eccentric to revolutionary or
even criminal in nature.122 As a result of encouraging such feelings,
societies face the challenge of overcoming fragmentation by viable
ways of creating unity. In both individuals and societies, too much
diversity is as destructive as too little.

The intrinsic antinomianism of positive atheism encourages hubris, an
overwhelming and unchecked self-confidence, a seemingly limitless
feeling of empowerment, a feeling that ‘anything goes’ without any
inherent limits. ‘Limits are made to be broken’ expresses this feeling.
The theist religions, and especially the Bahá’í Writings, recognize that
limits on human behavior are necessary for the well-being of individu-
als and societies. For example, Bahá’u’lláh teaches that

To act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of man. Those vir-
tues that befit his dignity are forbearance, mercy, compassion and
loving-kindness towards all the peoples and kindreds of the earth.123

These virtues require a willingness to practice self-discipline, i.e. self-
limitation because of the human nature and the guidance given by
God through His Manifestations. Overweening pride leads us to “dis-
regard [ ] the complexity of human nature”124 and think that we can
‘tamper with’ or engineer human nature physically, mentally and spiri-
tually. This unlimited feeling of self-confidence is reinforced by athe-
ism’s denial of a life after death. This leads to human “degradation”125
because there is no need to take responsibility for our actions. In that
way, the atheist pride in taking responsibility is severely undermined.

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

The intrinsic antinomianism of atheism helps us to understand one of
Bahá’u’lláh’s most enigmatic statements:

Know thou for a certainty that whoso disbelieveth in God is
neither trustworthy nor truthful. This, indeed, is the truth, the
undoubted truth. He that acteth treacherously towards God will,
also, act treacherously towards his king. Nothing whatever can
deter such a man from evil, nothing can hinder him from betraying
his neighbor, nothing can induce him to walk uprightly.126

This statement is a general principle that applies to more than Sultan
Abdu’l-’Aziz’s potential government appointees. Offensive as it may
sound to some, Bahá’u’lláh raises a crucial point about ethics, namely
that unless they have a divine foundation, morality, human ethical
principles are merely subjective preferences. These may vary greatly
among individuals. The antinomian nature of atheism, its rejection of
socially or religiously based ethics, gives priority to individual choices,
i.e., to subjective preferences which can easily change with time,
social and political situations. In short, we cannot rely on them, or as
Bahá’u’lláh states, they are “neither trustworthy nor truthful” because
they have no fear of God’s justice. Bahá’u’lláh’s teaching is hard, but
it is grounded in reason and common sense, and, therefore, is not a
matter of irrational prejudice.

5. Atheism Part II
Atheism comes in various forms. One of the most common is eviden-
tiary atheism127 whose proponents argue that there is no evidence for
God’s existence. Usually, their arguments are based on science, i.e. the
claim that there is no genuinely scientific evidence that a non-material,
supernatural Being exists. For evidence to be considered genuinely
scientific, it must be sensible, observable, measurable and quantifiable,
verifiable by others, consistently replicable and allow testable predic-
tions. Events and claims that cannot meet these standards are not rec-
ognized as sources of evidence. Because science can only use physical

Which World Are You In?

tests for physical phenomena, the existence of a spiritual Being is not
a ‘testable hypothesis. Therefore, science can—at most—conclude that
there is no evidence for a material God-like Being—something which
all theistic religions concede as a matter of principle.

While the other theistic religions also reject evidentiary atheism– obvi-
ously, since they believe in non-material God—the Bahá’í Writings are
unique in confronting this issue directly and explicitly. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
adds a cautionary note to this debate by pointing out that sense knowl-
edge is not always reliable; “One cannot … rely implicitly upon it.”128
The senses cannot be automatically taken at face value. He uses simple
examples—double suns, desert mirages, the apparent immobility of
the earth—to make a telling point: all physical instruments whether
natural or man-made have inherent limitations and, therefore, only
provide one view of reality—which may not always be sufficient to our
purpose. This mistake is actually subject of a witty but profound joke
about a confused man looking for his lost car keys at night but limiting
his search to the area around the streetlamp because he cannot see any-
where else. In short, the intrinsic limitations of the scientific method
are not sufficient to find answers about God’s existence. Dogmatically
insisting that they are sufficient assumes that our knowledge of reality
is enough to absolutely exclude the possibility of non-physical aspects
of reality and other ways of knowing needed to recognize them. Instead
of dogmatizing we must “investigate to determine where and in what
form the truth can be found.”129

In our understanding, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá makes this point not to encourage
us to ignore scientific findings, but rather, to open our minds to the
possibility of ‘other ways of knowing.’ Since all forms of theism believe
that there is more to reality than matter and material phenomena, such
encouragement is logically appropriate; otherwise, we would be cutting
ourselves off from a vital source of knowledge and wisdom. Among
these are such practices as yoga which sensitizes one to non-material
realities,130 intuition, dreams, mystical experiences and visions. These
‘other ways’ may or may not always be suitable for discovering scientific

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

knowledge—as we currently understand it—but that does not mean
that ‘other ways of knowing’ cannot also deliver valuable empirical
knowledge. He says, for example, “In the world of sleep, too, one may
have a dream which exactly comes true, while on another occasion one
will have a dream which has absolutely no result.”131 Clearly, ‘Abdu’l-
Bahá recognizes that ‘other ways of knowing’ can lead to empirical, i.e.
experiential proof. Of course, he recognizes that these ways are not
always reliable but he does not leap to the false logically conclusion
that because other ways of knowing are not easy to evaluate, they are
never evidence at all.

Logical atheism is based on the claim that there can be no logically
valid ‘proofs’ of God’s existence. 132 `Abdu’l-Bahá, summarises the con-
trary theist belief, stating that “The utmost one can say is that [God’s]
existence can be proved, but the conditions of [God’s] existence are
unknown.”133 Indeed, he re-affirms Aristotle’s First Mover argument
on the grounds that without God, the First Mover, the “ process of cau-
sation goes on, and to maintain that this process goes on indefinitely is
manifestly absurd.”134 He also re-affirms the cosmological arguments
for God’s existence by stating that “throughout the world of existence
the smallest created thing attests to the existence of a creator. For
instance, this piece of bread attests that it has a maker.”135 Obviously the
accounts of creation in Jewish, Christian and Islamic scriptures agree.

