I’m currently slowly consuming Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” which admittedly is a challenging read. It reaffirms my belief that you can’t really disprove or prove God empirically.
I like how Dinesh D’Souza, a Christian, lays down the overall argument in an easy to understand manner in this article which I recommend.
I do have a problem with it though.
Kant exposes the ignorant boast of atheists that atheism operates on a higher intellectual plane than theism. He shows that reason must know its limits in order to be truly reasonable. Atheism foolishly presumes that reason is in principle capable of figuring out all that there is, while theism at least knows that there is a reality greater than, and beyond, that which our senses and our minds can ever apprehend.
Theism doesn’t truly know in the empirical sense of the word but instead believes based on faith that there is a reality beyond our senses.
If religion is merely the belief of a possible reality beyond our sensory perceptions, then Kant’s work suffices and debunks the usual atheist claim that there is no God or greater reality beyond our senses. Thing is, we all know religion can be and usually is more than that. Most troubling of all is religious dogmaticism and that’s why we must hold on to reason dearly. Although like Kant demonstrated, pure reason can’t show us everything.
Once I’m done with Kant’s book, I plan to delve into Ayn Rand’s work and Objectivist epistemology since I’m curious to know what made her call Kant a “monster.”
For something related, check out this amusing exchange between the atheist Sam Harris and the meditating Shahid.
- Shahid: Advice to atheists, from a Buddhist Muslim
- Sam: Sam Harris responds
- Shahid: A response to Sam Harris - and a challenge to us all
On top of that, here’s a very intriguing article I greatly enjoyed by Harris in the Washington Post. It’s long but seriously worth your time if you’re into this kind of stuff.
I love how he’s exploring conscienceless and the spiritual experience at the core of numerous religions from a purely secular and scientific perspective. Very interesting stuff…
… to me at least. 
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
If religion is merely the belief of a possible reality beyond our sensory perceptions, then Kant’s work suffices and debunks the usual atheist claim that there is no God or greater reality beyond our senses. Thing is, we all know religion can be and usually is more than that.
Of course! Consider a man blind from birth: he knows from everyone else that there is such a thing as sight and thus accepts that there is a reality he cannot perceive on faith. That is not religion, that is one person relying on the veracity of others.
Instead of Rand, you might want to read up on quantum mechanics, if you can handle the math. QM is a pretty good companion to Immanuel Kant, for in QM things only come into existence when their unreal description “collapses” upon observation!
It seems to me that you are interested in Kant’s belief that a posteriori proofs for the existence of God are useless (though he wouldn’t have stated it this way). For fun you might want to read David Hume’s The Problem of Induction for a more general view. In his work he argues quite well that there is no reason whatsoever to believe any bit of knowledge found by inductive reasoning.
If you agree with Kant or Hume, this leaves only a priori methods for proving the existence of God. As far as a priori methods are concerned, Descartes version of the ontological argument is probably the most famous.
“God” and “greater reality beyond our senses” are not the same thing. If one accepts that there is an unperceivable “reality” (which might be better called an “unreality”), that does not imply that such a reality is in any sense a person. The problem with Judaism and its derivatives is that they have a model of a “God” which is a large, authoritative male human, and is supposed to be merciful, belevolent, demand praise, sacrifices and prayers, etc.
It is impossible to find any convincing evidence for this belief. Whatever is out there, it is not a big social mammal.
Reason is based on axioms of logic, which must be arbitrary. It is not an absolute guide to “the truth”. Nor is anything else, least of all Faith, which is simply guesswork defended agressively.
Solomon2,
Quantum Mechanics huh? I think I’ll end up with a pretty headache if I get into that. Maybe the qualitative side of that should be interesting. Numbers and maths aren’t really my thing.
bzishi, I’ve heard of The Problem of Induction but never looked into it. I’ll give it a go. Thanks.
Don Cox,
“The problem with Judaism and its derivatives is that they have a model of a “God” which is a large, authoritative male human”
As far as I know, in Islam there have been those who interpret things more or less literally when it comes to the description of God and others who look at these descriptions as mere metaphors. I happen to be in the latter category.
At the end of the day, empirically speaking, a greater reality beyond or sensory perceptions, can be out there. Moreover, to me personally it is.
How do I “know” this? Firstly, through arguments like Kant’s which are very reasonable and secondly thanks to meditation and mysticism.
The idea that this Reality that is bigger than us can inspire some “gifted” spiritual individuals with “revelations” doesn’t seem that absurd to me.
“Faith, which is simply guesswork defended agressively.”
Hehehe, I had a good laugh.
Well, let me put it this way. Faith without reason is ignorance. Not just that, but it can lead to very dangerous dogmaticism. But faith (or to be more accurate transcendent spirituality) due to the limits of reason isn’t ignorance. In fact it can be quite eye-opening and has scientifically been proven to be very beneficial for health.
