In this section, I delve deeper into the contours of the human system from pragmatic philosophical perspective of secular thinking that arguably has laid the ground for the modern system and epistemic violation of spiritual epistemologies.
The perception of religion is often viewed as regressive in the context of modernism and innovation (Gümüsay, 2015). Paradoxically, materialistic atheist systems have reached their logical limits, evident by the decline of communism and the erosion of capitalism (Ahmed, 2001). Throughout history, various socio-political systems have adopted different approaches to public life, ranging from state governance and collective collaboration to independent agency (Fackler, 2020; Kagitcibasi, 1997).
In medieval and pre-modern societies, religion played a central role, influencing socio-political, economic, communal, familial, and individual aspects of life. It provided explanations for natural phenomena, moral guidance, and social norms. However, the past century has witnessed the rise of the industrial revolution, ushering in systemic advancements driven by pragmatism and postmodern societal structures. Traditional epistemic institutions have eroded, giving way to a market-based ethos (Polanyi, 1977) and a slow but steady spirito-epistemic decline. While modern civilisation has introduced innovations with good intentions, they have also brought about unintended challenges (Khavul & Bruton, 2013). Compounding these innovations have failed to provide sustainable and holistic solutions, deepening individualistic motivations and resulting in modern hyper-consumerism, rooted in private gains often at a collective loss.
Simultaneously, present social and environmental crises have led to a re-evaluation of capital-centric neoliberal thinking, which prioritises individual gains (Hickel, 2021). Ongoing socio-ecological crises (Foster & Clark, 2009) have exposed deep-seated issues within the economic system (Hickel, 2019). Despite the significant contribution to social, economic, and ecological degradation, institutions continue the pursuit of economic growth.
It is crucial to move beyond positivist policies and strategies anchored in economic growth (e.g., Green Deals, Energy Transitions) and instead strategise for transformations that consider tectonic implications. Human civilisation faces an eventual finality, akin to the Armageddon or eschaton in scriptural terms (Flipper, 2015). Meadows et al. (2013) utilised computer modelling to analyse the potential consequences of unhinged exponential economic globalisation and accelerated growth on Earth’s finite resources. They warned that if current growth trends persist, they could lead to a collapse of the global ecosystem and civilisation as we know it (ibid.). A thirty-year update (Meadows, 2005) to their findings reaffirmed their predictions, highlighting the importance for collective collaboration and actionable change.
Secular Social Thinking
In the seventeenth century, history saw a transition of thought from religious dominion to the emergence of pragmatism thinking shaped by various cultural, intellectual, and social factors. The Enlightenment (1685-1815) marked a shift towards reason, empiricism, and scientific inquiry. Philosophers began contending traditional religious dogmas and advocating for rational thought and evidence-based knowledge. Enlightenment thinkers promoted secular values and individual rights, challenging the authority of religious institutions (Ahmed, 2001). They emphasised the separation of church and state, arguing for a release of intellectual freedom and social progress. The emerging secular scholars approached thinking from diverse angles spanning sociology, philosophy, and an interplay between these fields. Their nuanced intersectional understandings of complex dynamic economic systems and societal interactions furthered secular thinking. Secular humanism (Flipper, 2015) emerged as a worldview emphasising human reason, ethics, and well-being without reliance on religious authority and religion was realised as limited to a medium for social cohesion of the masses, and a passing social institution, symbolised by synagogues, temples, churches and masjids (Ahmed, 2001).
Relative to history of civilisation, the modern archetype of capitalism and socialism are a new phenomenon, their early thinking originating in the seventeenth century (Hobsbawm, 1960). The Islamic monotheistic system fundamentally rejects both these value systems as exploitative, failing to treat human’s agency as a viceregent of God (Aḥmad, 1994). Both systems fail to meet their social, economic, ecological, political and moral challenges for a just economic system and in essence re-interpretate moral ethical values in economic terms. In addition to the ideological, socio-political and moral differences in frameworks, the major fundamental difference is in the underlying development strategies of both these systems – industrialisation. Theoretically both these systems remain in the pursuit of ‘outgrowth of capital theory’ (ibid.).
