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 8 of 48)
106. Was Columbus an "idiot" for saying the world was round. He was discredited by his contemporary scientist who believed the world was flat.
---------------------------------------
Oops... You meant "was discredited by contemporary religious people who believed the world was flat" which isn't technically true either.
In colombus' day, no educated person believed that the world was flat. Colombus wasn't even the one to prove it was round. In earlier days when most people thought that it was flat, the church said that it was true, thet it was indeed, flat.
When people started to say that the world revolved around the sun and not vice-versa, religious people rejected THAT idea too. Your side has stood for stagnation and stupidity for centuries.
You're another idiot that talks without KNOWING anything. Maybe if you didn't get your "opinions" and your "faith" just from what others have told you or what you saw in writing, but from your own thought processing of that information, you wouldn't be such a dunce.
Brian at 4:36PM on Oct 19th 2007
107. 102 and 104 I'm glad that you can make such assumptions as to what I believe. I didn't even indicate weather or not I'm an atheist or a Buddhist or a Muslim. My point to you was that people like you have been so hell bent on disproving religion with your abundance of intellect that you don't even stop for one second to actually read what I wrote. So, please enlighten me and tell me once again what it is that I believe.
Marc at 4:43PM on Oct 19th 2007
108. It's amazing how christians use the argument that atheists can't know there isn't a god, Especially considering that atheists don't claim to know there is no god. It's a continual strawman argument that these idiots are never going to stop using.
I also like how DD thinks that because atheists can't prove there is no god that this is some how testament to the existence of his specific god (the christian one). Tell me DD, Does this post also prove the existence of Allah? Vishnu? Thor?
God Be Gone at 8:53PM on Oct 19th 2007
109. Marc,
Your point was flawed, as was shown.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 5:13PM on Oct 19th 2007
110. 55. 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.
So Brian, it seems as though, from your many anti-christian posts, you are pretty stead fast on your oppinion. Is it a fair assumption that your ego has gotten in your way? Why do people like you spend so much time and energy trying to belittle other peoples opinions or beliefs much like the author of this blog did.
Marc at 5:15PM on Oct 19th 2007
111. It is truly amazing how unbending people can be. Instead of this blog being a catalyst for thought. It has become an opportunity for people to dig their heels into the mire of their own convictions. Religion is the creation of man therefore it cannot help but be flawed. Science is based on the assumpations of man, hence flawed. Is there a God, in my humble opinion yes. Our we created in God's image, of course, therefore all the secrets of the universe are ours to discover through science. When will we understand its the adventure that matters not the destination.
D.Spencer at 5:29PM on Oct 19th 2007
112. D'Souza uses a deceptive rhetorical device to make his central point. He attributes to Hitchens, et. al. a position they don't necessarily hold and then criticizes that position as a way to detract from what Hitchens, et. al. are actually saying. To my knowledge Hitchens has never said "human beings can continually find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover" or "that human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality" or "atheists presume that reason is in principle capable of figuring out all that there is." This is D'Souza setting up a straw man he can conveniently knock down by launching into his irrelevant little thesis on Kantian philosophy. Logical rigor doesn't seem to be D'Souza's strong suit. He reminds me of Ann Coulter in that respect as he seems to blast off these nonsensical arguments without apparent concern that they are easily seen through by anyone with a lick of sense.
D'Souza did this just the other day is his mind-bogglingly simplistic article on evolution "The Atheist Indoctrination Project". In that, he sets up the flimsy argument that A: scientists mount vigorous political defenses of evolution but do not mount political defenses other scientific principles such as Boyles Law or photosynthesis, B: Christians fight against the teaching of evolution on religious grounds, therefore C: scientists so vehemently defend evolution, not because they are in the process defending scientific rigor in general, but because religion is the real issue of concern to them. In other words, because scientists don't actively and publicly defend all science with the same vigor they apply to evolution, the preservation of scientific rigor isn't really what concerns them about anti-evolutionists. Really, Dinesh, how stupid do you think we are? If some group tried repeatedly to introduce into schools the teaching of flimsy alternative theories to Boyles Law or to photosynthesis then, yes, scientists would launch public defenses of these accepted scientific principles as well. The fact is that no group is attempting to do this so why should scientists spend time and effort to rail against a non-existent foe?
