Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Not So 'Bright'
COMMENTARY: The Wall Street Journal ^ | October 6, 2003 | DINESH D'SOUZA

Posted on 10/06/2003 6:00:49 AM PDT by OESY

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:03 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last
To: OESY
Instead of citing Kant, D'Souza (a man I greatly respect and admire) should have cited Kurt Godel, Gunther Stent and others who have demonstrate through science that there are limits to the capacity of human reasoning.

Just because I'm an atheist doesn't me I don't listen to or respect what religious people have to say (whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other faith). If I had Dennett's attitude, I wouldn't have many friends.

41 posted on 10/06/2003 8:09:37 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY; Conservative Me; ontos-on; Petronski; martin gibson; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; ...
Let me begin by saying I agree with one point of this article and that is the "brights" are not too bright. Anyone who categorized themselves on the basis of what they do not believe has a very narrow intellectual horizon.

Beyond that, this article is mostly nonsense. The Enlightenment Fallacy holds that human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality.

If there has ever been a philosopher or an atheist who has said anything like, "human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality," I have never run across them, and I have read most to the philosophers (and theologians as well). What I have found, and agree with, is that anything makes a claim for truth that is not based on reason cannot be known to be true.

Reason is the only capacity we have been given as human beings for understanding anything. When Kant makes the claim that this is not true, it is his (quite human and quite wrong) reason that makes this claim. What, was Kant privy to some other kind of reason that all other mortals are not?

But why should we believe, Kant asked, that our five-mode instrument for apprehending reality is sufficient for capturing all of reality?

Why indeed, since no one in the entire history of the world has ever made that claim. This is nothing but a straw man, than anybody could knock down. What Kant really foisted on the world was an attempt to repudiate the senses and substitute mysticism. No one claims, not even the most materialistic of empiricists, that knowledge comes exclusively and completely from the senses. (Maybe one has, but their influence must be very small, since no one has heard of them.) First of all, there are not only five senses. There is the whole world of internal experiences, like the sensations of elation, fear, nausea, vertigo, etc. that are directly perceived but not by any of the five senses.

What the rationalist opposes is mysticism, which is the belief that knowledge is possible without either evidence or reason. Being opposed to mysticism is not atheism.

It is mysticism that allows people to believe any superstitious nonsense and encourages people to do things, that, if they only used their senses and their reason, they would never do, like flying planes into sky-scrapers killing thousands of people or strapping explosives to their bodies and blowing themselves and as many others as they can to kingdom come. It is the philosophy of Kant and all other forms of mysticism that propagate superstition and irrationality.

If you understand why you believe what you believe, that belief is rational. If you believe something, but do not know why you believe it, or how you know it is true, that is superstition. Most people do not call it superstition, they call it faith. But, if you believe something, and cannot find either evidence or reason for that belief, how do you distinguish it from an illusion, or hallucination, or dementia.

Suppose we accept the premise that it is possible to have true knowledge without reason or evidence. Now comes a Muslim, a Buddhist, and a Christian, all bearing their Scriptures which they claim is a source of knowledge that must just be believed, because it cannot be known by reason or evidence. How does one decide which supposed claim to mystic truth is the correct one? Certainly, if the higher truth comes without reason, reason cannot be used to judge which higher truth is the really true higher truth. How do you decide, I mean, without using reason?

Whether you believe the nature of man is determined by God or "nature," the ability to reason is the only faculty man has been given with which to understand the truth. This article is nothing but an assault on reason, and thereby the truth, whatever you believe the truth is.

Hank

42 posted on 10/06/2003 8:20:07 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Long time no see. Sorry, but I don't think Nietzsche's to blame. Nietzsche's whole writing on the death of god has been grossly misunderstood by many. Nietzsche's a philsopher one must read in more than small excerpts and, preferably, in German. The famous aphonism 125 from The Gay Science on the death of god is really, IMHO, more about the society that Nietzsche asserts has 'done the deed' than it is about the existence or nonexistence of god.
43 posted on 10/06/2003 8:21:07 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo [Gallia][Germania][Arabia] Esse Delendam --- Select One or More as needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Suppose we accept the premise that it is possible to have true knowledge without reason or evidence.

