Is Atheism a Culture or Just No-God Belief?

Is Atheism a Culture or Just No-God Belief?

The more I study science, the more I believe in God~ Einstein

Defining Atheism

Atheism, contrasted with theism, in the broadest sense, is a belief negating the existence of a God or any other deity ever existed or exists. Though evidence of atheism can be traced back to the classical Greek period as theism is from the Greek word for God (or gods) and the Greek negative ‘a’ prefix plus ‘theos’ meaning God, coined the words ‘atheist’ and ‘atheism’—one who does not believe in God or gods and or religion. Although from ancient times to the modern age, there have been many thinkers who were atheists, we don’t find anyone has proved that atheism is a philosophy, a social discipline, a way of life, or a system that guides those who do not believe in God and any religion. From ancient to modern times, the term ‘atheism’ has frequently been applied to those who disbelieve in the popular gods. This was the case with Buddha, Anaxagoras, Thales, and Socrates, and there is a long list of philosophers appearing during the European Renaissance who were atheists like Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and prominently Friedrich Nietzsche who bluntly pronounced ‘God is dead,’ followed by many more. But apart from their atheistic belief, they presented diverse educative branches of philosophy of life from materialism to skepticism, moral to religious, political to social, and many more.

Thus we must now ask, “Do the atheists, do so merely out of raw will, or fear, or personal preference, or private taste, or do they sincerely hope to do this on an evidentiary basis?” Usually, atheists insist that something like history, science, truth, or logic is on their side; and that something like credulity, superstition, and foolishness is essentially on the other side. Do they mean that thousands of scientists like Isaac Newton, and philosophers like Immanuel Kant were foolish to believe in God?  In this article, I want to discuss that today, “Is Atheism a Culture or Just No-God Belief,” or is it nothing more than saying “no God, no religion?”

Atheism Today

Today, without any doubt atheism is on the rise everywhere in the world. Authors writing on atheism are appearing among the bestsellers defining atheism as respectable which has never been seen before. People read and listen with great interest to the new atheists Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and some others, who armed with arguments are on the warpath against the theists emphasizing that there is no God and following a religion is absurd. They represent an ‘affirmed and open-minded atheism’ joined to guarantee freedom from religious belief, promoting their views of purging the world of all religious practices.1 But listening to them and reading their books, one finds atheism is simply an absence of belief in the existence of God. Going through Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Hitchens’ God is Not Great, Harris’ The End of Faith, and The Moral Landscape, I did not find what kind of social order is presented by these great atheists for those who would follow them and dispense away their religious beliefs and social way accepting their slogan of no-God. There are many other books on the same subject, but everywhere I see only easy and simple pronouncements of ‘no God;’ nothing like the Communist Manifesto by Carl Marks (who was also an atheist). However, some atheists profess that they follow science, but science and morality are poles apart. Others advocate that the way of ethics and morality will be the final way of life after the world is purged of religious beliefs, but ethics and morality are the core of every revealed and traditional religion also.

Thinkers, so far, disagree whether atheism is a philosophy or a discipline presenting a way of life, or it is just a conscious and explicit rejection of deities and millennium-old religious discipline. If atheism is neither a philosophy nor an ideology, then, is atheism a godless slogan without a social order, or a way of life? But the scientists maintain since ‘nothing comes out of nothing’ so there must be something or some source creating everything. Among these viewpoints thinkers are tempted to philosophize, is atheism—which offers a distinct take on life’s mysteries without belief in a Supreme Being—a modern thought without a socio-political order or just a godless faith? My purpose in presenting this article is not just to discuss, ‘no-God’ or the ‘Creative God of Love and Mercy,’ but rather, what kind of discipline and way of life atheism proposes to all those who neither believe in God nor in any religious culture and traditions!

