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 7 of 48)
91. "Basically Dennett was relying on the argumentum ad ignorantium-the argument that relies on the ignorance of the audience." Oh, Dinesh...guess what, you're wrong.
The argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance") refers to: 1)something not currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, therefore being (or not being) true; or 2)because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven. The audience for such a logical fallacy has nothing to do with the definition of the fallacy.
"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?"
As an atheist and a materialist I make no such assumption in the absolute sense. I draw no such conclusion about ultimate reality - I merely use this assumption to find material explanations first. Therefore, when a person gets sick I wonder about the symptoms and their possible material causes before we start talking about evil spirits or curses. Whenever I have found a cause, it was always material and therefore there was no reason to investigate the supernatural. If people want to invoke the origin of the universe, then my answer is, this investigation is still ongoing.
Certainly I wouldn't be surprised to find DD's book on the NYT bestseller list. But I doubt that his surly and rather puerile musings will ultimately make the history books.
Kristine at 3:43PM on Oct 19th 2007
92. "We are all born Atheist . . . religion is taught"
Jeff at 3:45PM on Oct 19th 2007
93. And I just love how you guys can't even type GOD. You have to type G-d. I sometimes think that you think the missing letters are "o-l" since you all care so much about money.
You fear even typing the word, so afraid of your god are you. Fear is so much of your faith. Whenever I see apost full of "G-d" I know it's going to be irrational in advance. Thanks.
Brian at 3:47PM on Oct 19th 2007
94. Fitz:
"#1.Watch DD's book land on the NYT bestseller list."
Why do you think he's posting blog entries like that? Unfortunately, they haven't had nearly as many comments as that Coulter one that Ada Calhoun did.
"#2. Why such virulent sniping - and so little substantive posting."
Have you been reading the comments? There's a little bit of anger (understandable when someone headlines their post with an insult), but there's quite a bit of good responses.
"#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."
Only one or two people mentioned that. What do you have to say about what everyone else is posting?
"#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)"
I haven't seen any of that on here yet, but how is positing an infinity of different universes or space aliens any more ludicrous and laughable than a single supernatural being having done so? Is it because the aliens missed their book window 2000 years ago?
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.
Tem at 3:46PM on Oct 19th 2007
95. Whoops, missed the bottom part there, sorry.
"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."
It makes sense from an effort standpoint. If most of the people arguing here are Christians, why would someone post a comment disagreeing with the Aztec religion? How many people believe in that nowadays?
Tem at 3:48PM on Oct 19th 2007
96. What would be the simplest explanation for this universe? That would account for the maximum number of observations that we've made of it? I used to ask myself this all the time. I knew it couldn't be something that we'd thought of before, since all of those theories have huge holes in them, even science in a way, though science is the best single one of all so far. But still science sees infinities in time and distance, and quantum paradoxes galore, along with things like the wave-particle duality and entanglement, which are hard to explain. SO I thought and thought, and studied a lot of different sources, and this is what I came up with...
Simplest Explanation for this Universe:
It's all a vast mind, or very similar to one. Now I KNOW that's a hard one for a christian, or most anybody, to ever believe. But give me a chance to explain. Oh, and if you can't follow this, it doesn't mean that it's not true, so perhaps some study would be in order, at least before you dismiss it. Not that you won't.
Imagine it as if we're all complex thought patterns in a vast mind of some sort. We think of ourselves as matter, and the universe as matter and energy and space and time, but if it were all more like a mind, it negates the problems of the infinite. The universe would be as large as we think it is, and as old as we think it is... The more we looked, the more we'd find, but in a mind this is all interplay of consciousness and not the real traversing of space, so infinity is not a problem... We feel as solid matter and a rock feels hard and heavy, but they're consciousness or thoughts too, but since WE are as well, the rock feels heavy and we feel solid to ourselves. As we've developed over the years we've formed this vast mind by our subconscious expectations of it, since it IS us, and all other things as well. Thus it conforms to our expectations of it, follows logical rules, etc. We are individuals, yes, but only at the conscious and near-conscious levels. At the deep subconscious level we all share the same identity, as does everything else, since we're all made of the one thing, mind, in a world of the same. So, the person looking out of your eyes and calling yourself "Me" is, at the deepest level, IDENTICAL with the person that looks out of MY eyes and says the same. God, or the Universe, is ONE, and we're all a part of it, connected at every point. There's only ONE "sense-of-identity" in the universe. That's what that means. We just all have it and think it unique to us as individuals, and it's not. Now if in this vast mind you manage to convince yourself that it's all due to an anthropomorphic God, this reality/mind will accomodate you and give you "signs" that you're on the right track, EVEN THOUGH YOU AREN'T!!! It will give you exactly what you expect it to in your deep subconscious. If I meditate strongly enough, I get the same types of signs, and I'm not a believer in any God, really. Strange coincidences, synchronicities, and actual events taking place that related to my meditation... Even at times, wish-fulfillment... You can produce this with prayers, if you REALLY believe deeply. It won't matter that what you REALLY believe in isn't TRUE, either. You can pray to a big Shoe in the sky, and if you have enough belief, real-world phenomena can and will occurr that seem to be an answer to your "prayers" with no god needed other than this universe, which in it's entirety, can be called God but more accurately is just the mind that we all call home. It's not a human mind, but it's composed of all minds and all things.
