Not So ‘Bright’
Atheists aren’t as rational as they think.
Mr. Dennett, like many atheists, is confident that atheists are simply brighter–more rational–than religious believers. Their assumption is: We nonbelievers employ critical reason while the theists rely on blind faith. But Mr. Dennett and his fellow “brights,” for all their credentials and learning, have been duped by a fallacy. This may be called the Fallacy of the Enlightenment, and it was first pointed out by the philosopher Immanuel Kant.
The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know, and that limit is reality itself. In this view, widely held by atheists, agnostics and other self-styled rationalists, 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, there is a much greater limit to what human beings can know. The only way that 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 that goes beyond, one that simply cannot be apprehended by our five senses?
Kant persuasively noted that there is no reason whatsoever for us to believe that we can know everything that exists. Indeed what we do know, Kant said, we know only through the refracted filter of our experience. Kant argued that we cannot even be sure that our experience of a thing is the same as the thing-in-itself. After all, we see in pretty much the same way that a camera does, and yet who would argue that a picture of a boat is the same thing as a boat?
Kant isn’t arguing against the validity of perception or science or reason. He is simply showing their significant limits. These limits cannot be erased by the passage of time or by further investigation and experimentation. Rather, the limits on reason 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.
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.
If Mr. Dennett and the rest of the so-called brights have produced refutations of Kant that have eluded the philosophical community, they should share them with the rest of us. But until then, they should refrain from the 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.
—Mr. D’Souza, a scholar at the Hoover Institution, is the author, most recently, of “What’s So Great About America” (Regnery, 2002).
Damn, I’d forgotten about this. Didn’t really catch on, at least not yet. Dennett isn’t exactly a master of salesmanship, but that’s what he was going for.
Atheists want to gain more adherents. Here’s a few suggestions:
1)Don’t make all your major spokespeople arrogant white males, who say animals don’t have real feelings (Dennett), women can’t be funny (Hitchens), child sexual abuse isn’t a big deal (Dawkins), and speculate about the necessity of proactively nuking Muslim countries (Harris). Maybe question the whole notion of unappointed spokespersons deciding who you are and what you’ll be called–because calling non-believers ‘brights’ is basically on a par with calling most of the human race stupid. Maybe that’s true, but it’s no less true of the majority of atheists. There’s a bit of a Nazi ring to assigning intelligence to one group, which isn’t surprising, considering Hitler wanted to get rid of Christianity and Judaism, since their silly moral strictures were standing in his way.
2)Admit atheism is a belief system, a form of religion. Secular, yes. But there have been secular religions going back to Comte, and further. You can have God without religion, and religion without God. It’s self-defeating to keep denying it. You can’t organize on a principle of not believing something. Doesn’t work. That will of course lead to factionalism (since atheists differ a great deal in their overall beliefs, most of which are as impossible to prove as God’s existence), but that’s an unavoidable part of creating a movement. A bunch of poor illiterates created the most powerful religion in world history, faced with torture and death. Today’s atheists face nothing remotely comparable, because of a pluralistic civil society created largely by Christians and Jews. But pluralism means accepting differences as a natural part of life. Not trying to eliminate them, or pretend they aren’t there. Atheism is a belief system. You can tell from the ‘ism’ part.
3) Promote tolerance and respect for all faiths (yes, including Islam), and then say your beliefs deserve the same respect. Many atheists won’t accept this–find the ones that do. Build on the best of what came before, don’t just try to tear it all down. And accept that some people will always believe in a higher power. If you win out someday, try to behave better than Christians did when they became the majority. (Or atheists in the eastern bloc nations, so you’ve already got a very bloody record to atone for.) You’d probably fail. Try anyway.
4)Treat atheists who try to convince people the historical Jesus is a myth as the shabby shills they are. Nobody tries to discredit Scientology by saying L. Ron Hubbard didn’t exist (I wish that were possible). Maybe even consider the possibility that the ideas of Jesus, as reflected in the gospels, are worth preserving, building upon, as unbelievers have done for centuries. A man doesn’t have to be God to be right. The Sheep and the Goats are all around us, and only a fool would deny it.
5)Following up on that last point–clearly atheists can be stupid, can be evil, can be destructive–clearly theists can be the same. As Jesus knew, you can’t decide who is good based on stated beliefs, because hypocrisy is everywhere. If atheists can only work with other atheists, they will achieve little of note. Work with people of like values, not like beliefs. This applies to everyone. By their fruit shall ye know them, and if a devout believer shares your goals, why not work with him/her? There will definitely be atheists who oppose you, all the more as your numbers grow. And there will be people of faith who support you, because their very faith tells them to. At the end of the day, beliefs matter far less than what you do with them. Jesus understood that. Do you?
6)Dinesh D’Souza is an asshole, and he doesn’t speak for anybody but himself. Dennett isn’t any better. Both are highly educated. Both are fools. There’s a lesson in there somewhere.
