The following is adapted from my new book What's So Great About Christianity. For more information about the book, see my website dineshdsouza.com.
Bestselling atheist tracts like Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, and Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great portray religion as an unreasonable form of "blind faith," often leading to fanaticism and even violence. Some of these atheists call themselves "brights," implying that they are the smart people who base their opinions on reason and science and don't fall for silly superstitions. But for all their credentials and learning, the atheists have been duped by a fallacy. This may be called the Fallacy of the Enlightenment, and it was first pointed out by that great Enlightenment philosopher, Immanuel Kant.
The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that human beings can continually find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover. The Enlightenment Fallacy holds that human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant showed that this premise is false. In fact, he argued, that human knowledge is constrained not merely by how much reality is out there but also by the limited sensory apparatus of perception we bring to that reality.
Consider a tape recorder. Being the kind of instrument it is, a tape recorder can capture only one mode of reality: sound. Tape recorders can "hear" but they cannot see or touch or smell. Thus all aspects of reality that cannot be captured in sound are beyond the reach of a tape recorder. The same, Kant says, is true of human beings. The only way we apprehend reality is through our five senses. But why should we believe, Kant asked, that our five-mode instrument for apprehending reality is sufficient for capturing all of reality? What makes us think that there is no reality lies beyond our perception, reality that simply cannot be apprehended by our five senses?
Moreover, the reality we apprehend is merely our experience or "take" on reality. How can you know that your experience of things is in any way like the things-in-themselves? Normally you answer this question by considering the two things separately and then comparing them. I can tell if my daughter's drawing of her teacher looks like the teacher by placing the portrait and alongside the person. I compare the copy or portrait with the original.
Kant points out, however, that we can never compare our experience of reality to reality itself. All we have is the experience, and that's all we can ever have. We have only the copies, but we never have the originals. So we have no basis for presuming that the two are even comparable. When we equate experience and reality, we are making an unjustified leap.
It is essential to recognize that Kant isn't diminishing the importance of experience or what he called the phenomenal world. That world is very important, because it is the only one our senses and reason have access to. It is entirely rational for us to believe in this phenomenal world and to use science and reason to discover its operating principles. But Kant contended that science and reason apply to the world of phenomena, of things as they are experienced by us. Science and reason cannot penetrate what Kant termed the noumena: things as they are in themselves.
Some critics have understood Kant to be denying the existence of external reality or of arguing that all of reality is "in the mind." Kant emphatically rejects this. He insists that the noumenon obviously exists because it is what gives rise to phenomena. In other words, our experience is an experience of something. Perhaps the best way to understand this is to see Kant as positing two kinds of reality: the reality that we experience and reality itself. The important thing is not to establish which is more real, but to recognize that human reason operates only in the phenomenal domain of experience. We can know of the existence of the noumenal realm, but at this point reason has reached its limit.
In Kant's view, the limits of human reason cannot be erased by the passage of time or by further investigation and experimentation. Rather, they are intrinsic to the kind of beings that humans are, and to the kind of apparatus that we possess for perceiving reality. The implication of Kant's argument is that reality as a whole is, in principle, inaccessible to human beings. Put another way, there is a great deal that human beings simply will never know.
So powerful is Kant's argument here that his critics have been able to answer him only with derision. When I challenged Daniel Dennett to debunk Kant's argument, he posted an angry response on his website in which he said several people had already refuted Kant. But he didn't provide any refutations, and he didn't name any names. Basically Dennett was relying on the argumentum ad ignorantium-the argument that relies on the ignorance of the audience. In fact, there are no such refutations.
Although Kant's argument seems counterintuitive-in the way that some of the greatest ideas from Copernicus to Einstein are counterintuitive-no one who understands the central doctrines of the world's leading religions should have any difficulty grasping his main point. Kant's philosophical vision is entirely congruent with the teachings of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
It is a shared doctrine of those religions that the empirical world we humans inhabit is not the only world there is. Ours is a world of appearances only in which we see things in a limited and distorted way, "through a glass darkly," as the apostle Paul writes in his first letter to the Corinthians 13:12. Ours is a transient world that is dependent on a higher, timeless reality. That reality is of a completely different order from anything we know, it constitutes the only permanent reality there is, and it sustains our world and presents it to our senses. Christianity teaches that while reason can point to the existence of this higher domain, this is where reason stops: it cannot on its own investigate or comprehend that domain.
Thus when Christopher Hitchens and other atheists routinely dismiss religious claims on the grounds that "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence," they are making what philosophers like to call a category mistake. We learn from Kant that within the domain of experience, human reason is sovereign, but it is in no way unreasonable to believe things on faith that simply cannot be adjudicated by reason.
When atheists summarily dismiss the immortality of the soul or the afterlife on the grounds that they have never found any empirical proofs for either, they are asking for experiential evidence in a domain which is entirely beyond the reach of experience. In this domain, Kant argues, the absence of evidence cannot be used as the evidence for absence.
Notice that Kant's argument is entirely secular: It does not employ any religious vocabulary, nor does it rely on any kind of faith. But in showing the limits of reason, Kant's philosophy "opens the door to faith," as the philosopher himself noted.
So the new atheists and self-styled "brights" can do their strutting, but Kant has exposed their ignorant boast that atheism operates on a higher intellectual plane than theism. Rather, as Kant showed, reason must know its limits in order to be truly reasonable. The atheist foolishly presumes that reason is in principle capable of figuring out all that there is, while the theist at least knows that there is a reality greater than, and beyond, that which our senses and our minds can ever apprehend.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 48)
1. Of course we can't be certain that our sense accurately reflect the real world. But if you take that to the logical conclusion, you're just saying we might all be "jacked into the Matrix", and all our sense-impressions are just deceptions fed into us. Sure, there's no way to disprove that... but so what? A difference which makes no difference *is* no difference.
What's the *point* of assuming our senses don't actually have some relation to the 'real world'? Woody Allen put this humorously but, I think, very perceptively: "Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?"
Ray Ingles at 9:45AM on Oct 19th 2007
2. The *other* problem with this Kantean line of argument is that, while we know our senses are limited, we can also reason about the data we get from those senses.
Once upon a time, scientists were looking at fission events in cloud chambers and saw that occasionally, the particles would go off in strange directions, as if the laws of conservation of momentum and energy weren't working right. It was as if an invisible particle had been emitted, and the reaction pushed the visible ones. They theorized that there *was* a particle being emitted, but it barely interacted with anything else. Thus, the idea of the neutrino was born. Work was done to figure out what properties this particle would have, and eventually a means of detecting them was developed. We still miss all but an infinitesimally tiny fraction of them, but we've got sufficiently precise estimates of how many the sun's emitting that it was actually a problem for a while that we didn't find all we expected. (Look up the "solar neutrino problem".)
Even less tangible phenomena can be detected through our senses - like love. (Do you doubt this? Well, how many songs are there about the difference between *saying* you love someone, and actually *behaving* as if you do?)
If something can't be detected through our senses - if it makes absolutely no detectable difference in what we can perceive, either directly or by how it affects things we can perceive - then while it can't be ruled out there's no reason to believe in it. (Consider Bertrand Russel's teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot) At that point you might as well just give up and assume that we're all in the Matrix.
This is *exactly* the kind of chin Occam's Razor was meant to shave...
Ray Ingles at 9:58AM on Oct 19th 2007
3. If you're going to paraphrase Kant, you might also address Nietzsche, who took the position that a supernatural world that we cannot perceive is meaningless to us.
Philosopher at 10:00AM on Oct 19th 2007
4. And, finally, do you *really* want to assert that the 'transcendent reality' is beyond human conception? That means you can't be sure of *anything* about it - anything at all.
What if there is a God, and It's *exactly* like a shepherd - down to the shearing and slaughter, too? (I'm sure sheep feel comforted by the presence of the shepherd, too... until the knife comes down.) Since you've asserted that It's "beyond that which our senses and our minds can ever apprehend," you can in no way disprove it. By your own definition, It's perfectly capable of fooling us perfectly. There's *no way* to tell.
If you try to claim that you have evidence that a god is trustworthy and benevolent... hey, wait, I thought you said evidence wasn't appropriate here? If you want to appeal to evidence, then you can't depend on this Kantean line of argument.
Ray Ingles at 10:10AM on Oct 19th 2007
5. Yes. Excellent thesis!! As Biblical scripture teaches about God, "My ways are not your ways; my thoughts are not your thoughts." So true that Christians very basically accept a reality much greater than that limited to human capability and human experience. It's sheer human grandiosity to think the human mind is,in and of itself, the potential for and expression of true reality. Such arrogance even denies the valued reality of animals that greatly contribute to the quality of human life on an everyday basis. And if that doesn't register, look at the example of the tsunami in Asia. The animals detected the danger through a reality/sense far sensitive than humans' and, thru this reality and acting on it, saved many human lives!! The same has happened w/ earthquakes as dogs can sense them before humans can. Their reality is one, of many, we as humans are not capable of sharing. What is the reality or experience of a tree, a moth, etc.??
Janina at 10:11AM on Oct 19th 2007
6. Amazing! More broad sweeping generalizations, as another blog of garbage is based upon the statement "why atheists are not very bright."
Perhaps you are not racist after all. Perhaps you generalize about everything, and make sweeping assumptions and prejudices based on small examples, small studies, and of course, a small mind.
Am I to conclude that men who wear glasses are all pseudo-intellectuals who are not very bright?? Or perhaps it is all fellows at stanford?? Or perhaps the generalization is based upon your heritage?? Or maybe a combination of your heritage and your glasses?? Hmm, which assumption and sweeping generalization shall I go with today, to "prove" my "intellectual" theories??
stuart joshua at 10:14AM on Oct 19th 2007
7. 99.99% of all the Scientists in the world believe
in Evolution. It is the only answer to the world
as we know it. Fundamentalists believe what they were taught. They have no free will. Very Sad..
Chandler Yergin at 10:20AM on Oct 19th 2007
8. The author of the book does have a point being right. That religion has turned into something else. A tool for the politicians, the people that lust for power and control to divide and conquer peoples. It has become a bastardization of what it is truly about. Just look at the world there have been more people killed and wars fought due to religious convictions. This president of the U.S. has us in this war in the middle east partly because of his religion. Some atheists, (it is strange that Dinesh seems to goup all atheists by this guys words, that's like judging all Christians by Bush)may think strange. The crazy thing to me is that religions that are suppose to be f love , compassion can kill so easily due to differences. Atheists may be not so smart, but religion seems to be a lesson in hypocritical thought and insanity.
Nick at 10:22AM on Oct 19th 2007
9. My, my book sales must be down.
alan at 10:24AM on Oct 19th 2007
10. Yay! Dinesh accepts the utter garbage of dual-realm metaphysics. Not like it has any merit, evidence, or testability.
Stupid dual-realmers. There is no "other" realm--whatever you want to call it, be it the Realm of the Forms, the Nouma, the Geist, the Collective Unconcious, or whatever. There. Is. No. Other. Realm. And it is that garbage metaphysic which has held humanity mentally hostage for millennia.
Dinesh just proved himself to be deeply self-deluded enough to actually believe in a separate realm. In fact, Dinesh probably even believes that the human mind imposes categories upon the world, rather than the brain evolving in the world. Idiot.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:24AM on Oct 19th 2007
11. LIFE
On a Tiny Blue Marble
Third Rock From The Sun
Four Billion Years Passed
Before Life Had Begun
Organic Molecules Danced
Through The Solar Breeze
DNA Combined To Form
A Simple Cell
And On A Simple Rock
Abundant Life Now Dwells
Where Do Doves Go To Cry
Where Do We Go When We Die
We Can Close Our Eyes And Try To Hide
From The Pain We Feel Deep Inside
As We Wander We Must Also Wonder
There Is Sunshine After The Thunder
Ever Watch A Sunset On The Ocean
Through A Gentle Mist
Enchanting Colors
As Earth And Sun Briefly Touch
Then Kiss
Look Close And You Can See
The Green Mist
Listen Close And You Can Hear
The Hiss
LIVE LAUGH AND LOVE
Take A Lesson From The Dove
Dwell Not On What Has Passed Away
Or What Is Yet To Be
The Present Is Our Eternity
Chandler Yergin at 10:25AM on Oct 19th 2007
12. I love the philosophical discourse! Of course, DD needs to bolster his discussion with biased and loaded terms, like "can do their strutting", like that adds credibility. Give me a break. Truth be told, it comes down to myths are stories created by man, unproven to be true. I don't buy it.