Kant’s fourth antinomy is probably the strongest logical argument
atheism has in denying a God as the Creator of reality. God, a “neces-
sary being, ”136 cannot be invoked by theists because doing so requires
a ‘leap’ from evidence from physical creation to the existence of a
transcendental Creator, i.e. from physical, sensible evidence to a tran-
scendent plane of reality.137 The physical evidence—according to Kant
and his atheist acolytes—cannot logically justify such a leap. In other
words, a posteriori cosmological proofs based on inferring the Creator’s
existence from physical creation are invalid. Many have regarded this
argument as the logically decisive refutation of the existence of God
and any non-physical reality.

Which World Are You In?

Theism, by implication of God as Creator and the Bahá’í Writings
explicitly reject this argument: “throughout the world of existence the
smallest created thing attests to the existence of a creator. For instance,
this piece of bread attests that it has a maker.”138 In this simple but
potent analogy, `Abdu’l-Bahá shows why Kant’s argument fails on the
basis of universal empirical experience. It assumes that things can bring
themselves into existence—something which has never been observed
or experienced. He gives no reason why we should suddenly, without
supporting evidence and contrary to all human experience assume the
opposite in regards to the creation of the universe. “Similarly the wise
and reflecting soul will know of a certainty that this infinite universe
with all its grandeur and perfect order could not have come to exist by
itself.”139 The reason is obvious: for a thing to bring itself into existence
would logically require that it exists before it came into existence.

Other logical atheists assert that the theist concept of a non-material,
omnipresent, omniscient, i.e. infallible, and omnipotent God is
logically incoherent and, therefore, cannot even be explained with-
out falling into disqualifying self-contradiction. For example, can an
omnipotent God make a rock so heavy He cannot lift it? Can He will
himself out of existence? Can He make square circles or make 1 + 1 =
3? Positive atheists reject any attempts to define ‘omnipotence’ as any-
thing but its (apparently) obvious meaning. Again, the Bahá’í Writings
state explicitly what is left implicit in other theist scriptures. Precisely
because God is omnipotent in the obvious sense, He can do anything,
but just because God could do these things, does not mean He would
choose to do them. Indeed, He “ ‘doeth as He pleaseth and ordaineth
as He willeth’ ”140 but the nature of His creation shows that He choice
is for order and rationality:

This composition and arrangement arose, through the wisdom of
God and His ancient might, from one natural order. Thus, as this
composition and combination has been produced according to a
natural order, with perfect soundness, following a consummate

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

wisdom, and subject to a universal law, it is clear that it is a divine
creation and not an accidental composition and arrangement.141

God’s emphasis on reason also supports this suggestion.142 That is also
why “Religion must stand the analysis of reason.”143

Another type of atheism is ethical atheism which asserts that the notion
of a God Who chooses to create this world would never allow His cre-
ations to suffer and/or perpetrate the horrors of natural disasters and
the sickening variations of man-made evils. 144 Since there is no sign of
such intervention—even with the extreme provocation of childhood
suffering—the morally good God we thought created us does not exist
and there is nothing to be achieved by pretending He does.

Most obviously, this argument is logically invalid. God’s nature and
God’s existence are two completely different issues, one is metaphysi-
cal, the other is ethical. It is a category mistake to infer something does
or does not exist metaphysically on the basis of ethical judgments. For
example, just because a bully is nasty to me doesn’t mean s/he does
not exist.

In our understanding, ethical atheism seems to be rooted in feelings
of discouragement and despair about human nature. Ethical atheists
expect a high standard of behavior from humans and are disappointed
that the infliction of cruelty is too easy for a significant portion of
humanity. Such expectations may encourage hope that people can do
better, but at best, it is likely to be a muted, desperate hope because
pessimism about human nature is confirmed all too often.

Consciously or unconsciously, atheism inevitably encourages a deep
disappointment about justice insofar as the metaphysical materialism
cannot provide any provision for justice either in this world or the next.
If there is to be any justice or, indeed, any morality, it must man-made
and/or based on nature. Both are disappointing. There many conflict-
ing opinions about what constitutes justice and how to enforce it. Nor

Which World Are You In?

is there agreed upon way of overcoming these concepts. Consequently,
some degree of disappointment and in human nature are likely.

Indeed, atheism also sets the condition for intellectual scepticism and
feelings of bewilderment and turmoil vis-s-vis ethical issues in general.
Without God as a basis for moral principles, only nature and human
desires remain as a foundation for ethics. What makes nature unsuit-
able as a ground of ethics is illustrated in Sam Harris’s “The Moral
Landscape: How Science can determine Human Values.”145 As Hume’s
‘Guillotine’ decisively shows, a descriptive statement about what actu-
ally happens in nature and/or what people actually do is not and, logi-
cally, cannot be a prescription of what we should do. Just because Jenny
has always cooked supper—a factual description—cannot be used as a
prescription that she should always cook dinner, i.e. that she is morally
obligated to do so. No scientific experiment can establish that giving
to the poor is morally good. Doing so (or not) is a physically describ-
able fact with physically describable results that science is equipped
to study. However, only human choice can decide this act is good. As
Hume pointed out, facts and prescriptions are not logically related.

Only human choice can relate them, give positive value to helping
them and negative value to hurting them. At this point four new prob-
lems arises: (1) what facts shall we select? (2) who selects them? (3) for
what purpose? (4) why should we accept the authority of the one (or
more) who chooses? Without God, there is no final arbitrator. These
problems are precisely why Kant, who ‘disproved’ all proofs of God’s
existence,146 re-introduces Him as a necessary “regulative principle”147
for the foundation of any coherent ethical system. For example, if we
choose to base our ethics on nature, which aspect will we choose?
Social Darwinism, focussed on the harshly competitive aspects of
nature and built a biologically based morality on the struggle for exis-
tence. Lao Tzu and his modern ecologically-minded successors focus
on the co-operative, ‘communitarian’ aspects of nature. Even if we
choose to recognize both aspects of nature, on whose authority shall
this choice be imposed? In the Bahá’í Writings our choice is based on

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

God’s authority, but atheism has no such recourse and thereby ulti-
mately fosters confusion and inner turmoil that can easily lead to an
indifferent relativism about competing moral systems.

