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 6 of 48)
76. The weakness of all of these arguments is that they don't prove anything nor argue anything that can be proven. The fact that reality is not objective does not mean that one leaps to the conclusion that there are supernatural forces. The constant flaw in the religious proponenent's argument is that God might exist because he cannot be excluded to a moral certitude. It should be noted that questioning religion based on scientific analyses is still somewhat a recent phenomena and we are not all that far away from a time when it was generally accepted, even by the scientific community, that god exists. The problem with the god debate is that there is no amount of proof that the religious will consider adequate to overcome thier basic premise that god needs no proof. One cannot argue both the proposition that faith precludes the necessity for proof and also that since god hasn't been 100% eliminated as existing, he must exist. The existence of god could easily be proved by god if he truly exists and he is omnipotent and omnicient. The fact that god has not chosen to unambiguously make his existence known is itself rather damning.
eric at 2:54PM on Oct 19th 2007
77. al,
Your words certainly betray a disdain for logic and reason. You said that logic and rational[ity] (reason) alone cannot find out everything. Well why not? Just because you want to sneak in faith or revelation or some other such nonsense? Is that it? If not: please let me know, since I can think of no other reason.
Frankly: there is no god, and we humans are not in "rebellion" (whatever that means).
Knight_of_BAAWA at 2:54PM on Oct 19th 2007
78. A Question for the Christian Believers that have no doubt that Jesus is the one true lord, the only son of God. Who believe that their beliefs are completely true. The unshakeably Faithful. Those that believe absolutely that they are right. The Christianity is Truth with a capital T.
If many countless billions of other people of different faiths, past and present, are also absolutely sure in their minds that their God is the one true God/Gods or that their religion is the one true religion, and have as much conviction that THEY are absolutely right and correct as CHRISTIANS have, what then makes you Christians the "real" right ones and all those other billions of people wrong? Tell me that. Tell me the thing that makes you all the right ones and all the people that are just as believing in their faiths wrong. You can't say "Christ" since they'd counter with their god, whom they think is just as swell.
What have you got? Nothing. Nothing at all, but myths, and they have those too. Dead in the water. I've never gotten even a slightly satisfactory answer to this one. Most answers include in them logical fallacies that you could drive a truck through. As if the arguers were on my side.
The fact that there CAN BE no answer to this question other than that Christians are egotistically deceiving themselves, one and all, doesn't seem to stop them from trying to answer it.
I've had answers like "My religion is NOT a fantasy! It's the one, true religion! It's real, all of it, at least in my mind." At least in YOUR MIND? Please no other ridiculous self-negating statements like that, don't waste time trying to go that route.
Nope, it doesn't look good. You got nothing. Soooooo, time to change yourselves to better reflect reality. Can't bring yourself to? Time to seek professional help. Psychoses are dangerous. It really IS that simple.
You too can find the peace that passeth all understanding, as long as you lack understanding
Brian at 2:55PM on Oct 19th 2007
79. maybe kant was simply being unreasonable?
eric at 3:12PM on Oct 19th 2007
80. I'm not posting this to start fights or to insult people. Although some controversy isn't a bad thing. You see, I've just about had enough of Christians that think their religion is the only path to salvation and therefore make it their life's humanitarian mission to SAVE all the other people that differ in beliefs. If Jesus really meant that, then he was just wrong, or the rest of His message, the part about REALLY loving others, makes no sense. And that's the only good part.
If you are as good as the Christian that gets into heaven, but you don't, ONLY because you didn't believe in Christ, then the religion is more about membership than real goodness in any form, END OF SUBJECT. I have zero respect for the hypocrites. Go save yourselves, oh misinterpreters of whatever real value was in Christ's message. You throw out the baby and drink the bathwater. I have to try not to get upset or angry at you, since I'm a father and I know when errant children need correction, but you infants are inexcusable. Too bad you never learned to see the world without the blinders of your faith.
You believers out there that think I'm wrong are victims of mass psychosis; therefore your judgments are of no consequence. I waste my time trying to save YOU, silly ones. You cannot think. Your reality is delusional, based on your wishes that derive from ego. You want to be holy, and membership in the club assures you that you're holier and closer to God than those of other faiths or of none at all. Then you start to feel SO DARN GOOD about yourselves, you lose all perspective. You want to be good, and it is this very desire that causes you to be the opposite.