Linda at 10:26AM on Oct 19th 2007
13. Deriding us simple atheist tape recorders who only know the universe in the context of sound is your preference. Claiming there are additional methods of experiencing the universe beyond what humans (yourself included) Can Know By Virtue Of What We Are is also preference.
However, you seem to be a tape recorder belittling any tape recorder who doesn't accept a world beyond sound. If everyone was blind, discussion of color in terms of its visual aspect would be pointless. Likewise since we can't know what is beyond what we can know, atheists would be just as out of line in "knowing" there isn't a higher power as a theist would be in claiming to "know" there is something out there that they can't be aware.
Since theism and atheism both seem to be sharing the same fundamental flaw by making claims towards what Can't Be Known, I wonder why it is that you feel the need to claim that "atheists aren't too bright". While I admit that both views are speaking to things and living their lives based upon knowledge we can't wrap our heads around yet.....remember that atheists have practical experience and a knowledge of how humans are able to interpret things to guide them. Religion seems to be about what is beyond we as a species are capable of knowing.
If I'm applying for a job that I can't get anymore education on, I'm certainly going to put my efforts into finding one tht matches my previous experience. If I'm going to get married, it's going to be with someone I know and have interacted with instead of hoping that mail order bride thing "works out". And if I'm going to devote my life and online energies to a school of thought.....I don't think I'm alone in at least preferring to base what I think upon what I can know based on my ability to perceive what I view as The Way Things Are.
If I'm not mistaken....Kant's CPR took almost 10 years to write. Did you honestly think an email would yield something beyond what has been explored since it was published that you couldn't have looked up yourself? If so.....that's quite a bit of faith you've put in that "not too bright" atheist.
baloneytk at 10:26AM on Oct 19th 2007
14. The author's proposal is absolutely ridiculous. Theists and atheists, both are believers. Theists believe in something they can't prove. God is a "Belief", not a fact.
Looks like the author's religion has blided him
And, we, the rest of the people are fools to even read such an concept
SG
shashi gude at 10:26AM on Oct 19th 2007
15. i never comment on mr dinesh's thread.
i find his posts,
bloviated,ill thought and rarely educational.
on this occasion i commend him on using kant's argument to make the point of experienced reality,even if it is to hock his new book.
i also feel i should i should point out that mr dawkin's books tend to focus on religion and fundamentalism.mr dawkins on many occasions has stated quite openly that he does not know if their is a god,but he would need physical evidence to even consider the reality of god.
thats agnostic(literally means "not knowing",and in my travels i have never met a true atheist.
what happens in many of these debates is both sides conflate "religion" with "faith".kant's argument is a perfect example of exposing the limits of human understanding as it pertains to the five senses.he neither proves,nor disproves,he just points out the limits to expound possibilities.
brilliant!
carl jung spent most of his professional career exemplifying the typical archetypes,and expolring the further reaches of sensory perceptions,with grand,if not totally inconsistent results.
if the argument is about "faith",then there can never be a conclusive "victory" for either side of the argument,because "faith" is subjective.you either have "faith" or you dont,and if you dont,you are more likely an agnostic than an atheist.
if the argument is religion,then there is more than enough physical evidence to refute any kind empirical claim to a deities certainty.this is the avenue most used by people denouncing the existence of a creator.
it is rabid fundamentalism that leaves itself wide open to be eviscerated by a well informed debater,while faith is not,it is subjective solely to that person,and a person trying to attack that faith will always fail,because they themselves dont actually know or understand.
so while i tend to disagree with mr dinesh on most of his posts,i commend him for the use of kant.
the debate between mr hitchens and dinesh should prov interesting.
till next time..peace.
Enoch D.D.S
enoch at 10:31AM on Oct 19th 2007