Often correlated with this disappointment in human nature is a
resentment against a ‘God Who failed.’ Because God does not meet
our ethical expectations we feel He, does not or should not exist, or is
not worth worshipping, or should be ignored. This resentment easily
spills over onto those who—supposedly—belittle the pain of others
by offering a theodicy, i.e. “a defense of the justice or goodness of God
in the face of doubts or objections arising from the phenomenon of
evil in the world.”148 The most famous of these accusations comes
from Ivan Karamazov in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, who
“respectfully return[s] Him his ticket”149 because he does not want to
live in peace with unjust suffering. God’s ability to compensate fully
for the suffering of a child does not justify the occurrence of suffering
in the first place. He chooses to be disturbed, outraged and completely
defiant on this matter.

In response to Ivan’s argument, the Bahá’í Writings explicitly state the
usual theistic teaching that the

knowledge of a thing is not the cause of its occurrence; for the
essential knowledge of God encompasses the realities of all things
both before and after they come to exist, but it is not the cause of
their existence.150

In other words, because God does not exist in time, the concepts of
past, present and future do not apply to Him, and therefore, the term
‘foreknowledge’ is accurate only from a human point of view. Conse-
quently, claims that God’s ‘foreknowledge’ causes an event are logically
false since there no ‘before’ and ‘after’ with God. It is obvious that since
God is timeless, He is in a totally different frame of reference so the
‘foreknowledge is causation’ argument is logically invalid. The ‘problem’

Which World Are You In?

itself is a chimera. A human analogy for this situation is a woman on a
mountaintop observing a man walking down a forest road in the valley
below. Because she is in a different frame of reference, i.e. her altitude,
she can foresee all the possible routes the man may take and more explic-
itly, she can foresee with absolute certainty that if he continues as he has
been going so far, he will be blocked by a raging river. Nevertheless, her
ability to foresee does not cause the hiker’s choices.

Unlike the Bahá’í Faith and the other theisms, Ivan Karamazov fails to
realize that there is no necessary connection between belief in God’s
healing powers and human callousness to suffering. Intellectual under-
standing that God’s mercy will compensate unjust suffering does not
authorize a lack of compassion towards the unfortunate victims of
man-made and/or natural afflictions. Indeed, in my understanding,
extreme discomfort and compassionate sympathy with the suffering
of others is necessary to prevent us from becoming blunt and coarsened
to their pain. If we are not disturbed by human misery and distress,
individual and societal spiritual progress will be held back. The Bahá’í
Writings summarise in specific detail, the theist teachings on this issue:

Be ye a refuge to the fearful; bring ye rest and peace to the disturbed;
make ye a provision for the destitute; be a treasury of riches for the
poor; be a healing medicine for those who suffer pain; be ye doctor
and nurse to the ailing; promote ye friendship, and honour, and
conciliation, and devotion to God, in this world of non-existence.151

These words remind us of our obligation to act for the good of others just
as God acted for our good by bestowing the gift of ‘being’ on us. Since
God expects us to ease the suffering of others, He is unlikely to have sub-
verted the good of being by devising a system of creation that imposes
needless and pointless suffering. God tells us “I loved thy creation, hence
I created thee.”152 From a theist perspective, a God Who bestows the
good of ‘being’ upon us, will enable us to transcend unjust suffering as
we progress through the spiritual planes of being after we die.

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

It should also be noted that irremediable anxiety and mistrust about
human nature and humanity’s future play a significant role in ethi-
cal atheism. The cause is clear: there is no intrinsic reliable basis for
hope in human nature and the alleviation of suffering. Our subjective
feelings about right and wrong are the only foundation we have—and
the history of the 20th C alone shows how extremely fluid these can be
especially when ideologies and politics are involved.

The globally influential philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre argues that even if
God exists, His existence is unworthy of recognition and/or worship. He
advocates a “postulary atheism.”153 Whether or not God actually exists is
not relevant to this view which is more epistemological than metaphysi-
cal in nature. For Sartre Even the idea of God’s existence is an offense
to human freedom, value and dignity because it surrenders human free
will, dignity, and self-confidence to a Being—or an idea—that has no
legitimate authority over us. Why should we accept the human nature
God has supposedly given us? Did He consult with us about what we
wanted? What gives Him the right to decide what is good or evil? “Pos-
tulatory atheism” insists on the primacy of individual human choice
especially in ethical matters as long as people are prepared to “live in
good faith,” i.e. accept responsibility for their own actions.

Postulatory atheism often imagines God a tyrant, as an omniscient, a
universal ‘stalker’ of our thoughts, feelings and actions. Not only does
He arbitrarily impose the human essence on us, but His very existence
makes privacy—a necessary aspect of personal integrity—impossible.
Under His watchful eye—like the ubiquitous telescreens in Orwell’s
1984—even our most intimate relationships are exposed to the view of
this cosmic ‘peeping Tom.’ The situation is no different with omnipres-
ence and omnipotence. Here too, in atheist thinking, we do not even
own ourselves. We are imprisoned in our own lives, and, in the teach-
ing of immortality, even death is not an escape. We have to answer for
our actions in what amounts to a kangaroo court—since God already
knows all our answers and knows His judgment. This too degrades us,
turning us into play things of an arbitrary super-power.

Which World Are You In?

In our understanding, the defining emotion of postulatory atheism is
defiance, a rebelliousness and emphatic rejection of any authority but
the individual will. It encourages a fierce sense of personal indepen-
dence and is, thereby, an ethical version of the contract theory of gov-
ernment: rules must be based on the agreement of free individuals and
cannot legitimately imposed without personal consent. This principle
applies to God above all. Therefore, in postulatory atheism, we with-
draw our consent and live on the basis of our personal will. Almost
inevitably correlated with this defiant attitude is a profound sense of
isolation and loneliness. Each of us is alone and totally responsible for
our own actions—if we live in “good faith” with ourselves, i.e. if we
don’t lie to ourselves about having no other choices and the nature of
what we have done. For example, a thief should be honest, recognizing
that he could have become a policeman and is now someone who is
‘happy’ while choosing to steal.