D'Souza's silly argument that scientists are really concerned about religion in the evolution debate is easily punctured by using D'Souza's own example of Boyle's Law. Suppose that a fervently "anti-Boyles Law" lobby does come forward and works actively to have teaching of the Law banned from schools. Suppose also that their objection to the Law, by their own admission, is not based on religious grounds. They do not point to some religious text as infallibly proving that Boyle's Law is wrong. Clearly, the scientific community would forcefully and publicly fight to resist any efforts to ban the teaching of Boyles Law or the teaching of alternatives to Boyles Law that don't have an established scientific basis. Would the scientists in this case be hiding an anti-religious agenda behind the argument that they were really just defending scientific rigor? Clearly not, as there was no religious side in the argument to begin with. If pro-Boyles Law groups can object on non-religious grounds then why does D'Souza insist that pro-evolution scientists are closeted anti-religion groups? Why? Because that's another D'Souza strawman special!!!! Watch out for another one coming to your neighborhood soon!
John Galt at 5:41PM on Oct 19th 2007
113. Sorry, Knight_of_BAAWA, your attempt to show me that my point was flawed, just made it more evident that closed minded people like yourself only hear what they want to hear. Judging from post 102, you apparently know way more about me than I do. I'm glad that in all your sapient wisdom that you can tell me how I have formed my opinions and what I want. Where have you been all my life? I've been so lost without you.
Marc at 5:36PM on Oct 19th 2007
114. things-in-themselves???
An undetectable but attributed 'essence' of anything, a'la Platonic 'essences' has no scientific meaning. Period.
Drawing inferences from unobservable, unprovable, undetectable phenomena (e.g. the essence of the wafer is the 'body of Jesus Christ') may give thse of 'faith' some comfort, but it is a scientifically meaningless concept.
Does this rule out phenomena that cannot be experienced or detected by any observable means? No. But it does not validate the idea of things-in-themselves. To base one's world-view on such speculation often leads to intolerence.
While not endorsing the views of atheists, I find it absurd to base one's actions and choices on a set of unobservable, unprovable concepts. There are better justifications for 'moral behavior' and 'faith' than a dusty old rulebook who's proponents claim to be 'The Word of God.' The is no way to demonstrate the validity of such mythologies. Which puts Christianity on all fours with Islam, etc.
George at 11:32PM on Oct 19th 2007
115. Your pathetic attempt at sarcasm, Marc, only shows how deluded you are.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 5:44PM on Oct 19th 2007
116. DD: If you ever make your Theistic argument taking into acount perception psychology, quantum physics, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and neourophysiology, as opposed to 200 year old philospohy, argument by unprovability and moralistic abstractions, then you might get the attention of 'bright' people.
George at 11:34PM on Oct 19th 2007
117. This argument doesn't ring true. If we name (God) an aspect of this invisible world, that action alone distances us from it. I don't call myself an atheist, but I do not accept that this invisible world has any interest in me personally. I also object to the common Christian image of "the bearded white man on a cloud." I think that's the image many carry within them.
Alan Lantzer at 6:02PM on Oct 19th 2007
118. I am starting to realize that the only reason some people visit this forum is to tear others down. I wonder if this makes you somehow feel superior or more intelligent. In a sense it just proves how insecure and unsure you are of the answers. Human intelligence is based on the individual and Religion has nothing to do with it.
E at 6:04PM on Oct 19th 2007
119. Thanks, Brian and baawa, it's been fun debating with you. When you come up with some original grown-up comments to make I wouldn't mind carrying on the conversation.
Marc at 6:06PM on Oct 19th 2007
120. I don't blame Dennett for not responding. This looks more like undergrad philosophy homework than serious analysis.
I'm reminded of that Saturday Night Live sketch - Kant? Really? 18th-Century Immanuel Kant? You don't think anyone has had anything to say about Kant in the, oh, 200+ years since his death? You couldn't find, in the thousands of pages of philosophical analysis, re-analysis, and synthesis written about one of the most famous philosphers of all time, someone, somewhere who has responded to all of these arguments before? Multiple times? Really? Are you sure you aren't writing a textbook of philosophy exercises for children? Really? Your book isn't titled "How to provoke amateur philosophers into writing blog comments"? Really?!
eddroid at 6:13PM on Oct 19th 2007