What Atheists Kant Refute - Limits of Human Reason

Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and several other highly popular books, recently wrote The God Delusion, regarded as an anti-religious, atheist manifesto by some. I (Ira) am currently reading that book and plan to post a new Main Topic when I complete it.

In an email, Stu provided the following link "What atheists Kant refute" from the Christian Science Monitor. Dinesh D'Souza is interviewed regarding a series of anti-religious books by Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1017/p09s06-coop.html. That led to an email exchange between Stu, Joel, Howard and Ira. Rather than limit that exchange to a small, private group, here is an edited version for the enjoyment of readers of this Blog. I hope it generates lots of cross-discussion!

EXCERPTS FROM CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR STORY

Reason must know its limits in order to be truly reasonable.

Opinion editor Josh Burek talks with Dinesh D'Souza about atheism.

Religion has faced formidable foes in its history. But atheism hasn't generally been one of them – until today. A recent string of bestselling books has put believers of all stripes on the defensive. Religion, say authors such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens, is an unreasonable form of blind faith, often leading to fanaticism and violence. Reason and science, they contend, are the only proper foundations for forming opinions and understanding the universe. Those who believe in God, they insist, are falling for silly superstitions.

This atheist attack is based on a fallacy – the Fallacy of the Enlightenment. It was pointed out by the great Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant erected a sturdy intellectual bulwark against atheism that hasn't been breached since. His defense doesn't draw on sacred texts or any other sources of authority to which people of faith might naturally and rightfully turn when confronted with atheist arguments. Instead, it relies on the only framework that today's atheist proselytizers say is valid: reason. The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know – reality itself. This view says we can find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover. It holds that human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality.

In his 1781 "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. Kant showed that human knowledge is constrained not merely by the unlimited magnitude of reality but also by a limited sensory apparatus of perception.

Consider a tape recorder. It captures only one mode of reality, namely sound. Thus all aspects of reality that cannot be captured in sound are beyond its reach. The same, Kant would argue, is true of human beings. The only way we apprehend empirical reality is through our five senses. But why should we believe, Kant asked, that this five-mode instrument is sufficient? What makes us think that there is no reality that lies beyond sensory perception?

... 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.

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.

IRA'S RESPONSE

I agree with Dinesh D'Souza that our five senses are insufficient to apprehend the whole truth of the world. However, I don't trust our "faith" sense to fill in that lacuna reliably. D'Souza's book is titled What's So Great About Christianity, and, if it is a pean to traditional Christianity I don't necessarily think it will satisfy me. On the other hand, if he makes the point that religion in general (when not too fundamentalist or radical) is of net benefit to civilization, and that, via Christianity, civilization and society has been uplifted, then I would buy it!

As it happens, I am currently reading Dawkin's The God Delusion and, so far, (about 70% into it) am not overwhelmed (even though I respect Dawkins and enjoyed a couple of his other books). Perhaps I will find some meat in the book as I go further, but, so far, he is demolishing arguments for a God external to the Universe who created it and is interested in day-to-day activities of individuals and regularly manipulates His Creation. The idea of a "personal God", while quite common to the average "Joe and Jane" is, IMHO, so flat that it does not need further attack.

He acknowledges Einstein's pantheistic God and quotes Hawking and others who use the term "God" in that vein. Dawkins then makes an incredible charge (worthy of Ann Coulter :^) when he says (p19):

... I wish that physicists would refrain from using the word God in their special metaphorical sence. The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking ... God of the Bible... Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, AN ACT OF INTELLECTUAL HIGH TREASON. [EMPHASIS added]

I checked the index and could find no reference to the "Gaia Hypothesis" that we humans (and other life in the biosphere) are, by our role in evolution and natural selection, creating some sort of meta-consciousness that does wield some overall power and intentionality at the whole Earth level. That concept is part and parcel of a pantheistic belief an God and, if true, fully worthy of the use of the term "God". I hope he gets to it.


