Recently I chanced
upon a book, “How Intellectuals found God” by Peter Savodnik, and I was truly
intrigued by his assertion. His reference were people like Mathew Crawford,
Paul Kingsnorth, Jordan Hall, Ayaan Hisri Ali, Jordan Peterson and also Elon
Musk. Except for Ayaan, all other reference made were within the sphere of western,
male and elite demography. ( I must say that I had to stop here, because of domestic
duty calls)
(I am back
to now, but accompanied by my dear friend Jameson), indeed feeling highly spirited but still on
track on the topic. Savodnik’s
main thesis is rather sociological, he asserts that the rationalist,
technocratic worldview has run dry and he asserts that humanizing
corrective is not necessarily “proof of God,” but evidence that meaning and
morality can’t be sustained by materialism alone.
So is there a mass transmigration of intellectuals towards the
entity called God. But then again do the world of believers need an endorsement
from these intellectuals to validify the existence of the God Entity.
Thiruvalluvar, a saint/philosopher from the 3rd Century
BCE (era still disputed), who was considered to be the epitome of secularism,
mentions in his first couplet in his famous Thirukural (deemed to be the Supreme
Tamil literature on Virtue, Wealth and Love), “Akara muthala elluthellam aathi
Bhagavan muthatrae ulaghu." (அகர முதல எழுத்தெல்லாம் ஆதி பகவன் முதற்றே உலகு). This
couplet states that just as 'A' is the first letter of the Tamil alphabet, the
primordial God is the first and source of all in the world. So the first Tamil secularist
has honoured the God entity as the opening couplet of his 1330 couplets that
describes universal ethical and moral principles, guiding individuals through
life's three core pursuits. Firstly it’s virtue (Aram), secondly, wealth and
governance ((Porul), and thirdly, love (Inbam). It is a secular work containing
lofty wisdom on a wide range of subjects, from individual morality and domestic
life to social and political issues, offering timeless guidance for all of
mankind regardless of caste or creed.
In ancient Greece, we have Plato (427 – 347 BCE), inherited
Socrates’ critical stance toward traditional religion, rejecting the Homeric
gods as immoral and anthropomorphic. But in later dialogues (Timaeus, Laws),
Plato developed the idea of a single divine craftsman (Demiurge) who created
the cosmos rationally and benevolently. This was a major shift from scepticism
about mythic gods to belief in a rational, transcendent God, a
proto-monotheistic move that influenced later Christian theology.
So this transmigration of from a non believer to a believer of some sort is not new. It has
happened from time immemorial, since the dawn of civilization but at different pace
according to the socio-political-economic evolution of mankind, contextually
connected to the time.
I have often heard amongst my circle of network as well in
my reading, many identify themselves of being spiritually connected but not identifying
themselves with any ambit of a religion. I just thought it’s just a fashionable rhetoric
to differentiate themselves from the masses who are more rooted in rituals and
the book of God.
J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904–1967), the theoretical physicist
who led the Manhattan Project, was not religious in the traditional sense, but
he was deeply spiritual, philosophical, and culturally religiously informed, at
least that was what has been described about him. Oppenheimer himself described
his upbringing as “Jewish in heritage but not in faith.” Oppenheimer rejected a
personal God who intervenes in human affairs. According to his autobiography,
Oppenheimer believed in an ordered, intelligible cosmos, where beauty and
morality arise from understanding reality. His tone appeared reverential but
non-theistic, sometimes described as “religious awe without religion.” In one
of his interviews he says, “There are no gods, but there is the mystery of the
universe, and that is enough”. I would say that, Oppenheimer was not religious
in practice or doctrine, but he was profoundly spiritual, ethically reflective,
and philosophically theistic in temperament. Based on my reading I can infer
that Oppenheimer found that in the world’s religious traditions (especially
Hinduism) a language of awe and moral gravity that science alone could not
provide.
Peter Savodnik’s How Intellectuals Found God is less a
theological argument than a cultural diagnosis. He is not proving God’s
existence or presenting new philosophy; instead, he observes that a surprising
number of modern thinkers, people formed by secular, rational traditions, are
turning toward faith. What Savodnik is really saying is that the intellectual
climate itself is shifting. After decades in which materialism and skepticism
dominated elite thought, many writers, scientists, and public figures are realizing
that reason alone cannot satisfy the human need for meaning, morality, and
belonging.
Though Savodnik’s insight may appear “obvious” but people
have always sought transcendence when rationalism feels hollow. Yet Savodnik’s
point is that this return to belief among high status intellectuals signals a
broader cultural fatigue with purely secular explanations of life. For him,
these conversions are less about dogma and more about recovering a sense of
wonder and ethical grounding. In that sense, Savodnik isn’t just repeating
what’s obvious, he’s documenting a moment of re enchantment in Western thought,
when intellect and faith, long estranged, are beginning to speak to each other
again. His work captures that emotional and philosophical tension rather than
resolving it.
The tension between intellect and faith is not something any
writer, doctrine, or philosophy can fully resolve. Every religious and mystical
tradition ultimately points inward, the real discovery lies within the seeker,
not in external authority. Books like Savodnik’s can illuminate paths, reveal
patterns, or awaken longing, but they cannot walk the road for us. The journey
toward truth is profoundly personal, experiential, and evolving.
Religious dogma, philosophy, or science each offer frameworks, signposts rather than destinations. They can prepare the mind, but the real transformation occurs in consciousness itself, through reflection, doubt, surrender, and insight. That is why sages across traditions, from Socrates to the Buddha, from Rumi to Meister Eckhart, emphasize self-inquiry over mere belief. The intellect may describe God, but only direct experience gives meaning to that description.
So when Savodnik captures the tension between intellect and
faith, he touches on the universal paradox, the mind seeks certainty, but the
spirit seeks communion. To resolve that, one must turn inward, not to escape
reason, but to integrate it with inner awareness, where understanding and faith
cease to be opposites and become dimensions of the same quest for truth.
Cheers.
ravivarmmankkanniappan@2150141020243.0567° N, 101.5851° E
