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 4 of 48)
46. Funny how Dinesh accuses other authors of routinely dismissing religious claims (whatever that means), while Dinesh is committing the same sin himself: he doesn't address any of the points he's allegedly speaking out against.
Has he even read even a few pages in these books, Dinesh? It's hard to see how your views are sufficiently different from anything else anyone has already said, other than you want your book to make increase your personal fortune, which is quite against Christ's teachings.
Further, as others have pointed out, Kant's excellent points do nothing to bolster Dinesh's argument, further highlighting the simple marketing plug. Dinesh has done quite a disfavor for religion in general, and Christianity in specific, here. Shame on you.
Daniel Fisher at 1:30PM on Oct 19th 2007
47. "al, you certainly know how to express christianity's disdain for knowledge and its hatred of the faculty of reason."
Knight_of_BAAWA
Sir Knight, I have expressed only my personal thoughts on the matter. I certainly hold no disdain for knowledge nor hatred for reason. Having been made in God's image, man has a beautiful, intricate intellect of enormous capacity. It is not man's intellect that comes between him and God, but his ego.
It is through the intellect that we come to know God, but not the intellect that limits itself to the empirical alone. Jesus said that we must be born again (spiritually) in order to see the kingdom of God, because the nature of man has been flawed by sin (rebellion against our Maker) and is incapable of comprehending spiritual reality without His help.
I'm not asking anyone to accept my words or ideas. It's all in the Bible-- see for yourself (don't be dissuaded by what skeptics have said or written abour that book-- use that intellect God has given you).
God said, "You will seek Me and find me when you search for me with all your heart."
Anything less is insufficient; a waste of time-- you will derive from your seeking proportionate to what you invest in it.
al at 1:31PM on Oct 19th 2007
48. Christians are nothing but fools. They know EVERYTHING and NOTHING at the same time. Everything that cant be explained is just GODS WILL. And after eating from the Tree of knowledge shouldnt humans have been FAR more intelligent way back at the beginning of time? No. You forget all the things that are completely left out of the bible yet simple ARCHEOLOGY alone proves humans were primitive and had limited to no substantial amount intelligence. The problem here is that christians cannot provide a SINGLE solid proof that god exists. the only things they use ARE the things that cannot be explained. Science will continue to evovle AS PEOPLE DO and soon you half-witted brain washed religious people will be out of excuses. If you were not TAUGHT about GOD from the time you were raised you would know nothing of him. God doesnt NOT present himself to you in any way shape or form. People can dream and have delusional episodes so why cant they DREAM up a Illusion such as GOD? And another thing, If there is to be this big APOCALYPSE and its going to be hell against heaven, wouldnt you think god being the creator of all things could wipe out the devil (HIS OWN CREATION) with a wisp of his hand? And one more thing to think about, God created man in his own image, man eats from the tree of knowledge, Man knows what god knows, Man evolves through countless offspring. Man Grows smarter. God Becomes Obsolete.
inmyownuniverse at 1:31PM on Oct 19th 2007
49. This is silly. Our senses don't have to be perfect to still be better than what some guy wrote down based on his own limited perception of the world (religion). Human science and reason is certainly limited, but not nearly as much as organized religion.
kevin at 1:32PM on Oct 19th 2007
50. Phillip wrote:
“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.”
I’m not sure I see your point here. I’m saying that there is probably is no God. Similarly, there probably are no vampires or leprechauns. Aphrodite, Cupid and Dionysus probably don’t exist. Now, it is logically possible that Cupid exists. I suppose I don’t know for certain that Cupid doesn’t exist. But there is good reason to believe that he doesn’t exist.
“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.”
I’m not sure what you mean by that. But there probably are no vampires.
Wes at 1:35PM on Oct 19th 2007
51. Phillip wrote:
"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."
I concede that I cannot at the moment prove that there is no God. But I think it is more likely that there are no Gods than that there are some.
And what about in 40 million years? Suppose some people alive today have descendants that are alive in 40 million years. Will they be able to know for certain that there aren't any Gods? That's a long time in the future.
Wes at 1:39PM on Oct 19th 2007
52. The only catagory all of this all falls into is "FANTASY"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bunch of nut jobs!
P at 1:39PM on Oct 19th 2007
53. So now DD is just outright calling atheists stupid. Nice move, a-hole.
Mr. DD seems a bit delusional here. After all, he's the one with a head filled with beliefs that not only can't be proven, but are contraindicated by reality, but we're the stupid ones.
When a man is so unintelligent and ignorant that he cannot even follow neutral reasoning without injecting his belief system into it, he's a royal idiot.
In other words, if atheists are stupid, that would put the religious people at some kind of slime mold level of intellect. I'll take just stupid, thanks, since it's pure genius compared to you hypochrists and nitwits.
Brian at 1:47PM on Oct 19th 2007
54. Sons of God
Galatians 26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
1 Timothy 4
Apostasy
1But (A)the Spirit explicitly says that (B)in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to (C)deceitful spirits and (D)doctrines of demons,
2by means of the hypocrisy of liars (E)seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
3men who (F)forbid marriage and advocate (G)abstaining from foods which (H)God has created to be (I)gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
4For (J)everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is (K)received with gratitude;
5for it is sanctified by means of (L)the word of God and prayer.