Causes of Atheism

So far, atheism seems to be a realization that there is no proof of a Supreme Being. Religion is taught by the parents or the society to children who are born faithless. The atheists further argue that since every one of us is born faithless, the burden of proof lies not on them to prove that there is no God, but on the theists to provide a rationale for God’s existence. But, what about the child born in an atheistic family, which belief, culture, or way of life the atheistic parents will teach the newborn? Some profess that atheistic families should bring up the newborn within an ethical and moral order. But the same is true with the religions which have a far stronger cultural, ethical, and moral order. The negation problem means that the ceiling on the God hypothesis is simply too high for atheism. It is not possible to be an atheist on adequate scientific evidence—when a notable scientist Albert Einstein says, “The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” What kind of an intellectual belief sets epistemological standards so high for itself that no one can possibly meet them when it is ‘a-’ + ‘theism’ – that is, the negation of the positive claim of the theists’ existence of God. By doing this, atheism has put itself proof less; for negatives can be extremely hard to prove.2 Atheists think that their conviction bears no burden to prove anything at all remaining adherents to a proper defense for its basic claim, that is, the claim of the non-existence of any gods which leaves atheism an irrational analogy.

According to James S. Spiegel, generally speaking, atheists are morally deficient beings who are for instance blinded by their own rampant sexual deviances, or led astray by troublesome relationships with their fathers. One of Spiegel’s predominant arguments to explain the existence of atheists is a poor relationship with one’s father. His major support is Paul Vitz who teaches psychology at New York University, who was an atheist until his late thirty and is now a practicing Roman Catholic, having published his highly controversial work, Faith of the Fatherless (1999), argues that “atheism of the strong and or intense type is to a substantial degree generated by the peculiar psychological needs of its advocates,” which he expresses as the “defective hypothesis”—the notion that a broken relationship with one’s father predisposes some people to reject God.3

It is my conviction that both theism and atheism are based on the human psychology of life—a subject that Charles Darwin avoided discussing in his theory of evolution. Paul Vitz applies his observation to Sigmund Freud, who maintained that religious belief arises out of psychological need. According to Freud, people project their concept of a loving father to the entire cosmos to fulfill their wish for ultimate comfort in a dangerous world. According to Freud, once a child or youth is disappointed in or loses respect for his earthly father, belief in a heavenly father becomes impossible. . . In other words, an atheist’s disappointment in and resentment of his own father unconsciously justifies his rejection of God.3 Here is an eye-opening paragraph from The Heart of Man by Erich Fromm—a therapeutic psychologist born in Germany and taught for ten years at Columbia, Yale, and New York University—is worth considering:

A child starts life, with faith in goodness, love, and justice. The infant has faith in his mother’s breast, in her readiness to cover him when he is cold, to comfort him when he is sick. This faith can be in the father, mother, grandparent, or any other person close to him; it can be expressed as faith in God. In many individuals, this faith is shattered at an early age. The child hears their father lying in an important matter; he sees the cowardly fright of the mother when she is brutally beaten or abused by his father making the child frightened and neither one of the parents, who are allegedly so concerned for him, notices it, or even if he tells them, pays any attention. . . Sometimes, in children who are brought up religiously, the loss of faith in God as being good and just is shattered. . . Often this first and crucial experience of shattering of faith takes place at an early age: at four, five, six, or even much earlier, at a period of life about which there is little memory. Often the final shattering of faith takes place at a much later age; being betrayed by a friend, by a sweetheart, by a teacher, by a religious or political leader in whom one had trust.4 

A study conducted by Dr. Joel McDurmon reveals that atheists use less brain function. A new study performed at York University, Toronto Canada, used targeted magnetism to shut down part of the brain. The result: belief in God disappeared among more than 30 percent of participants. That in itself may not seem so embarrassing, but consider that the specific part of the brain they frazzled was the posterior medial frontal cortex—the part associated with detecting and solving problems, i.e., reasoning and logic. In other words, when you shut down the part of the brain most associated with logic and reasoning, greater levels of atheism result. You’ve heard the phrase, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”? Apparently, this study if true, is for me it’s no less than a big surprise wanting more evidence from the neuroscientists. (From: On Consciousness).53.2%

Conclusion

‘Common Truth’ of billions of human beings does not need any evidence, whether it is belief in God and His revealed religion of world’s 33% Christians, 17.7% Muslims, 0.3% Jews, 3.2% Sikhs, Taoists (believing in many gods), Shiniosts based on worship of gods—close to 60% of the whole mankind—or even those with godless faiths, like Confucianism more like a philosophy, Buddhism based on Buddha’s teachings, Hinduism believing in Brahma as watching god, doesn’t need any evidence. Every faith, revealed or traditional has a way of life, a socio-political discipline based on culture and traditions except ‘atheism’ which is based on negation and negation only. Without a deity, atheists find a vacuum in their lives and stare at the face of the theists when they are left with no choice but to follow the customs and traditions of religious cultural and even ritual traits of their parents or grandparents. Judo-Christian-Muslim God is a creative God who has created ‘man in his own image’ and is not out there to be seen by the atheists; He is nearer to man than his jugular vein. Stephen Anderson, sternly judging a cause celebre, at the end of his article Atheism on Trial in the journal Philosophy Now, presents the final verdict here:

Why then, we might ask, is atheism so popular? Why does it enjoy so much grace in the public eye, and why is it so often the default position in the academy? The motives cannot be philosophical, for atheism is not a position that can be compelled or sustained by logic. It is perhaps tempting to observe that something more visceral is at work. Ignorance? Evasion? Faddism? Or posturing? (After all, there is a considerable difference between wanting to appear intellectual and actually being intellectual). Whatever the case, it’s hard not to see that reason has left the building. . . As the Tanakh says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’.” That looks justified. Even by our most charitable account, we have seen that atheism is a disingenuous, bombastic claim to certainty, one without evidence or logic. What then can one call it but foolishness? 6

Anderson in the same article says, “I can think of no atheist of recent time more celebrated than Late Anthony Flew who died a Deist, having no account of his transformation titled; there is–A God (No crossed out).” 5 So the subject, Is Atheism a Culture or Just No-God Belief, has brought me to the conclusion, that I have myself witnessed some atheists who died as theists. In my experience, I have helped some atheist friends to take the dead body of a beloved wife or the body of a young daughter or son who were brought up as atheists to a mosque for funeral rites and to be buried in the Muslim graveyard with full religious rituals.

Finally, since the number of atheists is increasing day by day, they are still living as individuals just like the homo erectus who in the animal kingdom were living without an idea of a deity and through their journey of evolution, according to Thomas Hobbes, they in the state of nature were “living as solitary and selfish individuals who would have no choice but to make reciprocal social contracts.” It is time atheists should frame an ATHEIST’S MANIFESTO or a CHARTER OF ATHEISM providing a guideline for their Atheist Clan, to live and act their own way. Presently the atheists are just condemning the theists, beating the drum of no God, no religion, but without paying attention to their own way of life and establishing their own culture in which there is no place for religion or a deity to follow.

Notes:

1. Anderson, Stephen: Atheism on Trial: Philosophy Now Issue #109; p. 30

2. Ibid., p. 32.

3. Spiegel: The Making of an Atheist, Moody Publishers, Chicago, 2010; pp. 61-62.

4. Fromm, Erich: The Heart of Man, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, 1964, pp 28-29.

5. americanvision.org/12630/atheists-embarrassed-study-proves-atheism-uses-less-brain-function/ Dr. Joel McDurmon‎ 10‎/‎26‎/‎2015

6. Anderson, Stephen: Atheism on Trial: Philosophy Now Issue #109; p. 33.

Is Atheism a Culture or Belief?

Is Atheism a Culture or Belief?
The more I study science, the more I believe in God~ Einstein

Abstract: There was a time when professing disbelief in a Supreme Being could be dangerous to one’s life. Today, atheism has set its feet up in every society and has taken its comfortable seat by the fireplace of our living rooms. It has de facto control of education, the universities, and the academic press. Authors writing on atheism are appearing among the bestsellers defining atheism as respectable to never have been seen before. At the same time, the really daring adventure is not being an atheist, but challenging atheism. It is in the go-to position of controlling the assumption of political discourse. Despite such assumptions, in the broadest sense, atheism is simply an absence of belief in the existence of God. Thinkers disagree whether atheism is a philosophy or just a conscious and explicit rejection of deities. Since every one of us is born faithless, atheists argue that the burden of proof lies not on them to prove that there is no God, but on the theists to provide a rationale for God’s existence.
If atheism is neither a philosophy nor an ideology, then, is atheism a godless culture without a social order, or a belief in simple words ‘a’ plus ‘theism’? Theism from the Greek is a word for God (or gods), and with the ‘a’ prefix is the Greek negation of whatever it’s prefixing. Thus in clear and basic words atheism means ‘no God’ or a simple proclamation that there does not exist any kind of god, believing that the whole universe and everything in it is created from nothing. But the scientists maintain since ‘nothing comes out of nothing’ so there must be something or some source creating everything.
However, in a world brimming with diverse beliefs and perspectives, it is fascinating to explore many big questions that shape our understanding of our existence and the appearance of universes. Among these viewpoints thinkers are tempted to philosophize, is atheism—which offers a distinct take on life’s mysteries without belief in a higher power—a modern culture without a socio-political order or just a godless faith?
Since philosophy invites us to ponder life’s profound questions by considering the evidence and reasoning behind various worldviews, including theism and atheism, philosophical inquiries offer a challenge to atheistic perspectives, nudging us toward a deeper exploration of the possibility of something greater than ourselves. Far from the stereotypical image of philosophers as mere armchair thinkers, these questions are engaging, thought-provoking keeping us awake, pondering the mysteries of the creation of the universes which might have appeared ex-nihilo or have a source of their creation named God by the theists. . . Mirza Ashraf