The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith (1970) laid the foundation for classical economics and capitalist thought. Smith’s analysis emphasised the role of self-interest and competition in driving economic growth. Smith (1970) acknowledged religion to be fundamental in economics. His philosophy emphasised natural order and the benefits of individual freedom and economic liberalism. Smith’s work spoke of the invisible hand that guides the market, and he viewed markets as mechanisms that could promote prosperity without extensive intervention of polities. Max Weber theorised that the Christian Protestant ethic with the belief of finding salvation through work was to become the foundation of what he referred to the Capitalist spirit (Weber, 2013). He saw Capitalism to be universal. Weber (Morrison, 1995) believed that civilisation had entered the third age, of bureaucratic authority and bureaucracy achieves power by knowledge or its pretence. Karl Marx’s analysis critiqued the power dynamics between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat within capitalist systems (ibid.). Marx’s dialectical materialism theory focused on historical material conditions and class relations. Marx famously referred to religion as the “opium of the masses” (Marx, 1994). Bertrand Russell was a proponent of secular humanism and a critique of organised religion and economic systems. He criticised religious dogmas of using religion to consolidate power and inhibiting individual freedom. Russell (1945) brought together implications of early civilisation philosophical thinking and its incremental impact on the modern, political, social and economic system. While his philosophical stance was an expansive disbandment of religious thinking, Russell also critiqued unchecked capitalism and the concentration of wealth, arguing for social reforms to counteract the power imbalances inherent in capitalist systems. Emile Durkheim explored the collective consciousness, and the role of institutions and social integration (Morrison, 1995). He explored how societal norms and values influenced capitalist dynamics. Durkheim’s philosophy emphasised the study of social facts and the impact of collective consciousness on individual behaviour. Durkheim had a more optimistic outlook of the functions of religion, emphasising its role in promoting social unity and order. Morrison (1995) elaborates on the secular modern social thought and its dynamics illustrating the realignment of social systems in economic contexts.
Transactional Society System
The system rooted in capitalist thinking, gradually disassociated itself from moral and divine considerations. This transformation has propelled the emergence of a financial structure anchored in debt, akin to what some scholars have termed a contemporary colonial strategy (Pettifor & Network, 1996).
In today’s economy, individualistic profit motives take precedence over collective societal needs. Humanity has transitioned from a society that uses markets to exchange value, to a market society (Polanyi, 1977) where the market itself governs aspects of humanity. This shift has left the foundations of social systems vulnerable to financial crises. Debt has become an integral part of economic activity, leading to a cycle of borrowing and repayment that diverts significant portions of wealth toward debt servicing. This pattern threatens long-term financial stability and exacerbates wealth inequality.
Concentration of financial power restricts the circulation of wealth, perpetuating a widening wealth and power gap. Central financial institutions wield significant influence, enabling them to maintain international supremacy and exert control over nations (Bendell & Greco, 2013).
The system’s inherent flaw lies in the near-universal power it grants to select private elites, driven by the principle of “how can I get something for nothing” (Pettifor, 2017). Financial institutions and the debt-based economic system hold countries financially captive through lending practices, as vividly depicted in Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins (2023). Nations find themselves accountable to financial institutions, often at the expense of their socio-political agency. Delineated as a form of financial enslavement (Nkrumah, 1965).
Activists and scholars emphasise spatial debt’s crippling impact on society, with the debt crisis being just one facet of plutocratic finance (Pettifor & Network, 1996). Roy Casagranda (2023) defined politics as the “intentional manipulation of the economic realm and normative realm to create a desired outcome” (ibid., 2023, 00:03:32). Today’s system is dysfunctional, morally devoid, and speculative, with no intrinsic backing. It’s governed by self-interested regulators and results in recurring financial crises (Global Financial Stability Report, 2023), financial meltdowns (e.g., 2008 Global Financial Crisis), and high inflation rates (Ha et al., 2021).
Historically, money was linked to commodities like gold, providing stability based on supply and demand. However, in today’s system, detached from commodities, money creation has grown exponentially. Banks fictitiously create new money through loans (Pettifor, 2017), contributing to an endless flow of funds from the public to banks—a ‘Ponzi-financing’ scheme (Greenham & Ryan-Collins, 2013). Consequently, we have the modern concept of runaway inflation, a hyper rise in the general price level, occurring when there’s too much money chasing too few goods and services (Quantity-Theory framework). The transition from gold-backed money has led to currency devaluation over time, as opposed to the stability seen in commodity-based systems (Hawkes, 2021).
Epistemic Imperialism
Neo-colonialism has taken the form of monetary imperialism (Anievas & Nisancıoglu, 2015), epistemological and cultural subjugation (Nkrumah, 1965). With the rise of capitalism, Eurocentrism became prominent in Western historiography (Anievas & Nisancıoglu, 2015). This colonial influence continues to shape systems such as education, and trade ethics and business practices (Khan & Naguib, 2019). Imperialistic systems have exerted control over socio-economic-political structures (Anievas & Nisancioglu, 2013; Heller, 2018) while marginalizing non-Eurocentric value systems.