Now of course, we have disagreements but all I’m trying to say here is that there is no way of empirically proving that a greater reality beyond our senses does not exist. Therefore atheists can’t really claim that there is no such thing and be very certain of it. That’s the “black and white” I’m presenting here.
The rest is shades of gray.
The problem with Judaism and its derivatives is that they have a model of a “God” which is a large, authoritative male human, and is supposed to be merciful, belevolent, demand praise, sacrifices and prayers, etc.
Actually, the Jewish model views the Almighty as an infinite being far beyond mere mortal comprehension, and that the simplified “humanized” model is used to allow some form of human comprehension of matters usually far beyond their understanding, or at least how it would apply in our physical and mortal world with its inherent limitations.
Sacrifices, prayer, praise… these are issues for the benefit of the human being alone, not for the Almighty. They affect *us*, and allow us to improve the spirit while living with all the issues that come with living in a meat-body that eats, shits, and copulates.
The deity of Judaism is one that makes a reflection of itself that can communicate and guide with people already close enough to Him in order to understand matters beyond their normal ken. The deity of Judaism is one that is focused on issues far beyond our understanding - we interpret them as human-like mercy and benevolence, but the truth of the matter is that it is simply the closest physical/human term for what we can’t possibly understand while existing in our current form.
The deity of Judaism is one who does not care for sacrifices and prayer and praise unless it comes as part of a specific mental state and change, affecting both the behavior of the individual in this world and the spirit of the individual in its journey for the next.
The deity of Judaism, in fact, is about as far away from being an authoritative male human as anything can be.
The best philosophical work on this issue from the Jewish perspective is Guide to the Perplexed by Maimonides, at least from what I’m familiar with.
“the Jewish model views the Almighty as an infinite being far beyond mere mortal comprehension, and that the simplified “humanized” model is used to allow some form of human comprehension”
Yes, it is the same way in Islam. The descriptions are laid out in a human language which should be interpreted in its metaphorical sense and not literally.
I pretty much agree with you there Roman. Sounds like the God of Islam. Duh! It’s the same God anyway.
I pretty much agree with you there Roman. Sounds like the God of Islam. Duh! It’s the same God anyway.
Indeed.
Interesting post, but surely you are guilty of a classic case of begging the question.
“Theism doesn’t truly know in the empirical sense of the word but instead believes based on faith that there is a reality beyond our senses.”
You seem to be assuming that empirical knowledge is the only form of knowledge, in which case you inevitably disagree with the line “theism at least knows that there is a reality greater than, and beyond, that which our senses and our minds can ever apprehend” without actually challenging the point.
Rob,
I never said empirical knowledge is the only form of knowledge. You also have rational knowledge. And to believers, there is even divine knowledge, knowledge inspired from a divine source. For atheists though, only rational and empirical knowledge are recognized, and if we were only to use those two to determine the existence of a reality beyond our senses, we would fail. It’s not possible.
The mistake D’Souza makes (besides his very self-righteous tone) is that he bangs atheists throughout the whole article over how reason and empiricism have limits and therefore cannot disprove the existence of a possible reality beyond our sensory perceptions BUT… at the SAME TIME however he wants to conclude that theists know the truth. Empirically speaking, that’s incorrect. We cannot know.
Kant’s argument can only take you as far as demonstrating that reason and empiricism alone cannot disprove (or even prove) a reality further away and beyond our comprehension. D’Souza’s use of it to try and prove that “theism at least knows that there is a reality greater than, and beyond” is inadequate.
“The deity of Judaism, in fact, is about as far away from being an authoritative male human as anything can be.”
This may well be true for modern thinkers. I am talking about the material we find in the Torah - the God of Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and most modern fundamentalists.
Clearly people like Spinoza have more sophisticated concepts.
I don’t think any atheists would claim that there is nothing that we cannot perceive - after all, the history of science is full of things that were once unknown and imperceptible but can now be observed and measured. What they deny is that the set of all unknowns is in any sense a person.
Who is talking about Spinoza? I’m talking about the view over two-thousand years ago. And Rabbi Maimon’s work is over 800 years old, and he’s one of the greatest Jewish Rabbis of the past two milleniums.
Spinoza’s concept had no “god” per se, but just “nature”. His concept of a deity was creation itself in abstract form, his reality purely in the physical realm - body and spirit were one and the same rather than separate. Spinoza viewed everything from a relativist human-centric mindset, and saw anything that served Man in a physical or emotional sense as “Good”, and anything that made a man sad as “Evil”.
Spinoza, in essence, was one of the fathers of the Enlightenment’s moral relativism, moral reconstructurism, and pure-logic materialism. He is also credited with being the precursor to the Freudian school of psychological thought.
Frankly, the Jewish scholars of the Talmudic era would have viewed Spinoza with pity - one who was so blinded by Creation that he began worshipping it, in a sense, and discarding any notion of reality having more to it than an infinity of matter - more layers of being and understanding than what we see and touch.