Don't you know about doing good unto others? It assumes that you KNOW absolutely just exactly what is indeed best for the others concerned. If wrong, congratulations, you've just done an equal amount of EVIL. And if you think that there is no chance that you are wrong, you’re a fool. Anyone can be wrong sometime. If you think that you can be absolutely sure that YOUR RELIGION and no other one of the over 600 active religions on Earth today, or indeed any other belief system, including many FAR OLDER than Christianity, is without any doubt the one and only true religion, then you're egotistical children sadly in need of an education in the real world. I mean the world as described through the only sane lens through which we can look at this physical world, Science. Another name of logical thought and careful observation and testing. This is what you are lacking in order to make a correct judgment. More knowledge of just how magnificent the real world is, and not your religion, a relic of the unenlightened past. The ability to ask the right questions. The ability to make sense out of reality without a crutch. Learning to have thoughts, which can be updated, rather than beliefs, which are set in stone. Seeing real beauty unencumbered by a belief system that has taboos, boundaries, and limits, and one that discourages the most important thing that a person can do to grow. The asking of questions. Real questions. Oh, they answer them, but the answers don't even satisfy a child. Eventually, the child involved most often just gives up on seeing real sense in the world and conditions themselves or are conditioned to not ask questions any more at all, and just have "Faith." Then, alas, another mind is lost. Slam!
Christ's message of peace is all that there is of value in the whole damn book. See? Just me using the word "damned" in relation to the Bible irked you, didn't it? Completely conditioned. Lockstep soldiers for an egotistical god.
Brian at 3:00PM on Oct 19th 2007
81. Kant?
Please see the teachings of the Buddha on The Two Truths!
kindnsruls at 3:01PM on Oct 19th 2007
82. And on the Buddha, he said "Pay no attention to what people have said, even if I have said it..."
I only WISH your god was so credible and aware of human nature when he talked to us. (Of course, Buddha never claimed to be a deity) It might have given some of you egomaniacs a measure of HUMILITY...
Brian at 3:05PM on Oct 19th 2007
83. I am amazed by the pseudo intellectual thesis Mr. D’Souza’continues on with here. With a single archaic 18th century source, he refutes and diminishes all atheists and finally stoops to the ad hominem argument, the brights are not so bright.
All (without exception) religious scripture is the work of man written centuries after they were represented to have been written. They are in proven fact, lies based upon lies. At their root, there is good intention but contain egregious falsehoods that bring men to do horrible things in the name of their theology.
Is there a divine presence? That is as Mr. D’Souza’ says unknowable. In fact many atheists will agree.
Religion however, is also a sham and that is a knowable and provable fact.
Alouisis at 3:08PM on Oct 19th 2007
84. eric--------Your right no amount of scientific proof will ever effect the beliefs of organized religions. There is too much MONEY (MAMMON) involved. No religion is giving up that gravy train.I mean DD wants to make a pile selling his Jesus books.
Larry at 3:08PM on Oct 19th 2007
85. I obviously am a lover of science, and so I'm particularly upset at the current administration and the Religious Right, but I suppose this isn't the format for me venting about it. So, I'll refrain from some irate speech, and just say that I hope that people someday realize that all science really is is another name for rational thought. It is humanity's name for the best system of rational thought (as it applies to physical, non-spiritual things) that we the collective human race has ever devised. We worked hard to amass our scientific knowledge, and we are constantly improving it. Observing and testing. Being logical, observant, and open-minded. Proving things.
If you disapprove of or disbelieve in THAT due to your religion, you're really saying that you prefer to cling to blind faith than to learn to more accurately judge your surroundings and see how things work for yourself. And you're saying it loudly and strongly. Fine. That is your prerogative. If someone wants to hold their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la" to reality it's fine by me. I understand. The real world is scary to those unfamiliar with it. It is, however, more beautiful and interesting and yes, even spiritual, the more that you know about it.
My deeper objection to these attitudes arises here: It's not as if religious folk don't USE science themselves, rely on it even, every single minute of every single day. This seems, for lack of a more delicate term, hypocritical.
Practically everything we as a species have and are materially, over and above our mere physical bodies, is due to our science. The man that first picked up a bone and tried using it as a club was a scientist. The wheel, guns, tanks, bombs, body armor, cameras, running water, modern clothing, modern shoes, newspapers, houses, churches, banks, skyscrapers, indoor plumbing, neighborhoods, medicines, vaccines, insecticides, modern agriculture, electricity, computers, movies, recorded music, musical instruments, television, weather reports forewarning hurricanes, paved roads, cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, all this and almost infinitely more, would never have been without the boogeyman science. These things are all products of scientific thought, experimentation, and the scientific method, in one form or another. I don't see Religious Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates or Biblical Literalists going without any of this great stuff in protest. Why not? To openly dislike science and yet to still continue to reap the benefits thereof is patently hypocritical, and yet they still insist on wearing clothes and shoes and using their microwave ovens to heat up their TV dinners. Oh, and having health insurance. Why bother when you don't believe in medicine?
And then they go and wonder why others, especially those that understand what science really is, cannot take their ideas seriously. It's hard not to laugh at those that call themselves illogical out loud, and seem proud of the fact.