From a Bahá’í perspective, attractive in literary and philosophical
works as it might be, the intrinsically atomistic and antinomian nature
of “postulatory atheism” cannot meet the needs of individuals and
societies for unity and a unifying power. Without unity, no society of
any kind can exist.154 Indeed, the primary mission of God’s Manifes-
tations is to bring unity to mankind. A society in which individuals
develop their personal ethical standards and are only subject to restric-
tions to which they agree would not survive long. Imagine such a
principle applied to vehicle traffic or airlines! Such notions may be fine
sounding ideals but they lead to disaster if applied. More directly, such
notions are immature. As `Abdu’l-Bahá points out, “There is indeed an
abundance of lofty ideals and sentiments that cannot be put into effect.
Therefore we must confine ourselves to that which is practicable.”155

It is clear… that opinions and perceptions vary, and that this
divergence of thoughts, opinions, understandings, and senti-
ments among individuals is an essential requirement… …We stand
therefore in need of a universal power which can prevail over the
thoughts, opinions, and sentiments of all, which can annul these

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

divisions and bring all souls under the sway of the principle of the
oneness of humanity. And it is clear and evident that the greatest
power in the human world is the love of God.156

Finally, there is psychological atheism which regards religion as a symptom
of childish fears of being alone in the universe or an irrational fear of
the inevitability of death. Theism portrays God as a strong Father figure
Who can protect us from what we fear most—death. Human maturity
requires that we overcome both of these futile fears because we cannot
change our cosmic isolation or biological death. These views are most
famously promulgated by Sigmund Freud in The Future of an Illusion.

Whether belief in God is an illusion or not, anthropology along with
the resurgence of theism in former Communist states relegate Freud’s
theory to the sidelines for one reason: intellectual arguments have
little or no effect on genuine needs. Indeed, that fact that religion is
a ubiquitous feature of human existence strongly suggests that it is a
genuine need for human well-being. Outgrowing it may be an ideal
but as mentioned above, given the human need for religion, there is no
prospect of that happening.

6. Agnosticism
Agnosticism is “the view that human reason is incapable of providing suf-
ficient rational grounds to justify the belief that God exists or the belief
that God does not exist.”157 ‘Soft’ or ‘weak’ agnosticism is a suspension
of judgment on the issue of God’s existence and is open, in theory at least,
to new evidence if that should become available. In contrast, ‘hard’ or
‘strong’ agnosticism asserts that the inherent limitations of the human
mind make it absolutely impossible to prove or disprove God’s existence.
It regards the issue as permanently settled. There can be no new evidence
because humanity’s epistemological capacities cannot change and its
limits have been firmly established by the scientific method.

Which World Are You In?

We shall examine the different types of agnosticism and their intellec-
tual and affective consequences in turn.

First appearances to the contrary, soft agnosticism is aptly named
because it potentially overlaps with some kinds of theism. The rejec-
tion of logical or empirical arguments for the existence of God does not
necessarily preclude belief gained by other ways of knowing such as
intuition or experiences of the transcendent aspect of reality through
various spiritual practices. Theism and most explicitly, the Bahá’í
Writings recognize the partial truth of soft agnosticism, namely, the
possibility of gaining decisive knowledge in various ways. The fact that
such knowledge is not regarded as ‘scientific’ does not mean that it is
not true knowledge. `Abdu’l-Bahá provides rational proofs of immor-
tality and then adds,

But if the human spirit be rejoiced and attracted to the Kingdom, if
the inner eye be opened and the spiritual ear attuned, and if spiritual
feelings come to predominate, the immortality of the spirit will be
seen as clearly as the sun158

In short, soft agnosticism may be described as ‘open.’ Unlike hard agnos-
ticism, soft agnosticism is not necessarily dependent on a materialist
metaphysic which rejects all ‘other ways’ of knowing. We shall explore
this in greater detail below when dealing with fideistic agnosticism.

However, until such non-scientific evidence is recognized and admit-
ted, it seems clear that soft agnosticism, like hard agnosticism, leaves
its advocates in the position of Buridan’s Donkey.159 The poor beast
was suffering severe starvation and thirst and died because it could
not decide which it should do first—eat some fresh hay or drink some
fresh water. In other words, both soft and hard agnostics live in a
perpetual state of uncertainty about the basic ‘life issues’ that virtu-
ally all humans ask in one way or another. Are there non-material

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

realities? Am I immortal? Are there afterlife consequences? What can
we know for sure? How did this universe come into being? What do
mean by wright and wrong? 160 The answers to all such ‘life questions’
are derived from our conscious or unconscious metaphysical assump-
tions about God’s existence or non-existence. This is because the first
question in metaphysics concerns the existence or non-existence of a
transcendental reality. Until this question is answered decisively—by
whatever means—the answers to most other important ‘life questions’
tend to be confused and haphazard, i.e. self-contradictory, unclear and
vague, and not consistently held. We confuse and disappoint ourselves
because answering the ‘life questions’ that inevitably come our way
become more difficult.

Both hard and soft agnosticism bring with it still more uncertainty
and anxiety about social and cultural issues. If an individual or a soci-
ety is not sure about God’s existence, it becomes extremely difficult to
obtain public agreement on issues of morality; criminal punishment;
the nature and role of government; sexual conduct; the limits of art;
and fair business practices. This is because the existence or non-exis-
tence of God decides the horizon of our choices. Are we thinking in
terms of the physical world only or do we have to consider God’s guid-
ance and the after-life? Caught between these two possibilities leaves
us in a state of perpetual inner conflict which fragment both agnostic
individuals and societies.

One example of this is the debate about how best to treat alcohol and
drug addiction. Should religion and faith have a role in publicly funded
programs even though they can be very effective.161 Ultimately, such
conflicts encourage needless divisions in society and can even generate
a climate of scepticism and cynicism that undermines the basic cohe-
sion societies need to function effectively. Individuals conflicted in this
way may, of course, choose answers as an act of will, i.e. force them-
selves to believe certain ideas or simply side with the majority. However,
doing so makes it difficult to assert our answers with any conviction
because of the constant presence of caveats, doubts and anxieties. Only

Which World Are You In?

two choices remain—apathetic agnosticism, an emotional “I don’t
care” response or the defiant atheism of Sartre.

The first sub-type of agnosticism is apatheic agnosticism’ which finds
the issue of God’s existence or non-existence as irrelevant to human life
and pays it no further heed. Since we don’t or can’t know the answer,
why bother about it? We might describe this position as theoretical in
concept but atheistic in practice. It is not necessarily a consequence of
a failure to understand the depth and importance of the issue. Rather,
its most likely cause is intellectual and emotional frustration with the
inability to decisively resolve the issue of God’s existence. Its basic flaw
is that ignoring the issues does not make them go away nor does it pre-
vent society’s debates about them leave individuals unaffected.