Bertrand Russell (Russell et al., 2020), criticized communism and fascism for their emphasis on knowledge solely for practical utility. Russell (1945) highlights the Church’s historical role in violent religious campaigns like the Crusades, the actions by the Church during the medieval period had an impact on intellectual pursuits, free thought and social progress (ibid.) and set the stage for an impeding narrative of religious oppression. This historical oppression has influenced contemporary perceptions of Islam and religion in general.
During the Enlightenment, there was epistemic violence in the development of non-secular philosophies and epistemologies. This history of philosophies overlooks the medieval Eastern scholarship (500-1300) that explored the interplay between the divine and the natural world in science. Medieval Eastern scholars fostered a tolerant environment that encouraged diverse ideas, promoting harmony between Islamic theology and sciences forming intellectual communities and developing theological epistemic pathways (Bakhromovich, 2021).
Monotheistic belief systems such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam emerged over time, with Islam considered the final revelation (Qur’an 29:46; Armstrong (1999)). This rich tapestry of beliefs illustrates the evolving nature of ideologies and their historical contexts. However, today Islam’s perception is contested and marginalised, rooted in historical epistemic violence (Sevea, 2012). Reconsidering from an Islamic epistemic perspective involves a fusion of faith and rationality. While material science limits itself to the observable, religion embraces the unseen and is grounded in faith in the divine (Neubert, 2019). The religious epistemic approach does not confine itself to what is known or provable, often conflicting with secular scientific theories.
Imposition of Secular Knowledge
Science, an inquiry-based system focused on understanding the physical world, often appears in conflict with divine perspectives, as described by Busenitz & Lichtenstein (2019). Discussions typically revolve around material dualities like capitalism versus socialism, private ownership versus state control, with non-secular divine epistemic systems seen as systemically disparaging.
What’s often overlooked in secular discussions is the dimension of divinity. A similar oversight occurs in the concept of neoliberalism, which primarily identifies the lacking in capital-led systems but essentially only addresses a nuanced question of “free market or not.” I argue that this question goes beyond the mere presence of a physical market; by delving into the system’s regulatory framework and the criteria for state involvement in economic enterprises, the question dodges the pretext of higher morality and ethics systems.
Secular epistemology tends to lean toward individual-centred or collective-centred systems in its comprehensive capacity to material outcomes, whereas divine knowledge suggests the existence of knowledge beyond the material world. This contrast offers a radial perspective. It’s crucial to consider both perspectives because they complement each other. Science, at a micro and macro level, deals with quantifiable operations, while divine perspectives provide an ecosystem-level framework supported by ethical philosophies rooted in higher morality.
Both science and divinity form the polar foundations for understanding theme of divine knowledge, which is metaphysical and based on faith in God. While science relies on rationale and provable facts (Neubert, 2019), divine knowledge takes a different epistemic premise.
Synchronicity, God and Science
Despite religion being a central topic in society it is often overlooked (B. R. Smith et al., 2019). Secular scholarship in the sciences often emphasises empiricism and objectivity, seemingly at odds with theological thinking, and vice versa. Science seeks concrete facts and certainty, while divinity navigates uncertainty and abstract infinity. Bridging the gap between natural-material experiences and the concept of God lacks a scientifically established connection, though philosophers have made reasonable attempts within their respective fields (Raines, 2002; Weber, 1918–1958).
This intersection of divine belief and metaphysical philosophy delves into consciousness beyond material explanations, often identifying coincidental connecting parallels, as explained by Carl Jung and cited by White (1956). While the predominant epistemology of sciences can serve as a tool to explore the subject of God (Harrison & Roberts, 2019), it’s vital to acknowledge the ontological similarities and differences between these two concepts.
One significant similarity between faith in the divine and scientific inquiry is their shared pursuit of truth (Weber, 1918–1958). Both endeavours seek comprehensive answers to the world’s questions. In faith, the pursuit of truth is grounded in belief in God and ethics, prioritising morality above all else. This commitment to seeking truth is common among researchers in academia and scholars of theology and religion, making them highly similar in this regard.
However, despite this commonality, the fusion of science and faith in God is relatively rare. Two distinct worldviews emerge: the scientific and the other supernatural and spiritual (Collins, 2007). Nevertheless, God frequently surfaces in existential and profound inquiries about life and meaning, and in the post-secular shift, is slowly regaining attention in academic discourse (Miller, 2015).