Man’s Timeless Quest for Knowledge

Man’s Timeless Quest for Knowledge

Since there is no limit to human perception, comprehension, and investigation,

Knowledge is a timeless quest of humankind’s cognition to find

What is acceptable as a justified true belief!

(Mirza Iqbal Ashraf)

The quest for knowledge is with man from the time when he, a chimpanzee-like animal, descended from his nest on the tree and started walking in an erect position on his feet with hands free. Standing upright in an elegant posture, the biped no more viewed itself an animal; rather perceiving itself different from the animals set itself apart from other living creatures. As the biped started his journey of new life, with a stimulus of self-awareness evolved to find itself belonging to the species sapiens or wise of the genus Homo meaning “man.” According to one etymology amongst the Europeans the word “man” came from the Proto-Germanic Mann, or “person,” which originating from the Proto-Indo-European root, meaning “hand.” Thus, “man” evolving from his chimpanzee-like ancestry walking upright, with every step started his journey to know the world in which he had appeared and seek knowledge of everything around him. With free hands, man’s pursuit of freedom and knowledge started to know about himself and his world.

Karl Jaspers, in his book The Origin and Goal of History writes:

Seeing the earliest times man has attempted to picture the whole to himself: first in mystical images (in theogonies and cosmogonies, in which man had his appointed place). Then in the image of divine activity operating through the decisive events of world politics (the historical vision of the prophets), then as a process of revelation running through the whole course of history, from the creation of the world and the fall of man to the end of the world and the last judgement.1

But seeing the whole in himself, he first portrayed himself in mythical images. As he progressed ahead, he depicted his presence in the world in the image of divine activity through the process of Divine revelation. From the creation of the world to his appearance on the planet earth, as his consciousness matured, he became more conscious of himself. He found “human” within himself. But the word “human”—of or belonging to man—which, in turn, comes from the Latin humanus, is thought to be a hybrid relative of homo, meaning “man,” and humus, meaning “earth,” in its sophistical form, developing from the French word humain was commonly came into use in Europe much later in the mid-thirteenth century. When the status of “man” got a raise to the level of a “human being” he displayed many unique characteristics incomparable to any other species.

The trait of “human” though hidden in him right from his birth that before he was openly recognized as human, voluminous knowledge of philosophy, science, humanities, literature, and art, dealing with the progression of knowledge—decidedly a big-bag of a treasure-trove—had already started appearing during the “First Explosion of Knowledge” which had happened in Greece during the sixth century BCE when the foundation of an everlasting Cognitive Revolution was set by the thinkers like Daedalus, Thales, and Anaximander. But a couple of millenniums before the Greek philosophers, we find a “heaven of invention of knowledge” situated in the ancient town of Ur in Mesopotamia—what is now Iraq—where around 2300 BCE, first poetic syllables originated and were rhythmically chanted. Angus Fletcher in his book the Wonder Works, writes about the invention of literature:

Sometime around 2300 BCE, in what is now Iraq, literature’s first known inventor was born within a great mudbrick palace near the snowmelt waters of the Tigris River. There, upon a fragrant cedar cot, the newborn-babe was lullabied to sleep. . . But soon the dreamful infant would become even more famous. Everywhere throughout the city-states of Mesopotamia, all the way from the silver mines of Anatolia to the beaches of Persian Gulf, her name would be sung. And her name was Enheduanna.2

The name Enheduanna was being chanted in fevered tone meaning: “She is the high lord of the moon” which in its original syllables, “En-hedu-‘anna. En-hedu-‘anna. En-hedu-‘anna” is viewed to be the beginning of the invention of literature by man.