From a Bahá’í (and theistic) perspective, apatheism is a dangerous
strategy. As Kant realized in The Critique of Practical Reason, without
God—even if only as a regulative principle—our ethical views will be
purely subjective and, therefore easily changeable according to our
situation and/or convenience. As a result, it becomes increasingly easy
to slacken our moral standards and behavior in favor of our lower ani-
mal nature.

To act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of man. Those virtues that
befit his dignity are forbearance, mercy, compassion and loving-
kindness towards all the peoples and kindreds of the earth.162

This is not to say this will necessarily happen to everyone—remnants of
religious influence still influence society—but the inner drift towards
lower, more convenient or socially acceptable standards is clearly evi-
dent in increasingly secular and anti-religious societies. The growing
use of drugs that weaken human consciousness and willpower; the
ever more obvious sexualization of children, especially girls; and the
exponential increase of glorified violence in popular films are all signs
of this downward trend towards animal standards.

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

Another subtype of agnosticism may be called ‘theistic’ or even ‘fide-
istic’ agnosticism which argues that science and reason cannot prove
God’s existence but believe in Him anyway. The epistemological basis
for doing so is the conviction that the extent of mankind’s thought is
not necessarily the extent of reality itself. Such agnostics agree with
Hamlet: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, / Than
are dreamt of in your philosophy.”163 They are sceptics vis-s-vis the
claims of strict empiricism because the idea of using physical evidence
to prove or disprove a spiritual God is ipso facto logically ridiculous.
They may also rely on other ways of knowing that are not irrational
but trans-rational such as intuitions, dreams, ‘mystical’ experiences or
practices like yoga which are designed to sensitize us to transcendent
realities. In some cases, fideistic agnosticism is an example of faith as
an act of will.

In our understanding, the Bahá’í Writings do not support fideism.
`Abdu’l-Bahá’s teachings demonstrate that for the optimum progress in
individual and societal spiritual evolution both reason and our spiritual
faculties are necessary. God’s existence can be logically proven and he
provides various examples of such proofs. He states that “the existence of
the Divine Being hath been established by logical proofs.”164 In addition
to logical arguments, he also uses two cosmological proofs. He uses the
‘first mover’ argument to show that a non-contingent being is necessary
to explain motion since an infinite regress of movers is “absurd.”165 He
also employs cosmological argument that a contingent creation requires
a non-contingent Creator. “[T]hroughout the world of existence the
smallest created thing attests to the existence of a creator. For instance,
this piece of bread attests that it has a maker.”166 From this we may con-
clude that from `Abdu’l-Bahá’s perspective, the existence of God is not
legitimately a merely subjective matter. In Bahá’u’lláh’s new revelation,
all humans are expected to use their free will and spiritual capacities to
recognize God’s existence. This is illustrated by Bahá’u’lláh’s statement
that we cannot blame our disbelief in God on others because “the faith
of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself.”167 Finally, as

Which World Are You In?

noted above, he recognizes that direct insight can show that God exists.
Speaking of immortality, he states,

But if the human spirit be rejoiced and attracted to the Kingdom, if
the inner eye be opened and the spiritual ear attuned, and if spiritual
feelings come to predominate, the immortality of the spirit will be
seen as clearly as the sun168

A third subtype of agnosticism is Pascalian agnosticism which admits
that neither reason nor evidence can prove God’s existence but asks us to
gamble that God exists. A bet is not knowledge. We bet that God exists
and act accordingly. If we are right, we will ‘go to heaven’ ecause we
have lived a morally good life. If we are wrong, nothing is lost because in
the grave will not be aware of the fact—and we still leave the legacy of a
good life behind us. This view is sometimes derided as hypocritical but
that criticism is weak. Pascal’s argument honestly recognizes our pre-
dicament vis-s-vis God’s existence. It then advises a prudential response
which does not contradict its underlying premise—namely that we do
not know whether or not God exists. Nor is it hypocritical to want to
attain a good afterlife. No one except, perhaps, Sartre and his followers
in ‘defiant atheism’ would want to do the opposite.

From our perspective, the Bahá’í Writings present no objection to Pas-
calian agnosticism at least as a first step to recognizing the existence of
God. Betting on God’s existence shows recognition of the existential
importance of God and our personal destiny in the transcendental
planes of being. On this basis we can see the possibilities of further
spiritual growth.

7. Conclusion
In this paper we have surveyed some of the intellectual and affective
consequences of theism, atheism and agnosticism and how these con-
sequences influence one another in the commitment to one of these

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

beliefs. Together they constitute our world-view, i.e. the paradigm
by which we interpret reality and on which we consciously or uncon-
sciously base our attitudes and actions. Of course, we do not expect that
every individual represents these viewpoints in a perfectly consistent
way and so may deviate somewhat from the logically based descriptions
we have attempted to outline. The absolute denial of God’s existence,
for example, logically requires us to abandon the idea of divine justice
or compensation in the Abhá Kingdom. This, in turn has inescapable
consequences for our feelings about the world and our actions. How-
ever, inconsistency is still possible; a person may claim to be an atheist
yet still believe (or hope) that ‘somehow’ justice will be done. Bahá’í
teachers should follow up this opportunity for further exploration.

Our exploration has also outlined what the Bahá’í Writings teach
about the intellectual and affective issues arising from a commitment
to theism, atheism and agnosticism. In regards to the question of
God’s existence or not existence the Bahá’í Writings agree with Juda-
ism, Christianity and Islam about a single personal Creator but have an
advantage over preceding revelations insofar as it is a later dispensation.
It is specifically intended for our time and deals with most of these
issues explicitly. In the words of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá,

The superiority of the present in relation to the past consists in this,
that the present can take over and adopt as a model many things
which have been tried and tested and the great benefits of which
have been demonstrated in the past, and that it can make its own
new discoveries and by these augment its valuable inheritance.169

The ultimate aim of this paper is to show, and help Bahá’í teachers to
show that ideas have consequences. Vis-à-vis these three main answers
to the question of God’s existence, our choice is not a matter of indif-
ference because any one of these will shape our lives.