Seems simple enough, if you have an imagination. Now tell me why it can't be true. You can't. In fact, it explains EVERYTHING. Not one thing left out. It's the only theory that can even come close to doing that. All scientific problems, the mind-body problem, the placebo effect, miracles, faith-healings, synchronicities, deja-vu, "signs," ESP, clairvoyance, all psychic phenomena including hauntings, and even your belief in your god.
It can’t be proven yet, but it looks like it might be provable in the near future, if it’s true, of course. The beginnings of proof are already there. Look at the quantum realm, with all its strangeness and problems, which vanish if we assume that the universe is all consciousness. But as of right now, it can’t be proven. Neither can your God, or anyone else’s, but since it explains not only your god but all others, and science, and scientific fallacies and paradoxes, and indeed ALL mysteries, and has hopes of being proven in time by science, it’s far superior to any other faith or religion.
Brian at 3:56PM on Oct 19th 2007
97. There are even two movies that I can think of that assume this version of the universe.
One is "What the Bleep Do We Know?"
The other one is "I Heart Huckabees"
Both are worth watching, especially the first one.
Brian at 3:59PM on Oct 19th 2007
98. "These materialist explanations neither have the historical lineage of religion, the ethical track record nor the number of adherents
------------------------------------------
So what you're saying is that the new and provable ideas haven't been around long enough for you to believe in them. Interesting. To a sane person, this is a reason TO believe in them, or at least consider them seriously. But to you, if it's not two thousand years old, it can't be right.
WOW.
Brian at 4:11PM on Oct 19th 2007
99. Oops! My post 96 assumed that the poster felt that way. On further reading of the post, the poster was illustrating a point against religious people. I take it back.
Brian at 4:24PM on Oct 19th 2007
100. I am bothered by the fact that me beliefs are discredited based on the fact that I can't "prove" my beliefs. I didn't choose what I believe in blind faith. I didn't choose what I believe solely based on what someone else has told me or what I read. I have had experiences in life that has firmly proven to me that there is more to this life than what contemporary science can convince me of otherwise. Was Columbus an "idiot" for saying the world was round. He was discredited by his contemporary scientist who believed the world was flat. I can go on and on about the foolish things science has tried to prove once in the past and failed. There really is a difference between "science" and what we currently know. "Science" continually disproves itself, however, I'm not saying that we should throw science out the window. I just think that in years science will uncover some interesting facts.
Just like I can't "prove" to you that what I know is real, you can't "prove" to me that it isn't. It is amazing to me that there are so many people out there that have tried to convince me that what I believe is fake. My own brother said I was making it up. I'm sure there are other theories to discredit my beliefs like I'm imagining it or I've been duped or something along those lines. In that case, if I'm so gullible, I can't trust any of my senses enough to believe anything in this life is real.
I understand that some things are hard to swallow without tangible evidence. Me trying to explain to a sceptic is like trying to explain color to a group of blind people or trying to describe the taste of salt.
Lastly, don't put your trust in only what someone has told you. Find out for yourself. Just because I read a book that says evolution is true or that creation is true, doesn't mean that it is. That is second hand knowledge. Keep an open mind. Use your intellegence and your heart. Ask and it should be revealed.
Marc at 4:26PM on Oct 19th 2007
101. This is what we've figured out by ourselves, with our own eyes:
The Earth is at least 4.5 BILLION years old, if not as much as 6 billion.
The Universe is at least 13 billion years old, if not more. Possibly much more.