HOWARD'S RESPONSE

Dinesh D'Souza’s argument that our five senses are insufficient to apprehend the whole truth is a misleading half-truth about science. One can argue that all the sciences began by going beyond the natural senses with measurement devices. Chemistry began with the analytic balance, biology with the microscope, physics with the telescope. Spectroscopes, particle detectors, radiation detectors, scanning electron microscopes, atomic force microscopes and dozens of other instruments go many categories and many magnitudes beyond our senses from the highest energies and smallest particles to almost to the entire detectable universe. Science also explains why things exist beyond our knowing, that is, beyond the event horizon and black holes.

The panentheist definition of God is the totality of whatever exists (the "ground of existence") in the broadest possible sense of “exists’ including what we can never know. My opinion of Dawkins is that he is a brilliant polemicist but not a reliable authority on either religion or science. Right or wrong, I think his motive is winning arguments, and he is good at it. He could also have been a great preacher or maybe an insurance salesman.

JOEL'S RESPONSE

Thanks for the reference, Stu. It's interesting to me that Dinesh D'Souza is trying to make something out of nothing. The trouble with quoting old philosophers is that they are often deprived of essential knowledge that any school child has today. Kant wrote in a time in which there was no remote sensing and man had to depend on his own immediate sensing capability. This gives one a very restrictive idea of what can be known by the senses and what actually exists. He also misrepresents science as very narrow and restrictive in its view.

First of all, science places no limit on what might be invisible to us and our sensory surrogates. It only requires that the unsensible world be consistent with the sensible world in any place
they make contact. It we use D'Souza's tape recorder analogy, I would say the following. If you postulate that an invisible, unfeelable, unsmellible, etc. tree falls in a forest next to the tape recorder, then the tape recorder should at least hear a sound which is consistent with the existence of such a tree, even if the tape recorder can't "see" the tree fall. The science establishment has demonstrated that it is willing to seek out hypothetical things that are normally invisible. Remember that scientists hypothesized the existence of the neutrino based upon seeming violations of Conservation of Momentum and Energy. The particle was actually "seen" only after the the design of an experiment, expenditure of millions of dollars and tons of steel from old battle ships (if I remember correctly). Believers in the invisible world of religion can't even propose a consistency experiment.

I understand, even if I don't agree with, authors like Dawkins. It seems as though we still have terrible global clashes over religion. In Dawkins' mind and that of others, such clashes will continue as long as humans are willing to be motivated by a blind faith that makes them intolerant of those who don't also admit that unverifiable truth. In a sense, Dawkins is acting out of political ideology rather than science. I think that Ira's laisser-faire policy is the right one. Aggressive atheism (or pantheism) is not the way to fight aggressive religion.

Liberty and security

The aphorism "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" is heard in many variations. It has enough degrees of freedom to allow its use by conservatives, liberals and libertarians in various situations. It's usually stated without the important modifiers, "essential" and "a little," in order to make it more powerful. It is also almost always incorrectly attributed to Benjamin Franklin. An implication of the dictum is that liberty and security are two adversaries in a zero sum game. I'd like to explore this concept.

First let's look at an individual as the system under consideration. If a pie chart represents the individual's liberty, we can examine two extreme cases and then those in between. If the entire pie is liberty, then the individual can do what he (or she) wants only subject to the laws of gravity, conservation of energy, biological limitations, etc. There is no one to impose any restrictions. This person in total liberty can eat what he wants to eat, go where he wants to go, and say what he wants to say. He also has no security. If the iiberty pie plate is virtually empty, the person is in bondage. The survival of the slave is totally dependent on the security provided by another.
Parenthetically, it's important to note that with respect to liberty, the terms "freedom of" and "freedom from" are totally different. For example "freedom of speech" indicates liberty to say what one will. On the other hand, "freedom from fear" indicates not liberty but security from undesired actions of others. In our pie chart, every slice of security requires the sacrifice of a slice of liberty, if this is a zero sum game. If one is a caveman, spending the night in a cave may provide security, but this comes at the sacrifice of the liberty to be wherever you will. In communal life, the security provided by traffic signals comes at the sacrifice of one's liberty to drive in whatever manner one wills. (I'm not going to escalate the examples to the level of federal government, since this would risk a partisan discussion.) Remember that I'm saying that liberty versus security is a zero sum game for an individual not averaged over society in general.