Which World Are You In?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

`‘Abdu’l-Bahá.
Paris Talks. London: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1971.
Promulgation of Universal Peace. Second Edition. Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing
Trust, 1982
The Secret of Divine Civilization. Trans. Marzeih Gail. Wilmette: Bahá’í
Publishing Trust, 1957.
Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’ l-Bahá . Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre,
1978
Some Answered Questions. New Translation. Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre, 2014.
Tablet to August Forel, Ocean
Audi, Robert editor The Cambrdige Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambrdige: Cam-
brdige University Press, 1999.
Bahá’u’lláh.
Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’ lláh . Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
1976.
Proclamation of Bahá’u’ lláh . n.p., Immerse. Bernal Schooley, 1997
Tablets of Bahá’u’ lláh . Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre, 1978
The Hidden Words, translated by Shoghi Effendi, Bahá’í Publishing

Trust,Wilmette, Illinois, 2002.
Shoghi Effendi. Lights of Guidance
Eliade, Mircea, editorThe Encyclopedia of Religion, 16 volumes, London: Collier
Macmillan, 1987.
Hodges, H.A. Wilhelm Dilthey: An Introduction, London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Treubner & Co., 1944.
Kant, Immanuel.
Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Critique of Practical Reason, translated by Thomas Kingswill Abbot, Project
Gutenburg, http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5683/pg5683.txt.

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

Kluge, Ian.
Reason and the Bahá’í Writings, in Lights of Irfan, 14 (2013).
“Review of Udo Schaefer, Bahá’í Ethics in Light of Scripture,” in Journal of
Bahá’ í Studies vol. 25, no. 1-2 (2015).
Otto, Rudolf,. The Idea of the Holy, translated by John W. Harvey, New York:
Galaxy Books, 1958.
Zogzebski, Linda, Trinkaus. Philosophy of Religion, John Wiley & Sons, 2007.

Which World Are You In?

NOTES

1 Shoghi Effendi, From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an indi-
vidual believer, March 19, 1945 in Lights of Guidance, p. 542, # 1842; emphasis
added.
2 The Cambridge English Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
dictionary/english/cynicism
3 This is the case because the times and conditions of the earlier revelations did
not require guidance on these issues.
4 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Secret of Divine Civilization, p. 113.
5 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 9.
6 H.A. Hodges, Wilhelm Dilthey: An Introduction, p. 13.
7 H.P. Rickman, “Wilhelm Dilthey” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 1, p.
404.
8 James Sire, The Universe Next Door, p 16.
9 Antonio Damasio, Descartes’ Error.
10 The Bahá’í Writings explicitly discourage this: “The first is the independent
investigation of truth; for blind imitation of the past will stunt the mind.” Selec-
tions from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 248.
11 Katherine Rose Hanley and Donald J. Monan SJ, A Prelude to Metaphysics, p.
23.
12 J. Bohman, “Verstehen” in Robert Audi, editor, The Cambridge Dictionary of
Philosophy, p. 954.
13 Wilhelm Dilthey, “Die Entstehung der Hermaneutik” (1900) http://www.
schmidt.hist.unibe.ch/semester/ws0102/GeschichtstheorieSozialgeschichte/
Dilthey.htm
14 The universality of human nature taught by the theist religions is a direct
challenge to one of the most dangerous trends in modern politics—identity
politics which tends to place insurmountable barriers between different groups
and subsumes every individual in the characteristics of his/her group. Nazism
(German vs Jew), Communism (bourgeois vs proletariat or peasant), Feminism
(women vs men) and Liberalism vs illiberalism exemplify the danger of identity
politics.
15 A. H. Hodges,Wilhelm Dilthey: An Introduction,p. 12.
16 A. H. Hodges,Wilhelm Dilthey: An Introduction,p. 12.

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

17 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of `Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 248.
18 Wilhelm Dilthey, Gesammelte Schriften, VI, p. 191 in Hodges, Wilhelm
Dilthey: An Introduction, p. 15.
19 Isaiah Berlin, The Crooked Timber of Humanity, p. 10
20 Terence, in the play “Punishing Himself.”
21 Linda, Trinkaus Zogzebski, Philosophy of Religion, p. 22.
22 Rudolf Otto The Idea of the Holy, p. 8.
23 Rudolf Otto The Idea of the Holy, p. 7.
24 Rudolf Otto The Idea of the Holy, p. 21.
25 Rudolf Otto The Idea of the Holy, p. 21.
Rudolf Otto The Idea of the Holy, p. 21.
Rudolf Otto The Idea of the Holy, p. 28.
26 Rudolf Otto The Idea of the Holy, p. 32.
27 `Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 94.
28 John Bunyan, Pilgrim’s Progress, Chp. 1: In the Similitude of a Dream
29 The Universal House of Justice in Wellsprings of Guidance, p. 79—80.
30 Shoghi Effendi, Letter written on His behalf, March 19, 1945 in Lights of Guid-
ance, # 1842, p. 542.
31 Shoghi Effendi, Letter # 55, September 5, 1931 in Extracts from the USBN, p. 6.
32 Agatha Christie, Murder at the Vicarage, p.
33 Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day Is Come, p. 108.
34 Qur’an, Surah al-Baqarah, 2:30. Yusuf Ali translation.
35 Genesis, 1:27. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 279.
36 Edward Feser, Aristotle’s Revenge, p. 3.
37 In Bahá’í metaphysics of emanation, creation ‘flows out from’ God’s “Primal
Will” (SAQ, 53: 5; p. 235). Closest to God are the spiritual levels of reality and
the lower, less spiritual i.e. material levels are further away. There is sameness i.e.
both parts originate with the Primal Will but there is also difference. See Tablets
of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140.
38 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 74: 2 p. 303.
39 KJV, John 3: 6

Which World Are You In?

40 Rachel Elior, “Jewish Spirituality and The Soul,” in Contemporary Jewish
Religious Thought, edited by Arthur A. Cohen and Paul Mendes-Flohr. https://
www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-spirituality-and-the-soul/
41 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 16: 3, p. 93—94. They can be known
but not by the physical senses.
42 One dimensional, i.e. explaining reality in terms of strict materialism or strict
idealism.
43 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace,
44 The Baha’i “Noonday Prayer.”
45 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, p. 12.
46 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, p. 12.
47 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, p. 12—13.
48 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, p. 13.
49 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, p. 13.
50 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, p. 17.
51 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, p. 17.
52 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, p. 20—21.
53 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, p. 21.
54 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 76.
55 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, p. 21.
56 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 55: 4; p. 241.
57 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 50.
58 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Tablet to August Forel, p. 11. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá describes intuition
as the “second sort of knowledge, which is the knowledge of being, is intuitive
it is like the cognizance and consciousness that man has of himself.” It is not
knowledge gained by inferential, discursive reasoning—although intuitions may
lead to ideas developed by reason and inference. In other words, intuition allows
immediate perception of “intelligible realities which have no outward existence”
and do not rely on physical sensation or inferential reasoning for support.
59 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 74: 2 p. 303.
60 Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, CIX, p. 214.
61 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, p. 31.
62 A A. H. Hodges,Wilhelm Dilthey: An Introduction, p. 12.