A couple of centuries after Enheduanna in the same corner of the world and from the same city of Ur, a race of men grew up calling themselves “Jews.” They created a new knowledge of faith founded on Abraham’s proclamation that there is one transcendent God who had made a paradise from which the first man and his wife through their own fault were exiled. The city of Ur in Mesopotamia, revered as a place of tremendous spiritual and cognitive imagination, is the same region where Abraham (2167-1992 BCE) the Prophet-patriarch of three revealed religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam was born. It is the same region where the first epic poem known the Epic of Gilgamesh (2100-1200 BCE) considered as the first great work of literature engraved on 12 clay tablets was found. It was the same region where appeared a religion revealed by Zoroaster (c.1400-1200 BCE) who presented a faith which made its impact on the cultures and religions that appeared after him.

Whereas in one small corner of the world, a race of men grew up guided by a chain of prophets descending from Prophet Abraham, calling themselves Jews and affirming the scriptural exposition of knowledge relating a temptation for knowledge to the first couple living in paradise which resulted in their being thrown out of the Garden into the wilderness. On the other hand in the south-eastern corner of Europe in a city known Athens in Greece according to a Greek myth, knowledge which became the foundation of progression of knowledge in the western civilization was gifted to man by a mythical god Prometheus who stole fire from heaven and gave it to mankind living on earth, a knowledge which invited mankind to enter into an urban life and establish a civilization. Berry Allen in Knowledge and Civilization has argued.

Toting up traditional lore on the mythical personages of the past, Homer’s contemporary Hesiod, says that Prometheus “knows more than anyone in the world about anything.” His gift to humanity (as enumerated by Aeschylus) include architecture, astronomy, domesticated animals, mathematics, medicine, metallurgy, the riddling art of divination, and the paradoxical gift of blind hope. Greeks praised Promethean knowledge for its metis, or cunning intelligence. The daidala (ingenious works) of Daedalus exemplify metis, as does Athena’s intelligence, “cunning, technical, and magical, all at the same time.” It was she [Athena] who invented the ship and taught the Argos shipwrights how to measure with a rule. The conceptual theme of metis is effective performance, especially under uncertain conditions. Its weapons are those of thought, and perception rather than brute force: nets, lures, traps, snares, pitfalls; anything twisted together, woven, plotted, arranged, or contrived, including chains and magical bonds. Such knowledge is admired for its flair, wisdom, foresight, subtlety, deception, resourcefulness, opportunism, and skill—all powers that excel in dealing with the transient, shifting and unpredictable.3

As the Greek investigators understood what can and cannot be reasonably said and rationally explained about human nature and good life, knowledge with the advent of Christianity from its Promethean metis evolved into an illusionary apprehension of metaphysical philosophy with greater focus that knowledge is whatever God reveals. But before Christianity, the Jews were God-obsessed and finally followed by the Muslims created a golden period of knowledge from eighth to thirteen, particularly when the advent of ninth century heralded an era of Islamic Renaissance of knowledge and the philosophical and scientific progress created by the Muslims was passed over to the Europeans.   

Arguing cogently, we find, though progress is in the nature of almost everything, the pursuit, passion, acquisition, and progression of knowledge in all fields, is exclusively a human legacy. The great mystic poet of thirteenth century, Jalaluddin Rumi speculating about knowledge believed that everything is made known to mankind by its opposites:

Just as everyone in the matter of gnosis (Divine knowledge) describes the unseen differently, a philosopher too gives various kinds of explanations. A scholastic theologian tries to deny the philosopher’s statement. Not all of them are right, become sure, nor are they all astray. If there were no lies, there would be no truth. Falsehood gets its power from the truth. Do not say then that all this (the world) is false and imaginary. There is no idea without its reality. He who says, “All is true” is foolish and he who says “All is false” is damned.4

Rumi speculating about the evolving process of human life and knowledge said, “Every moment the world is being renewed but we are unaware of the changes for its form seems unchanged. Our life in our body keeps on freshening like a stream of water, although it appears static in form.”5 But moving away from metaphysical concerns about the nature of everything the scholars of the Western philosophy defined the study of knowledge “epistemology”—a term derived from episteme meaning knowledge by the ancient Greeks. Philosophers of epistemology, both ancient Greeks and today’s Westerners urge the higher value of contemplative truth of knowledge which they defined as “pragmatic truth of knowledge.”