Faith is a virtue, except where blind. And who among them can say that they have eyes to see? If God made everything, including us, then He also made our minds. To suggest that He wished us not to use them in the best way possible for the improvement of all is blasphemy. It is tantamount to calling God evil. And how does learning the best, most efficient way of judging the physical world preclude the existence of a God in the spiritual one?
Personally, I don't wish to go back to the days of mud huts.
Oh, I just realized that even the proper construction of a mud hut was something that had been improved through generations of experimentation amongst our primitive ancestors, and thus was also a product of science. You just can't get away from it, can you?
Brian at 3:12PM on Oct 19th 2007
86. So human beings can only grasp a portion of reality. Even with that fact admitted, how does it make the belief that God exists any more reasonable than the belief that he/she/it doesn't? The best argument for the existence of God is the universe itself. How did it come into being? Something must have created it. Even if theoretical physicists finally succeed in describing all the rules of the universe, the "theory of everything," there will still be the problem how and by whom those rules were established. My conclusion is therefore that there will always be a necessity to believe "God" exists (or at least existed when the unverse was created). However, like Einstein, I'm in no way convinced that such a God is interested in the affairs of humans or in our beliefs about he/she/it. At some point in the distant future a nexus between God and the human race may become evident, but I see little justification for a definite conclusion either way at this point in history. So I do believe in God as the creator of the universe, but beyond that the best descriptor of my beliefs is "agnostic."
Gary A. at 3:18PM on Oct 19th 2007
87. #1.Watch DD's book land on the NYT bestseller list.
#2. Why such virulent sniping - and so little substantive posting.
#3. Kant is one of modernity’s greatest acknowledged philosophers; just because DD has made his work assessable to your average Christian doesn’t make those conundrums for strict materialists any less salient.
#4. Positing a real lack of knowledge for strict materialists opens up considerable space for the efficacy of theism and specific revealed religions. Confronted with this same lack of knowledge strict materialists have been known to posit the most ludicrous & laughable explanations for unanswerable questions (Like there are an infinity of different universes, with this one having produced life, or that space aliens brought life to this planet)
These materialist explanations neither have the historical lineage of religion, the ethical track record nor the number of adherents – yet they a rarely dismissed as equitable to children’s fairy tales.
Fitz at 3:20PM on Oct 19th 2007
88. This is all about a right wing "think tank"
perpetuating another one of their wedge issues
that they continually use to divide Americans
into opposing camps. ie.christian=republican,
atheist=Democrat is the implication.
It's one of their techniques to get 1 issue
working class voters to vote against their
own best interests by voting for " Christian
republicans.
BOB JOHNSON at 3:22PM on Oct 19th 2007
89. I enjoyed reading Mr. Dinesh's comments and the argument he is using via Kant. I have found that there will always be someone who will disagree and refute things vigorously no matter how sound the presentation is. People want to believe what they want to believe and sometimes quite tenaciously no matter how much proof there is on the subject. G-d wants us to believe by faith that he exsists. He has given us the free will to choose him or not. He doesn't want automatons serving and worshipping him. Its anyones choice. Either believe he exsists or don't. But no matter what your belief is, at least have an open mind to at least listen to what others have to say before you make your decisions. Some people read this kind of commentary deciding right off that it won't make a difference as to whay they believe. That is just bull headedness. There is no way to prove that what we perceive as reality is really real. It is indeed all about perspective. Two people can look at the same painting and get two completely different opinions about it. My husband and I are amature photographers. The way I want to take a picture of something and interpret it may be completely different from the way he is viewing the same thing. Why is it that we are all unique individuals. Why are there no 2 people that are alike. Our retinas, our voices, our fingerprints. I believe each person lives in a basic reality but because we are unique individuals unto ourselves we see that reality just a little bit different. I love this because it expands my mind. I love exploring the possibility that G-d is real and that he holds us and this world together. What an exciting concept or to coin an old hippy term, FAR OUT man. To put it quite simply, you've got nothing to lose and everything to gain. Believing in G-d can only enrich a person and make them better. This is just my take on this whole subject. I know my life would be so empty if I didn't believe in G-d and tried to just fill it up with things moving from one thing to another all the time trying to get some satisfaction. How utterly lonely.
Tammy Ashley at 3:29PM on Oct 19th 2007
90.
BOB (writes)
"This is all about a right wing "think tank"
perpetuating another one of their wedge issues
that they continually use to divide Americans
into opposing camps. ie.christian=republican,
atheist=Democrat is the implication."
I thought DD was simply countering the spate of books by Dawkins, Hitchins, Wilson & others that God did not exist & Christianity was dangerous..
BOB (writes)
"It's one of their techniques to get 1 issue
working class voters to vote against their
own best interests by voting for " Christian
republicans."
Does it follow then that the spate of books by Dawkins, Hitchins, Wilson & others is just a technique to get upper class voters to vote aginst their self interests by voting for "Godless democrats"
Fitz at 3:39PM on Oct 19th 2007