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

63 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 316.
64 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 7.
65 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 22.
66 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 175.
67 Blaise Pascal pointed out that although the universe can easily kill us, our con-
sciousness of this fact, our being a thinking reed” makes us greater than material
creation. Pensées # 347.
68 Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus, translated by F.A. Storr. https://www.guten-
berg.org/files/31/31-h/31-h.htm#linkcolonus
69 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, p. 10.
70 Shoghi Effendi, From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an indi-
vidual believer, October 26, 1932 in Lights of Guidance, p. 479.
71 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 29
72 The correspondence theory of truth is embedded in this statement which also
includes the obligation to accept the truths we find. We must “discover the
truth” and “accept” it and not try to interpret it according to our individual and/
or collective wishes.
73 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 291; emphasis added.
74 Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, CXIV, p. 236.
75 Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, III, p. 5.
76 This is not an example of the fallacy of composition which does not apply to
existentially constitutive parts. We cannot say that the whole plant continues to
exist even though we have destroyed all of its cells and that my house continues
to exist after the wreckers have hauled all its parts away.
77 The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) which with the law of non-contradic-
tion is the basis of rational thought—including science—states that causes and
effects must be directly or indirectly commensurate. Both principles are essential
to the philosophical arguments presented in the Bahá’í Writings. See Ian Kluge,
“Reason and the Bahá’í Writings,” in Lights of Irfan, 14 (2013).
78 It should be noted that the most obvious attribute that God and His creation
share is the fact of being, i.e. existence, which God bestows on the phenomenal
world. Given the dependence of our being with God’s, it is clear that the similar-
ity is strictly analogical and not literal. ‘Being’ is not univocal. Phenomenal being
is relative whereas God’s being is absolute.

Which World Are You In?

79 ‘Personhood’ is used here in the simple sense of possessing unique individual
traits based on consciousness, “the rational soul,” will and intention, and
purpose.
80 Shoghi Effendi “from a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an indi-
vidual believer, April 21, 193” in Lights of Guidance, p. 477.
81 Machines may be programmed to imitate the actions we associate with these
attributes but an imitation of an action is not a consciously self-motivated action.
The difference between an actor and a machine is that the actor consciously
knows s/he is imitating action and the machine does not. Recognition of
this difference is the key to understanding novels and movies (2001: A Space
Odyssey) in which robots, computers or toys become self-motivated—usually
vicious—‘persons.’
82 It is understood, of course, that God has the attributes of personhood in a super-
eminent sense and that mankind only has these attributes analogically. Similarly
machine imitations of human behavior are, at best, analogs and not the original,
just as human consciousness is an analog of the divine super-eminent attribute
of consciousness.
83 Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, XC, p. 177; emphasis
added.
84 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 60: 5; p. 259. “For absolute nothing-
ness cannot find existence, as it has not the capacity of existence.” Hence the
need for God to provide a sufficient reason for the existence of the phenomenal
world. Russell’s view that the universe has ‘just always existed’ assumes that
which needs to be explained.
85 The Third Reich, the Soviet Union and institutions like slavery are societal
moral disasters that violate(d) the most fundamental teachings of all Manifesta-
tions in a programmatic, i.e. conscious and deliberate way.
86 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Tablets of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, volume 1, p. 176.
87 Bahá’u’lláh, The Arabic Hidden Words, # 4.
88 Bahá’u’lláh, Prayers and Meditations of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 48.
89 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 47: 5; p. 209.
90 The Quran, Yusuf Ali translation, Surah 2: 34.
91 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, p. 196; emphasis added.
92 `Abdu’l-Bahá’, Some Answered Questions, p. 196. The “scale of being” refers to
the increasing inclusive hierarchy: minerals, plants, animals, humans. Each level
contains and surpasses the powers of the previous level.
93 `Abdu’l-Bahá’, Some Answered Questions, p. 184; emphasis added.

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

94 `Abdu’l-Bahá’, Selections from the Writings of `Abdu’l-Bahá’, p. 132;
emphasis added.
95 Communism, Facism, and Nazism had goal of creating ‘new’ men and women.
Postmodernism denies the reality of human nature and, thereby, opens the
way for ‘engineering’ souls to suit man-made philosophical and/or ideological
criteria. See Ian Kluge, “Postmodernism and the Baha’i Writings” in Lights of
Irfan, Volume 9, 2008.
96 `Abdu’l-Bahá,’ Paris Talks, p. 73.
97 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 66: 2; 276.
98 Shoghi Effendi points out that “physical ailments, no matter how severe, cannot
bring any change in the inherent condition of the soul.” # 1061 The Compila-
tion of Compilations, Volume 1, p. 477.
99 Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, CIX, p. 214.
100 Need there be any other notion of ‘hell’ than that? External, physical pain may
be relatively endurable compared to the pain the soul can inflict on itself. Maybe
that’s what those devils symbolize in the paintings of hell—the soul tormenting
itself in the fires of insight into and regret for its deeds. Moreover, the Writings
reflect basic human psychology very realistically: the need for carrots and sticks
in an effective re-enforcement program to change behavior and thinking.
101 `Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 88.
102 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Tablet to August Forel, p. 10.
103 Such a fundamental difference between human and animal is a difference in
kind, i.e. a difference that cannot be reduced to a common factor in the way ice,
steam and water can all be reduced to water.
104 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 37.
105 Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 232.
106 Christopher Hitchens , god Is Not Great, p. 217.
107 Sam Harris, The End of Faith, p. 15.
108 Austin Cline, “Theism and Anti-Theism: What’s the Difference?” in Other
Religions, Atheism and Agnosticism, https://www.learnreligions.com/
atheism-and-anti-theism-248322
109 See Hitchen’s god Is Not Great, Dawkins’ The God Delusion and Harris’s The
End of Faith for examples of their contempt for believers.

Which World Are You In?