The Gospels, and Paul's and John's espistles, make the case that a belief in the Resurrection -- and miracles -- are rational.

44 posted on 10/06/2003 8:49:40 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jason Kauppinen; jimt; Fraulein; ClearCase_guy
I've always considered that position (God positively doesn't exist) to be silly, as you can't prove a negative.

But, as soon as God is defined, then it is no longer necessary to prove a negative, only to prove the God just defined is not possible. When someone asks me if I believe in God, I always ask, "which God, Allah? Shiva? Zeus, Dianna? A Greek God" a Roman God, a Norse God, which?

Usually they tell me, "the God of the Bible," which they think gets them out of trouble, but it doesn't, so I have to then ask, "which God of the Bible, the Unitarian God of the Bible, the Tirinitarian God of the Bible, the Mormon God of the Bible, the Gnostic God of the Bible, which?" ...because these all define God differently.

This usually leads to an absurd statement like, "God cannot be defined." So, I ask, "do you believe in Morkano?" When they ask what that is, I say, "well, it cannot be defined, but what difference does that make. Its just like your God, only different. The only reason you don't believe in Morkano is because your refuse to. You're just an amorkanoist."

Hank

45 posted on 10/06/2003 8:53:21 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Me
If the existance of God could be proven, everyone would believe.

I disagree.

Christianity is not the only belief system that exists. To others Buddhism makes the most sense to explain reality, or Islam, or Hindu, etc. All the believers of their individual faiths believe their god(s) explain their existance.

That's true. And ultimately one is right.

Science explains most of what I see everyday.

Science is good. Modern science was conceived by Christians -- the Bacons, Francis and Roger, and Descartes.

I just do not believe that there is a God(s) behind it.

It takes a greater faith to believe we are here by accident.

46 posted on 10/06/2003 8:56:12 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
The Gospels, and Paul's and John's espistles, make the case that a belief in the Resurrection -- and miracles -- are rational.

I have made no argument against what is rationally based belief, only those beliefs people claim without a rational basis. God said, Come let us reason together, and Paul said it is the eyes of our understanding which are opened, not the throats of our credulity, by which just anything can be swallowed.

Hank

47 posted on 10/06/2003 8:58:17 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
"which God of the Bible, the Unitarian God of the Bible, the Tirinitarian God of the Bible, the Mormon God of the Bible, the Gnostic God of the Bible, which?" ...because these all define God differently.

That's true.

48 posted on 10/06/2003 8:58:37 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7; Conservative Me
I just do not believe that there is a God(s) behind it. It takes a greater faith to believe we are here by accident.

God or accident are not the only possiblle alternatives. If they were, then whatever exists would exist by accident; either the the universe would exist by accidenct or God would exist by accident. Most theist have trouble saying God is an accident, but, if God does not have cause, what do you call it?

49 posted on 10/06/2003 9:04:22 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Me
Religion is, by definition, a belief system. You do not need worship to have a belief system. Theism and Atheism are two poles, each of which can justifiably ask the other, "Prove to me there is/is not a God?"

The answer, in the end by both, will ultimately be, "I cannot prove/disprove the existence of God, but I can make an excellent case." From there FAITH takes over.

No difference. None whatsoever.

As far as respect goes, the nation was founded by people who believed in God, and many of them were Christian. They wrote the founding documents on the premise that man had inalienable rights granted to them by their creator.

After realizing this, the only logical thing for an atheist to do is go to a country where it isn't founded upon principles that depend so heavily upon the world view of a deist. The next choice is to do as you have, swallow the inconsistency and move on, so to speak.
50 posted on 10/06/2003 9:05:53 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
God or accident are not the only possiblle alternatives.

Accident is the only natural explantion (and frankly its not rational.) Everything else implies a violation of natural laws i.e. the supernatural. The debate then becomes one about the nature of God.

if God does not have cause, what do you call it?

The limit to reason :-)

51 posted on 10/06/2003 9:20:26 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief; OESY; Conservative Me; ontos-on; Petronski; martin gibson; afraidfortherepublic; ...
If there has ever been a philosopher or an atheist who has said anything like, "human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality," I have never run across them, and I have read most to the philosophers (and theologians as well). What I have found, and agree with, is that anything makes a claim for truth that is not based on reason cannot be known to be true.

