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 3 of 48)
31. The author going under the title Dinesh D'Stupid (writes)
“Yet another convoluted retread of the same tired arguments from Christians; they stick their tongues out at science and assert the validity of their faith by pointing out that science can never know everything, as if that somehow proves that there is some alternate universe where their biblical characters reside.”
I don’t “stick my tongue out at science”. Its simply that the strict materialist worldview is woefully inadequate in discerning the truths of what it means to be human or moral. It has nothing to speak of
(& then writes)
“The problem is 98% of Americans probably don't know who Kant is”
I know who Kant is, yet I’m not so concerned that many don’t. They don’t know who Pasteur is either, yet they still benefit from pasteurized milk.
(& then writes)
“Christian babble like this sounds intelligent to them, and they drink it up like wine from the Jesus cup.”
It is "intelligent".. why did you find it "babble"?
(& then writes)
“To Christians, stupidity is a supreme virtue, and they love to extoll their own godliness by being proud of their ignorance. "Oh, the human mind can never know the wonders of god! We are incapable of knowing so many things about the universe! Isn't it wonderful that we are so ignorant?"
Who is more ignorant, the fool who claims to know all, or the man with the humility to know is intellect is limited.
Plato said “the only great truth is to know you know nothing”
Fitz at 12:32PM on Oct 19th 2007
32. al, you certainly know how to express christianity's disdain for knowledge and its hatred of the faculty of reason.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:33PM on Oct 19th 2007
33. I'll bet maybe 4 people who decided to share their insight here read that blog. The others are a waste of comment space and bandwidth. This is actually one of the better, more logical posts.
In addition to the problem of our sensory apparatus we're just only ever going to be so smart. A high IQ these days is around 160, they say Einstein was just above that (don't quote me). What IQ do you think was necessary to work out the theory of relativity? If we topped out at 120 would we have any understanding of it? or would newtons laws be law indefinitely? What if cosmology and theoretical physics reach a point where we just don't have what it takes? Maybe to really grasp and solve these problems you would need a human with a 350 IQ and we just don't have one.
Dinesh's (or is it Kant's) argument actually goes beyond "you can't know it so don't claim you can" and shows that by understanding that there is more to reality than we currently or maybe ever will be able to perceive we can get a fuller view of the big picture, even if it isn't clear. In physics you deal with the same thing actually. What things like the gravitational force and electromagnetic force are is hard to explain so some theorize they are the recognizable manifestations of objects in other dimensions. The funny thing is I've even seen this theory scoffed at by atheists, and these are scientists trying to explain very difficult concepts.
Atheists who insist that they can accept as a possibility only what can be proven to them (when most of them wouldn't/couldn't work through the proof themselves so are taking someones word for it regardless) ironically sound like they have the blinders on.
bigTuna at 12:34PM on Oct 19th 2007
34. Fitz, the biggest fool of all is one who is proud to believe in impossible things.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:35PM on Oct 19th 2007
35. Religions are to comfort man from his fear of death. There is life and there is death. Deal with it! Everyones God is the right God. Someone has to be wrong. Maybe you're all wrong. We don't need Gods to treat our fellow man with decency and respect. Millions of people have been buthered and maimed throughout the ages for their Gods. Time to throw out the myths of the supernatural and realize that science rules and the Godly (whichever God that may be) make their own rules to fit their own manmade Gods.
Rick at 12:43PM on Oct 19th 2007
36. Azandi
Falwell has started his own (succesfull) university
Pat Robertson went to Yale & Ann Coulter Graduated from Cornell University with honors Graduated from University of Michigan Law School with honors.
Fitz at 12:44PM on Oct 19th 2007
37. Big Tuna
Yes!!!
Its been likened to a pack of dogs sitting around talking about what it means to be "dog" using the vocabulary of "bark" "woof" & "yip".
Fitz at 12:51PM on Oct 19th 2007
38. Not having read the author's book, I might only guess at its conclusions, based on its title and this post-- something I won't bother to do. The post (my first exposure to Mr. D'Souza) speaks for itself. While it seems to me to be directed toward the undecided, it certainly has caused a ruckus among those who apparently think themselves to be intellectual.
Notable among the replies is the obvious pomposity, hostility and arrogance of all but one or two. How the ego is angered by the perceived threat of expressions that challenge its omnipotent authority.
Ever since God created man in His image and man chose to separate himself from God, mankind has felt the pain of that loss and ever seeks to create gods in man's image, attempting to satisfy the emptiness within. How vain, to think that the created being could ever fully comprehend the Creator-- we will see only what He chooses to reveal to us.
God has said in the Bible that His ways and thoughts infinitely exceed ours, that we must become as little children in order to see His kingdom, and that only through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ can anyone be saved from the consequence of his hostility toward God. Those who refuse this counsel from a loving Father in heaven pronounce their own doom.
al at 12:53PM on Oct 19th 2007
39. Joleary writes: “Sure, we can't know. But what's wrong with believing in revelation?”
That’s a good question. I’m not sure what you mean by “revelation.” But some people believe things that aren’t warranted, and in some cases it is at least not bad -- and maybe even good -- that they do. Sometimes having some unwarranted beliefs helps a person live a good life.
However, the plausibility of a claim should be relevant to whether one believes the claim. For example, say that my believing that I’ve been abducted by aliens makes it so I’m not depressed. It would be ethically okay for me to believe that I’ve been abducted by aliens. But there would still be something a little problematic about it.
Wes at 12:56PM on Oct 19th 2007
40. Fitz writes:
"I don’t ‘stick my tongue out at science.’ Its simply that the strict materialist worldview is woefully inadequate in discerning the truths of what it means to be human or moral. It has nothing to speak of..."
What do you mean by “the strict materialist worldview?” I’m an atheist, and I’m an ethical person. Every atheist I know well is an ethical person. My experience is that, in general, atheists are no less ethical than theists. Thus, I doubt that being an atheist makes it harder for any people to be moral.
“Who is more ignorant, the fool who claims to know all, or the man with the humility to know is intellect is limited.”
I don’t know all. There are a lot of things I don’t know that I’d like to. For example, I’d like to know what event(s) caused the onset of the matter and space that is the known universe. However, that I don’t know everything doesn’t mean that I don’t know anything.
Plato said “the only great truth is to know you know nothing”
First, I think I do know some things. I think I know that the earth is not a flat disk that rests on the back of a giant tortoise. But let’s say I don’t know anything. Some of inferences are more plausible than others, for example, that the earth is not a flat disk that rests on the back of a giant tortoise.
Wes at 1:06PM on Oct 19th 2007
41. Big Tuna wrote: “In addition to the problem of our sensory apparatus we're just only ever going to be so smart. A high IQ these days is around 160, they say Einstein was just above that (don't quote me). What IQ do you think was necessary to work out the theory of relativity? If we topped out at 120 would we have any understanding of it? or would newtons laws be law indefinitely? What if cosmology and theoretical physics reach a point where we just don't have what it takes? Maybe to really grasp and solve these problems you would need a human with a 350 IQ and we just don't have one.”
There are some things I don’t know. And my intellectual limitations are such that there are some things that I’m not even capable of knowing. But that I’m not capable of knowing some things doesn’t mean that I’m not capable of knowing anything.
“Dinesh's (or is it Kant's) argument actually goes beyond "you can't know it so don't claim you can" and shows that by understanding that there is more to reality than we currently or maybe ever will be able to perceive we can get a fuller view of the big picture, even if it isn't clear. In physics you deal with the same thing actually. What things like the gravitational force and electromagnetic force are is hard to explain so some theorize they are the recognizable manifestations of objects in other dimensions. The funny thing is I've even seen this theory scoffed at by atheists, and these are scientists trying to explain very difficult concepts.”
But I’m not sure what larger point you are trying to make here. I concede that I don’t know for certain that there isn’t a God.
“Atheists who insist that they can accept as a possibility only what can be proven to them (when most of them wouldn't/couldn't work through the proof themselves so are taking someones word for it regardless) ironically sound like they have the blinders on.”
I’m not saying I don’t believe in God because it can’t be “proven.” There are a lot of things that I believe that can’t, at least at the moment, be “proven.” For example, I believe I won’t be struck by lightning tonight. I believe that meteorite collision contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs. And I believe that the first cell formed on earth without any extraterrestrials causing it to form on earth.
Wes at 1:16PM on Oct 19th 2007
42. Knight,
"the biggest fool of all is one who is proud to believe in impossible things"
it is impossible to know all that is possible.
don't quote Matthew to me, I didn't say it.
bigTuna at 1:20PM on Oct 19th 2007
43. bigTuna:
Relativity isn't *that* big a stretch. Others were close, e.g. Lorentz (for whom the Lorentz Transformation, a staple of Relativity, were named - indeed, the transformation came *before* Einstein's paper). It's a fundamentally simple idea with complex ramifications. So far, the big ideas that have really advanced our understanding have turned out to be like that - simple but profound.