Let me correct you on the atheist position. It is not “there is no God” but “there is no evidence for a God”
An atheist is someone who answers no when asked “do you believe in God”
Expanding it further in my case. I see no evidence for a God or Gods, and the world makes perfect sense to me without one. I can’t disprove God just like I can’t disprove that a Leprechaun controls the universe from the center of the Sun.
We need to distinguish various types of statement.
There is literal factual truth, such as “Mules have big ears”. In non-trivial cases, this derives from honest, careful and sober investigation.
There is poetic and legendary truth, where statements that are not literally true can hold more meaning than many that are literally true. For example, Keats wries:
“Stop and consider! life is but a day;
A fragile dew-drop on its perilous way
From a tree’s summit; a poor Indian’s sleep
While his boat hastens to the monstrous steep
Of Montmorenci. Why so sad a moan?
Life is the rose’s hope while yet unblown;
The reading of an ever-changing tale;
The light uplifting of a maiden’s veil;
A pigeon tumbling in clear summer air;
A laughing school-boy, without grief or care,
Riding the springy branches of an elm.”
Obviously life for most people is not one day but thousands of days - the statement is false. But it points toward a truth that is otherwise hard to express.
The same applies to fairy tales, legends, and much of the content of religious books, such as the miracle stories in the Christian gospels.
Then there is bullshit, which is the use of words to manipulate other people’s behaviour. It doesn’t matter whether the content is true or false - the purpose of bullshit is control, not knowledge or understanding. A large part of religious discourse is of this type.
Sorry to go a bit off topic (I’ve read some Spinoza, but no Kant), but I don’t really see Spinoza as being a materialist. Yes, he considered God and nature one, but he also thought that God-nature had an infinite number of attributes, including attributes that were not material. From what I remember, he was quite open to the existence of things outside the realm of the senses. I also remember that he did say that was is good or bad for people is necessarily absolutely good or bad, however he qualified that by saying that his ideas only applied if people were operating under the guidance of reason (from what I remember his ideas on reason were kind of like the Mennonites who were developing at the same time, because he said people should always turn the other cheek to violence in order to follow reason) and promoting community over anarchy.
What I do find very disturbing about Spinoza is that he denies free will and seems to think that everything is determined in advance. That part reminds me of Marxists who think that revolution is inevitable and that there is some magic formula that leads to the perfect revolution and “workers’ paradise” (I think that part of Marxism is why it attracts so many nutjobs and always leads to endless tyranny.)
Sorry to go a bit off topic (I’ve read some Spinoza, but no Kant), but I don’t really see Spinoza as being a materialist. Yes, he considered God and nature one, but he also thought that God-nature had an infinite number of attributes, including attributes that were not material. From what I remember, he was quite open to the existence of things outside the realm of the senses.
There is truth in that, yes. Spinoza was more of a Modern Pagan than a full-scale materialist, though he tended to vary between these two views. His view was still that the world was entirely material - and that while this material world may posses a “soul”, there was still nothing beyond it.
I also remember that he did say that was is good or bad for people is necessarily absolutely good or bad, however he qualified that by saying that his ideas only applied if people were operating under the guidance of reason (from what I remember his ideas on reason were kind of like the Mennonites who were developing at the same time, because he said people should always turn the other cheek to violence in order to follow reason) and promoting community over anarchy.
But that’s just it - Spinoza’s definition of Good and Evil under Reason was essentially that of materialist development. Like others in his time and era, Spinoza’s contribution to the European Enlightenment left a great deal of holes in its reasoning - holes that many flowed into. And this ties in to what you say later on:
What I do find very disturbing about Spinoza is that he denies free will and seems to think that everything is determined in advance. That part reminds me of Marxists who think that revolution is inevitable and that there is some magic formula that leads to the perfect revolution and “workers’ paradise” (I think that part of Marxism is why it attracts so many nutjobs and always leads to endless tyranny.)
It is not only this part that attracts Marxist thought - Marxism evolved from the groundwork of European Enlightenment, and attempted to reshape both society and its morality based on Reason - or on how Communists viewed Reason. It focused precisely on reevaluating the shaping forces of society, destroying that which it deemed man-made divisions and building the New Man, free of the Old Lies.
Trotskyte “Perpetual Revolution” was merely one aspect of it. The core was still the New Men, so very much like the Cult of Reason of the French Revolution, with the exact same obsession with a Commoners’ Utopia on the corpses of the previous societies…
Communism is the Enlightenment taken to an extreme - the fanatical child of the Age of Reason, blind to its zeal and its Utopian drive which only lead, in the end, to a Dystopian collapse.
Back in the good old days of the Soviet Union the government was looking to appoint a Chief Rabbi for Moscow.
The first candidate knew Torah but wasn’t a member of the party.
The second candidate was a member of the party but didn’t know Torah.
And the third candidate was a member of the party and knew Torah. But he was a Jew.
(I know this has not strictly much to do with communism in the philosophical sense, but I wanted to tell the joke anyway.)
Leave a Comment