The next step is to consider two liberty-security pies representing two individuals interacting. The situation gets vastly more complicated, because new elements are added which can "eat up" liberty. Examples of such factors are conscience, responsibility and cooperation. The question in my mind is whether this is still a zero sum game.

Soma continued or Brave New World

Soma continued or Brave New World

I mentioned that I'm going to give a talk on this topic. It's going to be on Friday. In the meantime, if any of you have any words of wisdom you'd like to contribute, I'd appreciate the help. Brave New World is the backdrop for my talk, but I hope to examine more general topics.

In "Brave New World" society is designed and operated in such a way as to maximize peace stability. The way this is done is to follow industrial mass production techniques and management. Test tube babies are produced in quantity and quality according to the needs of society. Everything is done to create a stress-free population. Each class of (Alpha to Epsilon) people is inculcated through sleep-education to believe that it is the most fortunate. Promiscuous behavior is encourages from childhood and all appetites are satisfied either in reality or with the drug called "soma.". Where "1984" is about a society controlled by fear and pain, "Brave New World" is controlled by constant pleasure. No one has time to be alone or to think. It's a sort of steady-state Roman rule via bread and circuses.

The philosophical questions I'm going to ask the group to address are:
1) What's so bad about substituting chemical pleasure for "real" pleasure? Isn't it more efficient?
2) Is the pain of frustrated desire necessary for the production of poetry or art?
3) What do we mean when we say that a little pain is good for the soul.
4) In Brave New World total security from all hazards of poor health, old age, loneliness, frustration, etc. requires surrender of all liberty to the benevolent dictator. When we use Franklin's expression, "Those who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security merit neither," we imply that security and liberty are a zero sum game. Do you believe that an increase in security requires a decrease in liberty (for someone) ? With respect -Joel

US Patent #7,280,897

Well, it ain't quite a Nobel Prize, but I just learned that US Patent #7,280,897 was awarded this month - with my name on it.

As I've been retired since 2001 you can see how slowly the wheels turn in the Patent Department of Lockheed Martin and the US Patent Office.

You can see it at: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7280897.html.

It has to do with determining "intervisibility" between two points in a 3D space using a digital terrain map.

Although the method has many possible practical uses, the context for our work was to protect a helicopter flying at low altitude from threats. Given the locations, heights, and effective ranges of multiple threats, and a digital terrain map, the algorithm and method rapidly calculates the 3D cells that can and cannot be seen by those threats.

(A related algorithm and method, patented in 2001 and also with my name on it, calculates the 3D path a helicopter should fly between points "A" and "B" to minimize chances of being seen by threats while avoiding running into the terrain. See http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6259988.html)

Ira Glickstein

House and Brave New World

Hello fellow philosophers,
I'm curious about what may seem a trivial topic. There is only one fictional program on television that seriously interests me. I wonder how many of you also like "House." I'm not talking about a program that tells you how to redecorate. I'm talking about the super-diagnostician, Gregory House, M.D. I think that what I like about it is that it's mostly about the thinking process, obsessive problem solving and about unconventionality. Is there anyone else on this blog who enjoys this show?

In a similar vein, I wonder what you think about the need for entertainment. In "Brave New World" (which I'm preparing for a presentation), life is about bread and circuses. New Worlders work and in their spare time are constantly entertained. There is no room for thought. Is there too much entertainment in our world? With respect -Joel

LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND STATISTICS (Part 4)

All about the abuse of anecdotal math to falsify the truth and truthify falsehood.

This is the fourth part of my "presentation" on the topic of "Lies, ..." Click for Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

This part is about the "Normal Curve".