But it's true, there may well be things we can never know. But how do you tell the difference between something "unknown" and something "unknowable"? From a practical perspective, the only way to tell which category something falls into is to try to understand it; if you succeed, then it was knowable. The problem is, if you fail, you can't conclude that it's unknowable. It might be, but it might also be the case that you just didn't happen to figure out something knowable, and you or someone else might have better luck on a subsequent attempt.
How many things have been pronounced unknowable that have later turned out to be perfectly comprehensible? It may be true that some things *are* unknowable, but what should we do about that? The only thing we *can* do is keep trying to understand.
Imagine if we'd given up trying to understand lightning. We might still be storing explosives in churches. After all, God wouldn't hit a church with lightning, right? The tallest building in town, with sharp ungrounded metal on top... Look up the history of the Church of San Nazaro in Brecia.
I bring this up not to mock religion but to point out why insisting something is 'unknowable' is dangerous. It's a concept that does no good and has been demonstrated to do harm.
Ray Ingles at 1:23PM on Oct 19th 2007
44. Well, according to the assertions by C. Hitchins and other atheists that unevidenced assertions can be rejected by unevidenced, counter assertions. By their own conditions, the idea that God isn't there can be rejected with out evidence as it no sooner can be proven that God isn't there as it can be proven that God is. That is, on a purely scientifc basis, anyway. There is no factual evidence either way, that science would accept. Objectively, all "evidence" is subject to interpretation. There is, objectively, no factual evidence either way and science is not the last word on truth and reality.
Now, there is nothing wrong with science. Its a curious and facinating way to explore our physical world and helps us inderstand what compels, makes up and determines our physical existance. But, in determing the truth and reality of our spiritual and metaphysical existance, science is not reliable. Actually, its not even infallible in determing the truth or reality of our physical existance. Science is, in fact, fallible all around as is any other man made discipline or concept. Including religons. Of course, we don't need to support this with any evidence as evidence is not necessary in refuting an assertion that is not supported by evidence. :o) That has got to be one of the most absurd and brainless ideas I've encountered is some time. How do you expect to be able to justify yourself with out evidence, much less truth. Its a cop-out. There is no reliable evidence in either proving or disproving the existance of God. It is an entirely personnal, subjective choice. If atheists think they're being intelligent or objective, they are sadly mistaken.
Reason, rationallity and logic are, also, not reliable either as they depend on what you accept as being the truth or not in the first place. For instance, if you believe it true that God is real, it makes logical and rational sense to believe in God. However, if you believe that God isn't real, it make no logical, rational sense to believe in God. Either way, its a subjective choice. There is no actuall proof which is correct. If you believe that the earth is flat and there is an edge to fall off of out there, it makes rational, logical sense to be careful not to sail too far to the west. On the other, if you believe that the earth is round and there is no edge out there to fall of, then the concern about sailing too far to the west is not logical or rational. So, logic and rational are not reliable concerning unproven things. In that case, logic and rational are, also, a matter of subjective choice.
I don't know what the atheists' adamancy that we all agree with them is all about. You'd think that if they were confident of their belief they wouldn't need the rest of the world to agree with them. Yopu'd think it would be enough for them to believe as they do and not worry about the beliefes of other. Obviously not, though. They complain about children being indoctrinated with pro God or religious beliefs. However, they would indoctrinate children from a very early age on, to believe in Atheism and reject God and religious beliefs. Their no different than the people they complain. By the time children would be old enough to make an objective choice, say, they wouldn't have any thing to be objective about. They would already be indoctrinated with an atheist belief and not have any real choice. If given a chance, atheists would shove their ideas down the throat of humanity. Do they really believe that they're being objective, rational or unhypocritical?
I don't personally object to anyone believeing in a religion, including Atheism. Just realize you're not on the "one true road to God". As far as I can tell, there is no "one true road to God". All roads lead to God. At any rate, even though atheists try so vehemently to reject the idea that God is there, they're thinking about Him/Her anyway. :o)
That's enough for now. I bid fond adieu to all who may read this. Even atheists, the Godless and heathen infidels.
(That last comment is meant as a joke. I couldn't pass it up.)
Philip at 1:25PM on Oct 19th 2007
45. I was preparing a lengthy response here debunking the fraudulent and patently foolish claims in this article. Then I realized, this was written by Dinesh D'Souza, a writer no one can take seriously. After all, we're talking about a guy who used to date Anne Coulter ... nuff said.
Stefan at 1:29PM on Oct 19th 2007