While this post certainly keys off godspell’s post this is not a direct response to him because…what’s the point? My post is directed towards any interested third parties who might wander by. I am only an expert in one person’s thinking and that’s mine so my responses will be personal.
1. The ‘New Atheists’ were a group of writers who published bestsellers in the mid-2000s in the wake of ‘9/11’ and a developing consciousness at home and abroad of the power and danger of unbridled religious fanaticism. They weren’t elected to anything by anybody. They wrote bestsellers – who the hell else were the media going to shove their cameras and microphones at? They weren’t spokesmen for anybody. In fact they’re been criticized just as much by other atheists as they have by believers. I would suggest instead of listening to opinions about them to go and read their actual work. Think about it (that’s the most important thing) and make up your own mind. (And don’t watch YouTube.)
2. Does anybody like being told by somebody else what you really believe without actually being asked? I’m an Atheist. I don’t believe in God. That seems pretty straightforward. I feel lucky to be able to say that out loud without being burned at the stake.
3. An atheist being lectured about tolerance is kind of funny, you know? On the best day of the year we top out at 3% of the population. I support the Enlightenment values inhabiting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I know of lots of Christians who apparently do not.
4. Jesus mythicism has nothing to do with atheism. Very few atheists are Jesus mythicists. (Stop watching YouTube.)
Look, if you really want to know what people believe and why, ask! Most folks are happy to talk about themselves. But don’t forget to ask the ‘why’ part. In a lot of cases the ‘why’ is more important than the ‘what’. (And if they haven’t really thought it through the ‘why’ is where you tell.)
Stephen, an atheist lecturing someone about tolerance after millions were slaughtered by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, might be considered a tad ironic, yes. “Oh that’s not the kind of atheist I am!” No, and most people aren’t the kind of theist who does that either. You love the double standard, don’t you? Not because you’re an atheist, but because you’d have been that way no matter what belief system you glommed onto. You need to believe you own the truth, and that’s the problem.
And indeed what is the point? You make up your mind before you ever start the discussion.
And you can’t even be honest about the undeniable fact you were responding to me. 😀
godspell said
Stephen, an atheist lecturing someone about tolerance after millions were slaughtered by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, might be considered a tad ironic, yes. “Oh that’s not the kind of atheist I am!” No, and most people aren’t the kind of theist who does that either. You love the double standard, don’t you? Not because you’re an atheist, but because you’d have been that way no matter what belief system you glommed onto. You need to believe you own the truth, and that’s the problem.And indeed what is the point? You make up your mind before you ever start the discussion.
And you can’t even be honest about the undeniable fact you were responding to me. 😀
No I really wasn’t responding to you. Now I am.
I find this accusation about Stalin, et al against atheism very interesting and somewhat curious. I don’t hold much hope but maybe you can help me understand.
What exactly is the point? That any society dominated by atheists would tend to Stalinism? But then how do you explain the fact that the secular West includes the freest most prosperous states in the world with the highest levels of education? (Conversely most of the states currently dominated by religion are miserable shitholes.)
It’s true that Soviet Communism was ideologically committed to atheism, but do you really imagine that the majority of people who carried out the actions that horrify us were all atheists? The system was totalitarian. The vast majority of people whatever their beliefs did what they were commanded to, at gunpoint.
Atheists can be bloodthirsty psychopaths just like they can be anything else. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god. Fat people can be atheists. Skinny people. Conservatives, Liberals, etc etc. Atheism doesn’t tell you what you do believe merely what you don’t.
The accusation of Stalinism against atheists seems incoherent. Perhaps you will explain it to me.
I’m the person who posted the D’Souza article. I’ve read the recent posts, and I’m almost frightened by the polemics. For Godspell to call D’Souza an asshole disqualifies him, in my view, from rational dialogue. It belies much of what he is saying in his posts.
On the rest, I just of find much of it counterproductive and at times vituperative.
I’m not saying some good points weren’t made, and I respect each of you.
I don’t see that either of you actually addressed D’Souza’ arguments.
He is an asshole. Whether I agree with him on a given point or not. He has lived a dishonorable life, and I don’t believe he has even one iota of genuine religious faith. To him, religion is just a rallying point for his side to gain power by exploiting the naive. It’s backfired pretty badly.
And Dennett is the other side of the coin.
The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable, as Oscar Wilde might term it. 😉
Stephen said
No I really wasn’t responding to you. Now I am.
I find this accusation about Stalin, et al against atheism very interesting and somewhat curious. I don’t hold much hope but maybe you can help me understand.
What exactly is the point? That any society dominated by atheists would tend to Stalinism? But then how do you explain the fact that the secular West includes the freest most prosperous states in the world with the highest levels of education? (Conversely most of the states currently dominated by religion are miserable shitholes.)
It’s true that Soviet Communism was ideologically committed to atheism, but do you really imagine that the majority of people who carried out the actions that horrify us were all atheists? The system was totalitarian. The vast majority of people whatever their beliefs did what they were commanded to, at gunpoint.
Atheists can be bloodthirsty psychopaths just like they can be anything else. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god. Fat people can be atheists. Skinny people. Conservatives, Liberals, etc etc. Atheism doesn’t tell you what you do believe merely what you don’t.
The accusation of Stalinism against atheists seems incoherent. Perhaps you will explain it to me.
No Stephen. You’re wrong. Atheism is rationalizing disbelief, as religion is rationalizing belief. A person of no religion at all can have moments of deep belief in something greater, and a person who has been religious all his/her life can have moments of utter disbelief. There is no rational basis for belief or disbelief. It’s a choice, and one must understand it as such. And the choice, whatever it is, should be respected–as long as the person making that choice respects the choices of others. You need some work there.
You just don’t understand, probably because you’ve never really tried to undersand yourself, a common problem. Your atheism is emotional, anger-laden, and full of ressentiment (I use the French advisedly, remembering Nietzsche). It’s not something to be taken seriously–until it achieves power.
Atheism has only held real power in the communist states. It did not go well (The Russian Revolution and its aftermath was oe of the things I studied in grad school). It was exponentially worse than anything experienced in any theocratic state, unless you count the ISIS caliphate. But i’d happily agree that it’s a bad thing when any belief system gets total power. It was, however, under Christianity that modern Democracy and pluralism and separation of church and state took hold. Atheism gets no credit for that win. Since the Nazis were out to destroy Christianity as a weakening of the pure Aryan spirit, one could argue it gets credit for some of the recent attacks on civil society.
There are no Democratic countries where most people define themselves as atheists. There are some where skepticism or anticlericalism are fairly dominant, but there’s been a backlash to that, which comes with its own problems. One extreme leads to another. Again–sheep and goats–you find them in every paddock.
If you’d studied history–really studied it–you might be able to understand this. But instead you just think “This is my team, and I have to support the team!”
Query–you’ve seen my ideas about Jesus.
In what Christian church could I walk in, state those ideas, and not be called an atheist? But I don’t have to call myself anything at all, except a human being. Which is bad enough.
If atheists can be cruel, selfish, stupid, self-involved, and mindlessly devoted to ideas they can’t prove–what’s the point in changing horses?
Me? I’ll walk.
🙂
I feel like Stephen is a person who, though I disagree with him, it at least sincere and rational (and smart).
I think godspell’s comments are crude, disrespectful, hateful and unworthy of this website.
If there is a way for me to to report him to Bart or the monitor of this website, be assured I will.
Go ahead. But I can see elsewhere, another poster who doesn’t think Stephen is so nice. Should he do some kind of report as well? FYI, there’s no monitor. That’s made very clear. There are basic standards of conduct, and I’m pretty sure I’ve violated none of them. But if I have, I’m not the only one.
So maybe you need to deal with the fact that not everybody here agrees, or ever will–about ideas, or people, or what good manners is. And that nobody here actually knows anybody else here. Not really. The people in my real life would all say you were flat-out wrong about me. And I hope you wouldn’t say I should care more about the opinion of words on a screen than three dimensional human beings. I won’t, even if you do. Because that way lies madness.
And without honesty, conversation is quite pointless–impossible, really.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** said
I feel like Stephen is a person who, though I disagree with him, it at least sincere and rational (and smart).I think godspell’s comments are crude, disrespectful, hateful and unworthy of this website.
If there is a way for me to to report him to Bart or the monitor of this website, be assured I will.
rdrstarbase,
I’ve been a blogger practically from the beginning and want you to know those on The Forum were given the choice of having a monitor or monitoring ourselves. We chose the latter. I’ve asked Steefen to explain how to make use of a method to remove those we prefer not to have access to (comments from or to). Perhaps he can help.
As for whether or not Dr. Ehrman ever checks on The Forum, once when someone was exceedingly verbose, I asked him to please give us a break explaining it was just too much. Immediately, I had a personal email from Dr. Ehrman letting me know he would take care of it. He did. I would not be surprised if either Dr. Ehrman or Stephen (his IT person) checks The Forum from time to time.
Although incapable of offering anything of value, I find The Forum most interesting and hope problems that arise can be resolved.
godspell said
Thanks for clarifying, Judith. I’ve only been posting here a few months. Brenmcj insisted I come over and talk to him. Now he’s gone, who knows why.If being too verbose is a problem, it’s certainly one I suffer from.
Not alone, though. 😉
godspell,
After Dr. Ehrman, your comments are those I most want to read (except when unhappy with someone here on The Forum:-).
And you gave us “The Airy Christ”. I’m grateful!
** you do not have permission to see this link ** said
An October 12, 2003 Wall Street Journal piece written by Dinesh D’Souza entitled “Not So Bright” is very interesting to me. As I see it, the article gives an opening to those who believe in God. It’s true that the author is controversial, but for that matter, so is Bart Ehrman! You can search the WSJ, or this link may help:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I you are interested and can’t access the article, I can email it to you if given your email contact.
Rick
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)