The height of young American women ranges from about 4' 9" to 6'. For young men it is 5' 2" to 6' 5". That's a difference of about five inches -- less than ten percent.

Therefore, in basketball and other sports where height is critical, you'd expect about ten percent fewer women than men. Right?

Anything less would be proof of discrimination against women. Right?

WRONG !!!

Actually, if you had a cut-off of six feet, over 100 men would qualify for every woman who qualified! Even if you had a cut-off of 5' 7", which is the average height of the population of young men and women combined, you'd find over five men for every woman who qualified.

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

Why are Our Expectations Wrong?

Glad you asked!

You have probably heard of the "Normal Curve" or the "Bell-Shaped Curve" and if you stay tuned for a bit you will understand what that is and why it is important. I promise to keep the math to a minimum and the understanding to a maximum.

The curve is called "Normal" because, when you make lots of measurements, such as the heights of a bunch of random people, you normally get a "Bell-Shaped Curve"!

Most of the measurements will be near the average value and you will get fewer and fewer as you go further away from the average.




[Click figure for larger view] The figure shows the Normal curve for the heights of young women (in red) and young men (in blue). Notice how each group of measurements resembles the shape of a bell?

Please look at the red bars that represent measurements of a thousand young women. Nearly all of them are between 57" and 72", a range of fifteen-inches. No more than five out of a thousand will be below or above that range. If you divide that range into six equal increments of two and a half inches each, about two-thirds of them will be in the two increments closest to the middle.

As indicated in the figure, in ordinary English, we would say women in that range are of "average" height.

On either side of the "average" are increments for "short" and "tall". Out of 1000, there will be about 136 "short" women and 136 "tall" women.

On either side of "short" and "tall" are "very short" and "very tall". Out of a 1000, there will only be about 21 "very short" and 21 "very tall".

The handful of women who fall outside the range would be called "extremely tall" and "extremely short".

The same situation prevails for young men, shown in blue. But note: the measurement results are shifted two increments to the right. A woman we'd call "tall" or "very tall" would be "average" if she were a man. Similarly, a man we'd call "short" or "very short" would be "average" if he were a woman.

None of the above is controversial. These are simply the facts that can be verified by anyone who would like to do the measurements.

Mathematical Terms (I'll keep this very short :^)

Mathematicians call the area that contains 68.3% of the measurements the "plus or minus one standard deviation" range. Since standard deviation is usually represented by the Greek letter “sigma”, this is called the “one-sigma” range.

A mathematician would analyze the height measurements and calculate the standard deviation as 2.5". He or she would note that the average for males is 5" above that for females and conclude that males are two standard deviations taller than females.

Please don't worry about the math terms "standard deviation" and “sigma" too much. These terms are just a fancy way of saying where to expect 68% of the measurements to be.

Representation of Women in Sports

For basketball, height is obviously a critical factor. If high schools and colleges insisted on having unisex teams, we'd find boys and young men outnumbering girls and young women by one-hundred to one! That would not be fair to girls and young women who want to play sports. That is why it makes total sense to separate basketball teams by gender.

Since height often correlates to strength and speed and other factors that are important in baseball, football, soccer and many other sports, it also makes sense to separate those sports by gender. In fact, only a small number of sports (gymnastics comes to mind) favor participants who tend to be shorter.

Bottom Line

1) In high school, college, and other amateur play, I favor separation by gender in the sports where males have a significant advantage. I would make an exception for the few girls and women who could qualify and allow them to join the male division if they wanted to.

2) For professional sports, I would make it illegal to exclude women from the highest level in any given sport. There are women who qualify, and, however few their number, it is unfair to exclude them. On the other hand, for the lower levels of professional sports, I would allow separation by gender to give highly qualified women a fair chance to play at their level.

BUT WHAT ABOUT INTELLIGENCE???

OOPS - here is where we may get "politically incorrect".

