In the modern Western European tradition, we consider knowledge to be the result of the scientific method and inductive reasoning. These are the process of questions and answers that follow logic. This Enlightenment tradition is well and good, for it freed us from becoming mired in superstitions and unfounded ideas. However, contrary to common belief, it does not result in a true understanding of things.
Why? Because it logical reasoning is only half the picture. Allow me to quote someone far more studied than I -- Idries Shah, who is widely considered to be a world-scholar on Sufism. In his introduction to The Sufis he says:
"There are two modes of knowledge, through argument and experience. Argument brings conclusions and compels us to concede to them, but it does not cause any certainty nor remove doubts in order that the mind may remain at rest in truth, unless this is provided by experience."
This Sufi doctrine is known in the West as the scientific method of inductive proceeding, and subsequent Western science is largely based upon it.
Modern science, however, instead of accepting the idea that experience was necessary in all branches of human thought, took the word in its sense of "experiment," in which the experimenter remained as far as possible outside the experience.
From the Sufi point of view, therefore, Bacon, when he wrote these words in 1268, both launched modern science and also transmitted only a portion of the wisdom upon which it could have been based.
"Scientific" thinking has worked continuously and heroically with this partial tradition ever since. In spite of its roots in the work of the Sufis, the impairment of the tradition has prevented the scientific researcher from approaching knowledge by means of itself -- by experience, not merely experiment."
The point of this passage is that reliance solely upon the Enlightenment value of objective reasoning as a means of seeking truth is only half the picture. We may read any manner of logical argument we wish, but unless we experience it to be true, we can never truly know it as such.
The reliance of atheists upon only logical, rational arguments and their disregard of the validity of intuitive (or as Shah would call it, experiential) knowledge will never lead to a true understanding of things because it sees only half the picture. One cannot understand the nature of reality unless one views the whole.
This is not to say that viewing the whole and accepting the validity of intuitive/experiential knowledge results in theism. I am not arguing for or against any particular conclusion; that is, by defnition within my argument, the sole province of the individual. I am only saying that reliance solely on cold observation and logic can never result in an understanding of the true nature of the universe. Prior to the rise of patriarchal religious and political institutions, intuitive knowledge was valued. It is only when patriarchy rose to dominance that intuitive knowledge came to be disregarded and devalued as "emotional" or "feminine" (and therefore characterized as weak).
As many of the world's traditions profess, one requires balance. Yin requires yang; the Jedis sought to restore balance to the Force. And so true knowledge requires balance as well. This is the difference between the knowing of facts and the understanding of truth. Knowledge as opposed to wisdom.
To disgregard experiential or intuitive knowledge is just as egregious as disregarding logical reasoning. We need both, otherwise the movement we know as the Enlightenment will only leave us in the dark.
