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 47 of 48)
691. Reply to: When an Atheist is on his/her death-bed, I would bet my life that he/she prays to OUR LORD, (end)
That demonstrates the problem as well as anything.
You don't know anything about human beings, or what education does for you.
Atheists NEVER buy into an obvious con game. When atheists are on their death beds, they don't put their dentures under a pillow so the Tooth Fairy will leave them a quarter. They don't burn incense to an African fertility god. And they don't pray to "OUR LORD" because it's nothing more than a con fame that preys on the weak and feeble-minded.
The original post "Why Atheists Are Not Very Bright" is another example. The author is an idiot. He's a gullible fool who isn't able to do a simple Google search to find out why he's wrong. I feel sorry for such a fool... because he fools other people with his idiotic opinions.
Nhellberg at 3:08PM on Oct 26th 2007
692. This blogger is a great example of what's WRONG.
So I suppose he serves a purpose.
In Christianity, there are TWO different stories:
(1) at death, some part of you rests in silence and darkness until the Day of Judgment, when you will be resurrected in a new body and judged based on whether you accepted Jesus as your Savior
(2) at death, your soul goes to heaven to begin an afterlife. ie, Today you will be with me in Paradise.
The FACT that Christianity tells TWO inconsistent stories PROVES that you have to be pretty dim to think Christianity is credible. This is much easier than programming a VCR. It doesn't take much... but I'm starting to think ALL Christians are lying fools.
Nhellberg at 6:11PM on Oct 26th 2007
693. I'd be more willing to accept religion as a quasi-political club if it tended to promote happiness, sharing, etc.
Seems to me that religion isn't the uniting factor that some Christians might hope for.
I think that Dinesh D'Souza is selecting his topics on the basis that all theists can 'get behind' ridiculing atheists.
If DD can be said to have any argument at all... it is that reality-based people have to have some kind of faith that the universe operates under certain rules... and that it is therefore legitimate for theists to attribute these rules to some kind of 'cosmic rule-maker'.
Atheists simply do not agree that there is sufficient reason to conjure up a Realm of B'lief and an all powerful being... a 'DREAMTIME' as the Australian Aborigines would say.
I'd be more inclined to believe the theist's premise that atheism 'leads' to totalitarian despotism if it were reality that atheists were setting up clubs with mandates to burn down 'the hated' churches... and form or back a political party to ban/destroy religion.
I do believe that anyone reading Dinesh D'Souza's rants.. any fair person... would come to the conclusion that DD is protesting atheism too much and in fact might encourage the majority of these types of readers to see the plain choice...
1) the world is very complex... and science is helping explain this complexity.
2) the world it too complex... simplify it by claiming God-did-it..and HE loves us... and will reward us for loving HIM... by giving us eternal life.
pboyfloyd at 3:38PM on Oct 26th 2007
694. ?
pboyfloyd at 5:10PM on Oct 26th 2007
695. OK, here's the deal. God talks to those that are His, and doesn't talk to those who aren't, very simple. Atheists aren't his, we who know He Is, are. Quit making it complicated. Go to bible-truths.com, 'ol L Ray Smith will straighten y'all out.
victor58 at 5:14PM on Oct 26th 2007
696. Pboy (Slaps head),
You say oh so athiestically that you have science on your side. Where have I heard that before? Somehow I recall the guy saying something about S.C.I.E.N.C.E. Something like,
Oh I have S.
Oh I have S.C.
Oh I have S.C.I.E.N.C.E.
And I have S.C.I.E.N.C.E. oh hon my S.I.D.E. side
And I will say this un hun til I D.I.E. eeee... die.
Michelle at 6:46PM on Oct 26th 2007
697. Nhellberg,
I thought all the quackos responded in the first day or so of the post?