Starlight coming from the very nearest of the stars, traveling at 186,232 miles per SECOND, takes about 4 1/2 YEARS to get here from there. A long way off
The farthest stars are 13 billion light-years away. The light that we see coming from them is 13 billion years old. How did God make it, if the universe is young? In mid-space traveling to here so we'd think it were old? He thinks of everything, that deceptive, cagey God of ours. What a good liar! Of course He is, He's good at everything.
Dinosaurs died 65 million years ago. But many species became our birds. Seriously. The birds are the remnants of the dinosaurs. It's easy to see that if you really look at it.
First "people" (Ramipithecus) 10 million years ago or less. Three feet high.
First appearance of Homo Sapiens (That's us): about 130,000 years ago. Or more. A lot longer than the bible tells us.
First human civilizations, villages, towns etc.: 130,000 years ago or more
Recorded History: About the last 5000 years or so. Mere moments, when you look at how long we have been here. We've been here 26 times longer than we've written about it. WOW!!!!!!!
Christ: If He lived, about 2000 years ago.
Christianity, about the same obviously.
One Hundred and Thirty Thousand Years of people being pretty much the same as we are today, sans our technology of course. We really know about only 5000 or so of those, except for archeological digs. Only two thousand years of it under Christianity. And even today, this minute, there are over 600 living religions on this world. Multiply that by two hundred thousand years. A HECKUVA lot of religions and belief systems. All of them claimed to be the one, true religion, too. But we're the right ones. Yeah. We got it right, finally. Sure we did.
One can see how unlikely it is that the Bible is correct. By many, many different yardsticks it doesn't measure up to the easily observable facts. So, it's not literally true. Simple answer to a simple question.
My original question was, "Why did God lie to us?" By this I mean, if He put things here that point clearly to the Bible truths not being true at all, isn't that a deception? However, if the Bible isn't true, and if He was responsible for the text of the bible, He lied there. So, either way, dishonesty from God.
The only other option possible is that science is right after all, and the Bible is allegorical, which doesn't reduce it's beauty or value one whit. But many Christians will accept nothing less than complete victory in this argument. Their way or the highway. Afraid that if the Bible isn't true word-for-word, then their Faith means nothing. That, to me, is the real sin here.
Christians = children scared in a self-imposed darkness.
Science = The Light Switch
Now go forth and multiply. Oh, and divide, subtract, and add as well. Get some education, come back, and then we can have an adult conversation. Tell me why God lied.
Brian at 4:29PM on Oct 19th 2007
102. To insist that there is a God is as unintelligent as insisting there isn't. The only intelligent answer is "I don't know". We may have theories, concepts and conclusions but still no observable facts to conclusively prove or refute the existence of God. If there is an "answer" it may be impossible to find it in the field of thought. Conclusions, theories and concepts, no matter how widely held or vigously asserted, all spring from conditioning and are confined to the field of human thought. The question " is there a God" is unanswerable as posed. The nature of the questioner, itself an accumulation and expression of the past and of conditioning, is the fatal flaw.
Hako at 4:29PM on Oct 19th 2007
103. Tem, even though I don't believe in what you call "laughable theories". what makes them so laughable? Give me the evidence that says otherwise.
Marc at 4:32PM on Oct 19th 2007
104. Marc,
"I didn't choose what I believe in blind faith."
Actually, you did.
"I didn't choose what I believe solely based on what someone else has told me or what I read."
Actually, you did.
"I have had experiences in life that has firmly proven to me that there is more to this life than what contemporary science can convince me of otherwise."
IOW: you're just assuming that the cause of your experiences is god.
"Was Columbus an "idiot" for saying the world was round. He was discredited by his contemporary scientist who believed the world was flat."
No, he wasn't. In fact, most people knew the Earth was spheroid. The ancient Greeks knew it a couple hundred years BCE. So....
"I can go on and on about the foolish things science has tried to prove once in the past and failed. There really is a difference between "science" and what we currently know. "Science" continually disproves itself,"
No, it does no such thing. What you're really railing about is that the more we research, the more we learn. You want a static set of knowledge. Reality isn't like that.
"Just like I can't "prove" to you that what I know is real, you can't "prove" to me that it isn't."
Don't have to.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 4:33PM on Oct 19th 2007
105. Hako,
The question of whether or not there is a god is just as answerable as the question of whether or not there are square circles.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 4:34PM on Oct 19th 2007