# Which World Are You In?

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-19 — 1 clipping.*

---

> 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.
>
> — *Which World Are You In? (Used by permission of the curator)*