110 Kant rejects all logical proofs of God in The Critique of Pure Reason but admits
the idea of God is a ‘practical necessity’ for the foundation of a coherent ethical
systems in The Critique of Practical Reason.
111 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of `Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 248.
112 Karl Marx, “Introduction to a Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s ‘Philosophy
of Right,’ ” https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/
intro.htm
113 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 47: 5; p. 209.
114 In the author’s view, the materialist concept of evolution requires a long
serendipitous sequence of coincidences no less miraculous then a virgin birth, a
Red Sea crossing or the appearance of the angel Gabriel to Mohammed.
115 The fact that people do not always live up to their theist beliefs does not disprove
the logical inference from being a creation of God to intrinsic human dignity.
116 Bahá’u’lláh, Prayers and Meditations of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 48.
117 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Tablet to August Forel, p. 12.
118 “Russians Return to Religion But not To Church,” Pew Research Center,
https://www.pewforum.org/2014/02/10/russians-return-to-religion-but-not-
to-church/ New research in 2018 supports the PEW numbers: Gene Zubovich,
in Religion and Politics, “Russia’s Journey from Orthodoxy to Atheism and
Back Again,” October 16, 2018, https://religionandpolitics.org/2018/10/16/
russias-journey-from-orthodoxy-to-atheism-and-back-again/ See also Detlef
Pollack and Gergely Rosta, Religion and Modernity: An International Compari-
son, Chapter 7; https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/
oso/9780198801665.001.0001/oso-9780198801665-chapter-11
119 Michael Lipka, “10 Facts About Atheists,” PEW Research Center, https://www.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/06/10-facts-about-atheists/
120 Michael Lipka, “10 Facts About Atheists,” PEW Research Center, https://www.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/06/10-facts-about-atheists/
121 Michael Lipka, “5 Facts about religion in Canada,” PEW
Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/
fact-tank/2019/07/01/5-facts-about-religion-in-canada/
122 See Sartre’s Saint Genet for an example of admiring the ‘independence’ of a
career criminal. The entire culture of presenting criminals in a heroic light is a
consequence of antinomian attitudes.
123 Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, CIX, p. 214.
124 Baha’i World, Volume 4, p. 352.

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

125 ‘Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 180.
126 Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, CXIV, p. 232.
127 Richard Dawkins, Richard Stenger, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris are among
the best known.
128 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 83: 2; p. 343.
129 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of `Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 30.
130 The source is my daughter Emily who is a certified yoga instructor and has heard
this from many students.
131 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 71: 8; p. 293.
132 Among the traditional proofs of God’s existence are Aristotle’s “First Mover”
argument; the “five ways of Aquinas,” Avicenna’s kalam argument and its
modern revival by William Lane Craig; Anselm’s “ontological argument and its
modern revival by Kurt Goedel; William Hatcher’s “relational proof.”
133 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of `Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 54.
134 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Tablet to August Forel, p. 18. He seems to have accepted Aristo-
tle’s distinction between theoretical and actual infinities. We can think of an
infinite series of numbers without contradiction, but an actual line of physical
things or events leads to paradoxes that show such a real series is impossible. See
Hilbert’s Hotel.
135 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 2: 6; p. 6.
136 Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Paul Guyer and
Allen E. Wood, p. 490.
137 Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Paul Guyer and
Allen E. Wood, p. 492.
138 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 2: 6; p. 6.
139 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Tablet to August Forel, p. 19.
140 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of `Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 183.
141 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 47: 5; p. 208—209.
142 See Ian Kluge, “Reason and the Bahá’í Writings” in Lights of Irfan, Volume 14,
2013.
143 `Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 175.
144 Man-made atrocities such as the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the Gulag
archipelago or the Laogai; natural disasters such a Hurricane Katrina or the
increasing desertification of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Which World Are You In?

145 Ian Kluge, “Review of Udo Schaefer, Bahá’í Ethics in Light of Scripture,” in
Journal of Bahá’í Studies vol. 25, no. 1-2 (2015).
146 Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, “The Antinomy of Pure Reason.
p. 490.
147 Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Practical Reason, Part II, I, V, “The Existence
of God as a Postulate of Pure Practical Reason,” p. 100.
148 Roderick M. Chisholm, “Theodicy,” in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philoso-
phy, p. 911.
149 Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Bk. 5, Ch. 4, https://www.google.
com/search?q=ivan+karamazov&rlz=1C1DIMA_enCA705CA705&oq=ivan
+karamazov&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5j46j0.5498j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=
UTF-8
150 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 35; 4, p. 156—157.
151 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of `Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 72.
152 Bahá’u’lláh, The Arabic Hidden Words, # 4.
153 James Collins, The Existentialists, p. 40.
154 The current over-emphasis on diversity without adequate and clear consider-
ations given to unity is one of the causes of today’s fragmenting societies as seen
in the rise of ‘identity politics.’
155 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 77: 4; p. 310.
156 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 84: 4; 347.
157 William Rowe, “Agnosticism,” in The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, p.17.
158 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 60: 7; p. 260.
159 “Buridan’s Ass” in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass
This illustration goes as far back as Aristotle who described the frustration of
a man who was equally hungry and thirsty; by Jean Buridan whose example
we use in this essay; and Al-Ghazali’s example of a man trapped between two
bundles of equally delicious dates.
160 Over thirty years of high school teaching (more than 6,600 students) have
shown me that with rare exceptions, teenagers are very interested in these topics.
Harnessing their interest and energies was foundation of my teaching career. I
would describe virtually all teens as ‘natural born philosophers’ and that, as
Mortimer Adler’s says, “Philosophy is everybody’s business.” With P4K methods
(Philosophy for Kids) the philosophic nature of even primary students can be
harnessed.

Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One

161 See the work of Bahá’í psychiatrist and professor emeritus of psychiatry at
McGill University, Dr. Abdul Missagh Ghadirian: In Search of Nirvana; “Alco-
hol and Drug Abuse: A Psychosocial and Spiritual Approach to Prevention.”
162 Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, CIX, p. 214; emphasis
added.
163 William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act. 1, Sc. 5.
164 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of `Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 46.
165 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 82: 5; p. 336.
166 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 2: 6; p. 6.
167 Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, LXXV, p. 143.
168 `Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 60: 7; p. 260.
169 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Secret of Divine Civilization, p. 113.

Kies een tweede tekst om parallel te lezen — een vertaling, of een willekeurige andere tekst.