Now that you understand all about the Normal curve and standard deviation and so on, let us apply our newfound knowledge to a different domain.

Lots of well-meaning people are misinformed about standardized tests, particularly those that are said to measure "intelligence".

I'll be the first to admit that some college graduates with advanced degrees don't have the intelligence to "rub two sticks together to save their lives". Some with the highest academic honors could not survive more than a few days in the woods or on the streets of a big city.

Some PhDs are at a total loss when it comes to doing carpentry or plumbing or fixing a TV set or PC or a car. They cannot grow fruits and vegetables and would be a total failure at "animal husbandry" (whatever that is :^) Some of them have no social intelligence at all and cannot sing on key or play a musical instrument. I would not want to "have a beer" with many of them.

The standardized so-called "Intelligence Quotient" (IQ) test does not measure any of the above talents.

However, IQ tests do a damn good job of evaluating "normal" people as to their ACADEMIC INTELLIGENCE.

People with high IQs generally excel in high school and college. They also excel at jobs that require lots of reading and writing and designing and science and math and so on.

People with low IQs generally do not do well in school and they find employment in fields that do not require academic-type talents.

Design of IQ Tests

IQ tests are designed to yield a score of 100 for the average person and to have a standard deviation of fifteen points. If you give IQ tests to a thousand people (in their native languages), all but a handful will fall between 55 and 145.

Out of a thousand people, about 683 will have IQs between 85 and 115, and will be said to have "average" intelligence. About 136 will be "high" and 136 "low". About 21 will be "very high" and 21 "very low".

A handful will be out of the range. People with IQs above 145 are considered "extremely intelligent".

In some jurisdictions, those below 70, with "very low" or "extremely low" intelligence, are exempted from things like the death penalty because their intelligence is so low they cannot be considered moral agents. A considerable portion of the prison population falls in the range of 80 and below.

Here is the Politically Incorrect Part

What if there was an ethnic or racial group that had an average IQ ten percent above or below 100? Say members of group "Beta" have an average IQ of 90 and members of group "Alpha" have an average of 110? (Actually, there are groups like that, or close to that. However, political correctness forbids me from mentioning their ethnic and/or racial descriptions.)

If the IQ difference between Alpha and Beta was only twenty percent, would you expect the Alpha group to have only twenty percent higher representation among professions that require high academic intelligence? Would you expect Alpha to have only twenty percent more scientists and engineers and accountants and so on? Would you expect Alpha to have only twenty percent more PhDs?

If you did you would be WRONG.

If the standard deviation for IQ is fifteen points, and the Alpha group is twenty points above the Beta group, that is a difference of over one standard deviation.

For example, if a Nobel Prize winner had to be "very intelligent" or "extremely intelligent" in the top two increments, there would be over ten people from the Alpha group for every one from the Beta group.

If you had to have an above-average IQ (100 or more) people in the Alpha group would outnumber those in the Beta group by three to one!


Bottom Line:

If members of some ethnic and racial groups are "over-represented" and other groups "under-represented" in professions requiring higher academic intelligence, that does not necessarily imply discrimination or favoritism.

If one group has an average IQ of 110 or more, you would expect them to be "over-represented" by at least three-to-one over the average American.

If another group has an average IQ of 90, you would expect them to be "under-represented" by a factor of three-to-one or more below the average American.


BUT PLEASE NOTE:

There is a great deal of overlap.

A "tall" woman is taller than 60% of all men and an "extremely tall" woman is taller than 90% of all the men.

A "very intelligent" member of the Beta group is smarter than 60% of all members of the Alpha group and an "extremely intelligent" member of the Beta group is smarter than 90% of all the members of the Alpha group.

Do not judge a person by his or her group membership!

Ira Glickstein

The above is the fourth part of my "presentation" on the topic of "Lies, ..." Click for Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Annexation of Mexico

Most of us are frustrated by the illegal immigrant problems we face here in the United States and the unwillingness of our government to solve it. Most of us will agree that the problems are many, complex, and political. They may be unsolvable; I suspect they will never be solved. So just for the fun of it, and trying to think out of the box, consider the following - could this be feasible?