6In pointing out these things to (M)the brethren, you will be a good (N)servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the (O)sound doctrine which you (P)have been following.
7But have nothing to do with (Q)worldly (R)fables fit only for old women On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of (S)godliness;
8for (T)bodily discipline is only of little profit, but (U)godliness is profitable for all things, since it (V)holds promise for the (W)present life and also for the life to come.
9(X)It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance.
10For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed (Y)our hope on (Z)the living God, who is (AA)the Savior of all men, especially of believers.
11(AB)Prescribe and teach these things.
12(AC)Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, (AD)love, faith and purity, show yourself (AE)an example of those who believe.
13(AF)Until I come, give attention to the public (AG)reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.
14Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through (AH)prophetic utterance with (AI)the laying on of hands by the (AJ)presbytery.
15Take pains with these things; be absorbed in them, so that your progress will be evident to all.
16(AK)Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will (AL)ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.
Diane Frank at 1:54PM on Oct 19th 2007
55. It is not man's intellect that comes between him and God, but his ego.
--------------------------------
True. The problem is that when you have a huge ego it blinds you to anything that you do not wish to accept, anything that you see as against you and yours. It also blinds you to the fact that you have that huge ego in the first place, so you so-called christians (small "c") don't see it. If you were "close to god" as in, if acted good to all others, loved your neighbors regardless of who they are, cared for the poor and the ill, and were completely non-violent, we could believe you that you were trying to live god-like lives. But your egos make you self-important fools, and so you have to be right you MUST BE RIGHT, and it becomes so much more important for you to be right, than to be good.
Brian at 1:56PM on Oct 19th 2007
56. Oh what a slippery slope the rabbit hole truly is. It should be readily obvious to all that our individual perceptions make our reality. There are those out there that feel that life just happens, and others that feel it is by design, and others that believe our decisions shape the outcome of our lives. The only thing I know for sure is that humans are creatures of the moment. We can't change the past nor can we control anything other then the immediate future, and often do a poor job of that. More important then the argument over "is it God or science" is do you live life, or watch life.
D.Spencer at 1:56PM on Oct 19th 2007
57. It's like, I wonder how many "good christians" will vote for guiliani. Now, I don't happen to agree with your stance on abortion, but it's one of your core beliefs lately, sinve your masters have conditioned you to believe that it's always wrong, but I wonder how many of you will vote for guiliani anyhow. You'll put aside your belief, your ethic, your morals there (as they are) and vote for him even though he's not pro-life, because he CAN WIN. And you really like to win, don't you? So, how much is the price of a christian soul?
BARGAIN BASEMENT SALE on souls here!!! LOL!!! Ten for the price of one! WOW!
Brian at 2:02PM on Oct 19th 2007
58. DD: "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."
What a strawman! Who ever claimed that in a finite amount of time man would discover EVERYTHING there is to know about the universe?
And on the other hand, how much progress would we make in understanding the universe if every time a tough question came up we just said "it's a miracle."?
DD is an obscurantist huckster of the worst sort.
Joe Bob at 2:03PM on Oct 19th 2007
59. A Poem:
Jesus loves me, yes I know
Cause the Bible tells me so
That is all I need to hear
And so I know I'll never fear
Nothing else is in my head
Except a book by guys long dead
Science isn't telling me
What I can and cannot see
I never, ever take a look
Since I only own one book
Jesus is my only thought
When others ask me what I've bought
I’d rather pluck out both my eyes
So that I can't see the lies
That Science tells us are the truth
I think that Science is uncouth!
Telling me that things fall down
And how a cricket makes a sound
And how planets spin around the sun
And how the gears in watches run
I do not need to hear the facts
I only need religious tracts
And prayers to our Great Lord above
Who blinded me with Bible Love
It feels so good to be so dense
To live behind an iron fence
To shelter fragile minds from truth
(Indoctrinate them in their youth)
Feed them tales of God above
And all of His undying Love
And how he put things in this place
Plain as the nose there on your face
That seem to say that He's not real
That's just the lying Science deal!
He put them here to fool us guys
When we try to use our eyes
We know better, yes we do
Science is at best, untrue
At worst a strange Satanic plot
To show what is real, and what is not
Why should we care what is real?
We still have the Christian deal
Believe in God, at any cost
And look to others like we're lost
Hope for God to make it clear
When the Rapture cometh near
With nonbelievers left behind
You'll all be sorry that you whined
Of how we're descended from some beast
(I don't believe it in the least)
“No Thanks” I say to Science stuff
I think that I have had enough
Of facts and reason, Truth and Hope
I'd much prefer to be a dope.
Brian at 2:11PM on Oct 19th 2007
60. DD is an obscurantist huckster of the worst sort.
----------------------------------------
So true. A "Man Coulter" for sure.
Brian at 2:12PM on Oct 19th 2007