Michelle at 6:52PM on Oct 26th 2007
698. Before you go quoting Kant, whom you're obviously unfamiliar with other than a name to impress people, why don't you read his stuff?:
http://amazon.com/gp/product/1573928372/ref=s9_asin_image_2/102-1707286-7766521?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=1QA6VQD6RPNPTBEKX0BX&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=265623401&pf_rd_i=507846
John at 7:30PM on Oct 26th 2007
699. Nhellberg,
You say we have two different stories. Let me mirror this for a second. What about you guys? It doesnt make sense that you would be convinced of evolution when it doesnt happen these days, at least not to people. Have you ever seen in any history book that a fellow or gal turned into that from an ape, or that an ape "decided to shave" (- Frank Paretti) and became an upstanding member of the community? Ever? And why would your crowd be so upset about the birds that fly into and get killed in windmills if they could just quickly get smart (heard that one on Glenn Beck's radio talky)?
Michelle at 7:30PM on Oct 26th 2007
700. Responding to Nhelberg (693). who wrote: "The FACT that Christianity tells TWO inconsistent stories PROVES that you have to be pretty dim to think Christianity is credible. This is much easier than programming a VCR. It doesn't take much... but I'm starting to think ALL Christians are lying fools."
If this is an example of atheistic "logic and reasoning", you atheists are the ones with credibility problems.
What are we to think of atheists who have different opinions? If Christians are not allowed to have different opinions and interpretations, should we allow atheists to have different opinions?
What are we to think of atheists who can not even agree what "atheism" means. There are two definitions floating around:
(1) (classical/historical) atheism = "No gods exist", or " aka "strong atheism"
(2) (contemporary) atheism = lack of belief in the existence of gods, aka, "weak atheism"
Here is the "official" definition from the American Atheist website:
"Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
Note (1) : this is the organization founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair in 1959. She is most famous for her lawsuit over prayer in the schools.
Note (2): She was not a student at the time. She was concerned about her son, Franklin, having to recite the Lord's Prayer in school. Interesting that this same son is now a Christian evangelist! Upon his conversion, Ms. O'Hair broke off all ties with him. I guess some atheists are bigots after all! Oh well, life does throw us curve balls!
And then, what are we to think of atheists who argue one position one time and then claim a different position at a later time?
I do not want to name names, but the initials for one such atheist are "Knight of BAAWA". Here are a few of his gems:
"And atheism requires no faith at all. Atheism is not solely and only the denial that there is a god, but it is not having the belief that there is a god." (from another article)
"Frankly: there is no god" (from post #74 of THIS thread!)
In the other article, he fought long and hard protecting his first position, refusing to admit that he actually held the second position, only to expose himself here!
But, what I want to know is: Do atheists now apologize for calling agnostics "gutless atheists"? It was almost thirty years ago that I ran into Ms. O'Hair in an airport, and back then, the atheists I debated had only contempt for agnostics. My, how life does throw us curve balls!
ray at 8:16PM on Oct 26th 2007
701. The greatest myth past off as truth and that so
much so, it causes those who believe it to hate
all those who do not. I'm not talking about the
Koran (even though it is a myth), I'm talking
about one that is responsible for more people
being killed than any other.
It was believed by men Like Adolf Hitler, Stalin,
and many more like them.
The myth they believed was call "Darwinism".
There is absolutly no evidence and even Darwin
said, if there is no fossil record of evolution,
then his theory is wrong. Never been any found
that has not proven to be fake or stupidity by
those who found it. The stupidity belonged to
the one who showed us the missing link he made
from a pigs tooth.
They still use the drawings from this in their
chart showing many different ones proven wrong
yet they do not remove them from the chart
because the chart would disapear showing the
progression of mankind.
William Ehlert at 8:30PM on Oct 27th 2007
702. For all the real bright atheists out there I
have a little question or two.
Who is driving the little creatures inside
the cells in everyones bodies and who is
building the track in front of them as they
deliver nutrients to the cells and then
tears this track down behind them and again
builds it in front of them.
Who is holding our life in His hand? The
same One driving the little things that run
on the tracks He is laying.