Though we know that human beings learn and teach more and more from day to day, for conceptual awareness to overturn metaphysical philosophy it took almost a millennium for the scientists first; to present a scientific theory of the evolution of man presented by Charles Darwin (1809-1892) through biological science and second; from the idea of knowledge by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Despite his belief in skepticism, Nietzsche was no more skeptic about his views regarding knowledge which he comprehended more realistically than most of the other epistemologists. Debunking most of the claims of classical philosophy, his views are more modern which make us wiser about our will to knowledge. Nietzsche in his The Gay Science Book V remarks:

We philosophers and “free spirits” feel, when we hear the news that “the old God is dead,” as if a new dawn shone on us, our heart overflows with gratitude, astonishment, premonitions, and expectations. At long last the horizon appears free to us again, even if it is not bright; our ships can at last put out to sea in face of every danger; every hazard is again permitted to the discerner; the sea, our sea, again lies open before us; perhaps never before did such an “open sea” exist.6

Human beings, thus, started constantly creating and adding new knowledge, but the progression of knowledge carried forward in the Western world is a continuing story of dynamics of human knowledge. Richard Tarnas in his book, The Passion of Western Mind has expressed.                                                                                                                                                                                        

The history of Western culture has long seemed to possess the dynamics, scope, and beauty of a great epic drama: ancient and classical Greece, the Hellenistic era and imperial Rome, Judaism and the rise of Christianity, the Catholic Church and the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, Reformation, and Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment and Romanticism and onward to our compelling time. Sweep and grandeur, dramatic conflicts and astonishing resolutions have marked the Western mind’s sustained attempt to comprehend the nature of reality—from Thales and Pythagoras to Plato and Aristotle, from Clement and Boethius to Aquinas and Ockham, from Eudoxus and Ptolemy to Copernicus and Newton, from Bacon and Descartes to Kant and Hegel, and from all these to Darwin, Einstein, Freud, and beyond.7  

The dynamism of progress of knowledge in Western civilization, is a narration of a unique story of human knowledge aroused by wonder, imagination, love, emotion, and faith, which is being carried on by the Western Civilization. Although there are many scholars in every corner of the world, but almost all of them are embraced by the dynamism of Western knowledge. It is believed this progress will perennially continue and will never cease as long we are living on this planet. Progressing from rationalism, there appeared new direction in the theory of knowledge. Whereas knowledge was generally defined as a familiarity with facts, information, or skills obtained and perfected through cognition and experience, as in Socrates’ view, “Knowledge is perception, knowledge is true belief, and knowledge is justified true belief” philosophers have never been satisfied with the definition of knowledge by Socrates.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) in his “Theory of Knowledge” expounded, “At first sight it might be thought that knowledge might be defined as belief which is, in agreement with facts. The trouble is that no one knows what a belief is, no one knows what a fact is, and no one knows what sort of agreement between them would make a belief true.”8 But I believe: “Since there is no limit to human perception, comprehension, and investigation, knowledge is a timeless quest of mankind’s cognition to find what is acceptable as a justified true belief.”9.In the modern time, the pursuit of knowledge is closely integrated with the sciences. It is viewed the workings of the universe are revealed through scientific theory, pragmatically explained, and scientifically developed. Up against the biological limits of what the brain can absorb and perform man today believes he can reach beyond the world around him.

Stepping into the third decade of 21st century our new generation is following the scientific view which advocates that the first order of the universe was mathematical—based on the laws of physics or it was all numerical—which in modern sense is digital. Whatever was originally born by physics with the appearance of mankind changed into metaphysics? But we, in the present century are turning back to the scientific origin of the universe—the mathematical, physical, and digital. I would say we are no more being guided spiritually but are being guided rationally and are led digitally. We see that in modern age humanity’s social, political, ethical and moral challenges can be fixed by the digital technology with the right set of algorithms based on the best data loaded in the fastest computers. But we are unaware, though we invent and develop things with the best of intentions for our benefit, there can appear unintended, negative, and deadly consequences. Just as no one could predict that nuclear fusion could also produce the atom bomb, in the same way, the after effects of the digital dilemmas need to be taken into consideration before it is too late. Thus, before activating our own created digital doubles, we must consider that we are creating all time friendly codes of algorithms which would not become humanity’s deadly executors.