It is 2025, five years ago the United States, unable to solve illegal migration through the Mexican border, and the government of Mexico, despairing of its ability to provide adequate opportunity for its people reached an agreement to annex the State of Mexico as a commonwealth of the United States as outlined below with a five year transition phase.

The nation of Mexico agrees to annex as a commonwealth of the United States with the following conditions:

The Mexican commonwealth government will continue to govern its several states. These states will be considered as independent states as are the states of the United States. They will remain under the authority of the Mexican commonwealth until and if they are annexed as states of the United States. The Mexican government (hereafter the Commonwealth) further agrees to abide by the constitution of the United States and the federal laws of the United States.

The Commonwealth will have a forum within the United States federal government in a form to be decided later during the transition.

The individual states that border the United States will have the opportunity to request US statehood after the five year transition phase. The remaining states will remain within the Commonwealth under this agreement until they apply for annexation and the United States and Commonwealth agree to the transition. (It may be impractical for Commonwealth states to become states of the United States if other Commonwealth states lay between them and the United States).

Interstate commerce between the Commonwealth states and the states of the US will be governed as is now applicable within the United States.

The Commonwealth may retain Spanish as its legal language however the individual states, upon annexation to the United States must select English as their legal language. The Commonwealth and its several states may retain their own culture even upon acceptance into the Unites States. The Commonwealth’s flag may be flown within the Commonwealth as the predominant flag.

The Commonwealth may have its own military force to protect itself, however it will be for defense purposes only and subject to the United States federal authority. (Similar to our states national guard.)

During the transition phase, U.S. federal courts will be established within the individual Commonwealth states. However, appeal to these courts will be limited allowing the Commonwealth’s federal courts to make the transition to our federal court system. At the end of the transition period, the duties of the Commonwealth federal courts will be merged and fall under the jurisdiction of the US federal court system. The Commonwealth federal court system will remain in effect as superior court of the Commonwealth court system. Appeals may be made to the United States Supreme Court; the principle argument for appeals to the United States Supreme Court from the Commonwealth states is that the Commonwealth Supreme Court is in violation of the United States constitution.

Comments:

Concerns

1. There will be mass movements of Commonwealth citizens into the United States when all barriers are removed. During the transition this will be true but not to a large extent. Once that mass movement has been assimilated the problem will no longer exist. The mass migration is already taking place and is being felt in all states and we are incapable of stopping it. Further, we have had many previous mass migrations. The Midwestern migration to California during the thirties. The several mass migrations from the European nations during the 1800s.

2. This will place a great tax burden on the people of the United States with the migration. This is true but is it any different than the burden we are now faced with? With Commonwealth citizens moving to the U.S. they will be paying taxes rather than the under the table economy that exists today.

3. The increase of the Spanish population of the United States will affect the dynamics of our elections.

4. The additional states will be a burden on our Supreme Court, requiring a change in the size and function of the court.

Benefits

1. Corporations will be able to freely move to Mexico for the cheap labor. This will also reduce the migration to the current United States when adequate jobs are provided within the Commonwealth.

2. The cost of trying to limit mass immigration will be removed or greatly reduced.

3. It will be harder for drug traffic to move across the borders of the Commonwealth and into the United States

4. The natural resources of Mexico can be better developed when trade flows freely between the Commonwealth and the United States.

5. The corrupt government of Mexico and its several states will be reduced and/or eliminated when US federal laws take effect.

2030. The transition has been successful.

Several Commonwealth states have applied for American statehood and been accepted. The United States now consists of 54 states. English is now the legal language of the United States. Those Commonwealth states that have been accepted into the United States are prosperous. The Commonwealth and states remaining therein within are developing their own resources with the aid of the U.S. With aid from the United States the average living standards of the Commonwealth people has improved remarkably.

John Sullivan