Whats the problem with all you great atheists,
is your little tiny light beginning to flicker?
William Ehlert at 8:29PM on Oct 27th 2007
703. There are no gods.
There is no magic.
Is there life anywhere else in the universe? I think that that is likely because we know of one instance... us.
Was the universe caused by a vast consciousness? Unlikely. Where is it?
pboyfloyd at 3:38PM on Oct 28th 2007
704. Athiests don't believe in God because they can't see Him. One can only suppose they also don't believe in air, radiation, Neutrinos or Atoms. God is of a supernatural realm. The fact that we don't understand that realm does not negate the fact of its existence. We humans are bound by time, ergo, we can't conceive of infinity. Yet, we cannot disprove the existence of infinity. Christians accept infinity on faith. Amen.
Christians believe in the Bible, which provides a blueprint of the future. We will be prepared for Armageddon and the Anti-Christ, which will occur whether you believe or not.
Athiests, write yourself a note for future reference. The number of the Beast, or Anti-Christ is 666. In Hebrew, the letters of the alphabet are assigned a number. The name of the Anti-Christ, in Hebrew, will add up to 666. He will solve a problem, of world wide magnitude. He will be shot in the head, but will survive. He will demand that you worship him. If, you are fortunate enough to be alive during his reign, as predicted in Revelations, and you recognize him, and choose to finally worship God instead of the Anti-Christ, you will be beheaded by the Anti-Christ. But it will be worth it. The purpose of life is to love and serve God. The gift is eternal life in Heaven.
During Armageddon, you will be given a second chance to change your minds regarding the existence of God. Unless, by some misfortune, you die between now and then, and find out the hard way.
It has been intellectually stimulating to read the posts from athiests. Evidently many of you are well educated. It might be argued that some of you have reached the point of your incompetence. However, how one can ponder the precise order of the universe, with Nebula's 8,000 light yrs across, and think that we puny, ignorant humans are "it" astounds me. The speed of light, 4 quadrillion mph, multiplied by 8,000, gives us the length of that Nebula. Do athiests think that is a cosmic accident? The Earth spinning on its axis, just the right distance from the Sun to maintain life, is an accident? That gravity is an accident? An Acorn, lying dormant on the ground all Winter, sprouts in Spring, destined to be a 100' Oak tree? That during a drought, plants go to seed, ensuring survival?That this life we live, now, is all there is? What a forlorn thought. I prefer to be continually amazed at the power of my Creator.
Scientists have long known that, if the Universe was created by the Big Bang, as Christians believe, there would be residue consisting of micro-waves. The Hubble proved the existence of those micro-waves. Further proof exists in the fact the Universe if still expanding. Have you ever wondered what's on the "other side" of the expanding Universe? What is the Universe expanding in to? Could it be absolute nothing? Does the fact that you can't imagine what absolute nothing looks like mean it does not exist? When I used the term "absolute nothing", did you, for a nano second, get a picture of a void that was black? Wrong. Absolute nothing has no color. Nevertheless, I accept the fact that it exists,
For all of your education, you Athiests need to accept your intellectual limitations. Given, you have an excellent command of the English language but are incapable of deep thought, not to mention devoid of logic. My God has a Ph.D. in Quantam Physics, Medicine, Psychology, Horticulture, Astronomy, Volcanology, Meteorology, ad infinitim. I would think you would look forward to meeting Him. Talk about intellectual discussions....Wow!
Joyce at 3:52PM on Oct 28th 2007
705. @ Joyce..702
You say, "702. Athiests don't believe in God because they can't see Him."
This is called a straw man argument...
You go on, "One can only suppose they also don't believe in air, radiation, Neutrinos or Atoms."
Guffawing at your own straw man atheist.
Atheists don't believe that there are gods because they are undetectable.... unlike air or radiation or neutrinos or atoms.
Laugh away at your straw man, Joyce... just try not to suppose that you are laughing at real people.
pboyfloyd at 8:56PM on Oct 28th 2007