The magnetism of modernity has remained human being’s perennial passion since his earliest days. A born thinker, philosopher, scientist, and discoverer, man has cognized to define his identity striving incessantly to shape it according to his contemporary period. Liberating himself from the deterministic modes of his existence and viewing to be no more at the mercy of biological and natural forces, he endeavors to be woven like a tapestry by his own hands for himself. Intelligence communicates instantly with intelligence, wherever and in whatever way it acts. This is so between people, between a teacher and his student, a mentor and his disciple, between a musician and his instrument, between a thinker and his idea; even between an idea and an idea. A true scientist listens to the intelligence of Nature in a form of dialogue. But a true spiritual, views, listens, and communicates with the invisible intelligence of the Absolute Spirit.  

With advent of twenty-first century knowledge of modern science and technology, which has bequeathed man an unprecedented power, has become a menace unless we learn the intrinsic value of knowledge and implement the basic enlightenment idea of science and technology to achieve social progress through our knowledge of internet technology (IT) and artificial intelligence (AI). But the crisis of modern time is that we have science without the wisdom of philosophical knowledge. Whereas science has helped mankind improve their lifestyle by provide many comforts in daily way of living, by providing better health care it has raised our life span resulting into population growth. Scientific knowledge, without wise consideration, has alarmingly helped create lethal war weapons to an extent that today’s wars, terrorism, pandemics, air, sea and earth pollution, and destruction of rain forests have affected the climate change, raising alarm that there may also be a time when knowledge could not be useful for the mankind.

Moving forward from the period of “Third Explosion of Knowledge” which is marked by the emergence of “Information Technology” (IT) and “Artificial Intelligence” (AI) we have established new scientific perspectives of philosophical and intellectual outlook. Today, human legacy of past geniuses is being challenged by the Silicon Valley’s Robotic Geniuses. What is much more important than human genius is the developing culture of inventions of IT and AI. Traditionally, in the past, knowledge has remained focused on four basic subjects, that is religion, reason, logic, and ethics; but modern technology has taken over all four subjects of knowledge as a “scientific form.” Today, instead of the old centers of knowledge, we have Silicon Valley of Digital Geniuses—a valley of modern culture of inventions and reinventions—run by the Siliconian-Geniuses who do not fight for or against change but embrace it and empower human quest for more inventions.

Copyright © 2023 by Mirza Iqbal Ashraf

Notes:

1. Jaspers, 2021. p. 3

2. Fletcher, 2021, p.1.

3. Allen, 2004, p. 2.

4. Rumi, vol. ii, verses 2923-2942.

5. Rumi, vol. I, verses 1144-1145.

6. Nietzsche, Book V, The Gay-science/aphorism-343.

7. Tarnas, 1881, pp. xii-xiv.

8. Russell,

9. Ashraf,

3 reasons for information exhaustion – and what to do about it-By Mark Satta

An endless flow of information is coming at us constantly: It might be an article a friend shared on Facebook with a sensational headline or wrong information about the spread of the coronavirus.

It could even be a call from a relative wanting to talk about a political issue.

All this information may leave many of us feeling as though we have no energy to engage.

As a philosopher who studies knowledge-sharing practices, I call this experience “epistemic exhaustion.” The term “epistemic” comes from the Greek word episteme, often translated as “knowledge.” So epistemic exhaustion is more of a knowledge-related exhaustion.

It is not knowledge itself that tires out many of us. Rather, it is the process of trying to gain or share knowledge under challenging circumstances.

Currently, there are at least three common sources that, from my perspective, are leading to such exhaustion. But there are also ways to deal with them.

1. Uncertainty

For many, this year has been full of uncertainty. In particular, the coronavirus pandemic has generated uncertainty about health, about best practices and about the future.

At the same time, Americans have faced uncertainty about the U.S. presidential election: first due to delayed results and now over questions about a peaceful transition of power.

Experiencing uncertainty can stress most of us out. People tend to prefer the planned and the predictable. Figures from 17th-century French philosopher René Descartes to 20th-century Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein have recognized the significance of having certainty in our lives.

With information so readily available, people may be checking news sites or social media in hopes of finding answers. But often, people are instead greeted with more reminders of uncertainty.

Full article

posted by f. sheikh