I found something pretty funny in a high school biology book edited by Ernst Mayr. He had just finished a paragraph that summed up everything from the present all the way back to the moment of the Big Bang and then said (I paraphrase), "But what came before the Big Bang we cannot say. We prefer to stay within the bounds of our experience."
52 posted on 10/06/2003 9:53:01 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
"We prefer to stay within the bounds of our experience."

LOL -- Very prudent of him, I'm sure!

53 posted on 10/06/2003 9:56:27 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: OESY
I'm agnostic, and this 'brights' thing is amazingly stupid.

54 posted on 10/06/2003 10:06:40 AM PDT by Britton J Wingfield (TANSTAAFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Same conclusion I come to: that anyone who would take such things to court understands that the nation's institutions depend heavily on religion, faith, codes of morals and ethics, and have an active interest in undermining the same.
55 posted on 10/06/2003 10:07:08 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Here are a couple interesting paragraphs from something by John Wesley on the place of reason in human life. It reminds me of Ernst's claim:
3. How natural is it for those who observe this extreme, to run into the contrary! While they are strongly impressed with the absurdity of undervaluing reason, how apt are they to overvalue it! Accordingly, we are surrounded with those (we find them on every side) who lay it down as an undoubted principle, that reason is the highest gift of God. They paint it in the fairest colors; they extol it to the skies. They are fond of expatiating in its praise; they make it little less than divine. They are wont to describe it as very near, if not quite, infallible. They look upon it as the all-sufficient director of all the children of men; able, by its native light, to guide them into all truth, and lead them into all virtue.

4. They that are prejudiced against the Christian revelation, who do not receive the Scriptures as the oracles of God, almost universally run into this extreme: I have scarce known any exception: So do all, by whatever name they are called, who deny the Godhead of Christ. (Indeed some of these say they do not deny his Godhead; but only his supreme Godhead. Nay, this is the same thing; for in denying him to be the supreme God, they deny him to be any God at all: Unless they will assert that there are two Gods, a great one and a little one!) All these are vehement applauders of reason, as the great unerring guide. To these over-valuers of reason we may generally add men of eminently strong understanding; who, because they do know more than most other men, suppose they can know all things. But we may likewise add many who are in the other extreme; men of eminently weak understanding; men in whom pride (a very common case) supplies the void of sense; who do not suspect themselves to be blind, because they were always so.

56 posted on 10/06/2003 10:14:22 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jimt
as you can't prove a negative.

I dare you to prove that. ;-)

Actually, though, you can prove a negative, at least in some cases. I once took a rather painful Abstract Linear Algebra class that ended up proving that there was nothing after an "octonion," (or was it nothing after a 16-space transformation? -- I forget now...)

57 posted on 10/06/2003 10:27:40 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
But, as soon as God is defined, then it is no longer necessary to prove a negative, only to prove the God just defined is not possible.

It seems, though, that your argument is vulnerable to a nebulous definition - for instance, that God created the universe. The Deists believed that God's "testament" was in His works, which we see all around us.

On that basis I think you'd be left trying to prove a negative.

One of the best treatments of this argument (in fiction) is the novel Voyage From Yesteryear by James Hogan.

58 posted on 10/06/2003 10:31:05 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Actually, though, you can prove a negative, at least in some cases. I once took a rather painful Abstract Linear Algebra class that ended up proving that there was nothing after an "octonion," (or was it nothing after a 16-space transformation? -- I forget now...)

Your math is way beyond mine - I stopped at linear algebra, after differential equations.

Within the contraints of mathematical logic, you could certainly prove a negative. For instance, that there are no whole numbers between 1 and 2. But that's a function of the definitions.

In the context of the current discussion, it's a lot tougher. If I postulate the existence of gnorixes, for example, who control the rate of corrosion on pennies, can you prove they don't exist?

I couldn't.

59 posted on 10/06/2003 10:42:20 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: OESY
These discussions generate a great deal of heat, and very little light. To you atheists: grow up. To you fellow believers who would argue with them on this type of forum: grow up.
60 posted on 10/06/2003 10:45:44 AM PDT by CalvaryJohn (What is keeping that damned asteroid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson