What I Believe [Hardcover]

Anthony Kenny (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: July 3, 2006

Anthony Kenny is one of the leading philosophers of the post war years. In this brilliant new book, Kenny writes honestly about his own struggles with belief, and how he now sees himself as neither a theist or an atheist. His intellectual honesty will touch the hearts and minds of countless people. Kenny prowls at the frontiers of theology and philosophy and so commands interest from a very wide spectrum of readers - those who believe and those who find it hard to do so. In this respect his position is unique. Profoundly influenced by Wittgenstein, he has also written important books on St Thomas Aquinas and Descartes.

Editorial Reviews

Review

'Kenny's fondness for Christianity is much evident in his new book, What I Believe. After an autobiographical beginning, Kenny guides the reader down the philosophical paths which lead him to state: "Why I am not an athetist", but also "Why I am not a theist".

(Shotlo Byrnes )

Article on Kenny's beliefs

The Tablet, 8 July 2006

(Eamon Duffy Tablet, The )

Feature piece on Kenny, his bio and beliefs, including following quote:

'What I Believe isa powerful work and will long be consulted and cherished by those who study philosophy and religion.'

The Catholic Herald

(John Hinton )

' (Kenny) whose own spriritual story is presented in small, themed chapters that prove complete and satisfying. ... The arguments are easily digestible, crafted with simplicity and economy to accomodate lay philosophers.'

New Stateman

'Kenny manages to say something illuminating in a style generally accessible....The position Kenny sketches is fundamentally agnostic and he offers and interesting defence of a criticism sometimes makde of such a point of view.'

Paul Richardson, Church of England Newspaper, 29/09/2006

(Paul Richardson Church Of England Newspaper )

'Summarizing a lifetime's philosophical reflection with characteristic clarity and conciseness...Kenny is scrupulously fair and balanced in his assessments, always striving to follow the argument where it leads.
This is a book that engages on many levels, intellectual as well as emotional, and the style is both brilliantly economical and outstandingly lucid. It is hard to imagine a philosophical credo offering more stimulating challenges to believers and unbelievers alike.'

(John Cottingham Times Literary Supplement )

"...fascinating and rewarding..."

"The book is clearly written; Sir Anthony presents his ideas with clarity and an admirable lack of stridency." (The Lance, June 2007)

'No doubt believers will be changed by this book'

- Sallyanne Attwater, Expository Times

(Sallyanne Attwater Expository Times )

'The honesty and intellectual rigour, which characterise this book, make it a stimulating and challenging read for anyone interested in questions of belief.'

Catherine Twomey, The Furrow

(Catherine Twomey, The Furrow, Sept 07 The Furrow )

Review as key book to refute atheists in Baptist Times, June 2010

'Kenny's fondness for Christianity is much evident in his new book, What I Believe. After an autobiographical beginning, Kenny guides the reader down the philosophical paths which lead him to state: "Why I am not an athetist", but also "Why I am not a theist".

(, )

Article on Kenny's beliefs

The Tablet, 8 July 2006

(, Tablet, The )

Feature piece on Kenny, his bio and beliefs, including following quote:

'What I Believe isa powerful work and will long be consulted and cherished by those who study philosophy and religion.'

The Catholic Herald

(, )

'Kenny manages to say something illuminating in a style generally accessible....The position Kenny sketches is fundamentally agnostic and he offers and interesting defence of a criticism sometimes makde of such a point of view.'

Paul Richardson, Church of England Newspaper, 29/09/2006

(, Church Of England Newspaper )

'Summarizing a lifetime's philosophical reflection with characteristic clarity and conciseness...Kenny is scrupulously fair and balanced in his assessments, always striving to follow the argument where it leads.
This is a book that engages on many levels, intellectual as well as emotional, and the style is both brilliantly economical and outstandingly lucid. It is hard to imagine a philosophical credo offering more stimulating challenges to believers and unbelievers alike.'

(, Times Literary Supplement )

'No doubt believers will be changed by this book'

- Sallyanne Attwater, Expository Times

(, Expository Times )

'The honesty and intellectual rigour, which characterise this book, make it a stimulating and challenging read for anyone interested in questions of belief.'

Catherine Twomey, The Furrow

(, The Furrow )

The translation, by the late John Bowden, reads well. (, )

About the Author

Sir Anthony Kenny was until recently Master of Balliol College, Oxford and Senior Lecturer in Philosophy in the University. The author of a number of books, including an autobiography The Path from Rome, he was formerly a Roman Catholic priest.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 184 pages
• Publisher: Continuum (July 3, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0826489710
• ISBN-13: 978-0826489715
• Product Dimensions: 7.8 x 5.2 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.6 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,937,195 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Kenny is a respected philosopher, I am not., November 25, 2011

By 

P J Edmonds - See all my reviews

This review is from: What I Believe (Paperback)

Kenny's writing is lucid and conversational in tone. It is an enjoyable and thought provoking read.

In many ways Kenny's recent What I Believe is a continuation of the thoughts in Faith and Reason. He begins by tempering his personal belief and academic standing as a philosopher. He quotes Nagel saying, "I do not feel equal to the problems treated in this book"(20). This describes the respect he holds for the philosophical inquiry of belief. Kenny explores the questions that shaped his personal beliefs on his journey from theism to agnosticism. He describes his intellectual approach to philosophy as "the rearrangement of what we already know. Philosophy seeks not information, but understanding" (15).

To Kenny, both theism and atheism make claims that require the burden of proof. Agnosticism is the true "default-position" because "ignorance need only be confessed" (21). On one end of the spectrum atheism claims that there is no God. He finds this position to be naturalistic and materialistic. Kenny describes "the most fashionable atheists" saying they "claim the origin and structure of the world and the emergence of human life and human institutions are already fully explained by science, so that there is no room left for postulating the existence of activity of any non-natural agent" (23). For Kenny there is great difficulty in such a strong stance that is supposedly built from a position of disbelief. He defines the three problems of naturalistic atheism as "the origin of language, the origin of life, and the origin of the universe" (24). Kenny even challenges Darwin's theory by asking, "how there even came to be such things as species at all?" (25).

Kenny also finds theism to be wrought with difficulties. His path to agnosticism was spurred on by a clause in his doctoral candidacy that stated, "it was possible to prove the existence of God" (31). Because of his doubt, he was unable to accept this clause. With this in mind, he refutes arguments that claim to prove the existence of God. Kenny is never condescending, but respectful and reasonable in his objections. Nonetheless each argument is carefully dismantled and rejected.



A. Kenny, (2006) What I Believe. London: Continuum Press.

13 of 81 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars A Semi-Honest Book About Religion, July 12, 2007

By 

David Roemer "David Roemer" (Brooklyn, NY USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: What I Believe (Paperback)

There are three reasons to believe that our freedom is before God: 1) We know from logic and reason that God exists. 2) Miraculous historical events show God has communicated Himself to mankind. 3) When people explain why they don't believe in God, they generally give bad reasons.

The third reason is also why we can tell our children to believe in God as if there was no question about it. Children should be told about irrational people, like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens, only when they need to know. These Big Bad Wolves were educated in a tradition created by the Enlightenment and have always assumed that religion is not true. They are crackpots with whom it is impossible to have a rational conversation.

Anthony Kenny, however, was educated by the Roman Catholic Church. He was a priest before he became a professor of philosophy and a nonbeliever. Is it possible to have a rational conversation with him? Does he give better reasons for not believing than the Big Bad Wolves?

The truth of the neo-Darwinian evolution of human beings is an article of faith in the Enlightenment religion, and the biggest difference between them and Professor Kenny can be found in his chapter titled "Human Beings." The following quote from Kenny casts doubt on the absolute truth of evolution. If human beings have something animals do not have at all, humans could not have evolved from animals:

"What is peculiar to our species is the capacity for thought and behavior of the complicated and symbolic kinds that constitute the linguistic, social, moral, economic, scientific, cultural and other characteristic activities of human beings in society. The mind is a capacity, not an activity: it is the capacity to acquire intellectual abilities of which the most important is the mastery of language. The will, in contrast with animal desire, is the capacity to pursue goals that only language-users can formulate." (p. 69)

I am not sure I understand the distinction between "capacity" and "activity." Whatever he means, his comments no more shed light on the question "What is a human being?" than saying human beings are rational animals. The indefinability of the mind and mystery of a human being is why humans are embodied spirits or spirited bodies, at least to people with whom a rational conversation is possible. This does not necessarily mean human beings did not evolve from animals because it is possible that animals possess the potential of having intellects and wills. It is also possible that human beings possess spiritual souls and animals do not, making the evolution of human beings impossible. Regardless of these possibilities, people who deny that human beings are embodied spirits are obsessively and irrationally in love with the methodology of science. Kenny does not say that human beings are embodied spirits in so many words, but he comes close:

"Human beings and their brains are physical objects; their minds are not, because they are capacities. This does not mean they are spirits. A round peg's ability to fit into a round hole is not a physical object like the round peg itself, but no one will suggest that is it is a spirit. It is not any adherence to dualism, but a simple concern for conceptual clarity, that makes me insist that a mind is not a physical object and does not have a length and a breadth." (p. 71)

In this chapter, Kenny takes the trouble to refute Cartesian dualism--the idea that human beings are pure spirits and ride their bodies like CEOs ride their desks. Cartesian dualism is often criticized by materialists and atheists when they discuss religion because it is a straw man. Kenny believes in the mystery, indefinability, and spirituality of man, but downplays his views in order, I suppose, to make the book marketable. Marketing is the delivery of goods and services to the consumer and effective marketing requires a decision about the product's market position.

We can also learn about religion from Kenny, something that never happens when you read the writings of those who feel mankind would be better off without religion. The following quote is from the chapter titled "Religion":

"In my view, faith is not a virtue, but a vice, unless certain conditions are fulfilled. One is that the existence of God can be rationally established without appeal to faith. Accepting something as a matter of faith is taking God's word for its truth: but one cannot take God's word for it that He exists." (p. 59)

Kenny has concluded that the existence of God cannot be proven. The most logically rigorous proof is the cosmological argument, which is based on the metaphysical concepts of being and causality. In effect, Kenny is saying the cosmological argument is refutable. Since the Roman Catholic Church teaches that we can prove God exists, this would mean there is a non-theological and non-biblical argument against the Roman Catholic Church's claim to infallibility.

Kenny's uncle was the editor of the English Jerusalem Bible and a teacher at the seminary Kenny went to in Liverpool. When he graduated at the age of 18, he enrolled at his uncle's alma mater, the Gregorian University in Rome. He rubbed shoulders with Hans Kung, and was taught by Bernard Lonergan and Frederick Copleston, to repeat some names he mentions in his autobiography (The Path From Rome, Oxford University Press, 1986). When he was ordained he took the anti-modernist oath, but declined to take it again for his doctorate. In the following quote he explains why:

"In the 1950s, candidates for a doctorate in Papal universities had to swear to a document called the anti-modernist oath, which contained the statement that it was possible to prove the existence of God. Though I had submitted a dissertation and passed the examinations, I was unwilling to proceed to the degree because I did not wish to take this oath. If God's existence could be known, I very much doubted whether it would be known by way of proof. Since then I have studied arguments for the existence of God presented by many philosophers, and I have not yet found a convincing one." (p. 31)

Maybe Kenny thinks you can't prove God exists because you can't prove that the universe makes sense and can be understood. This is a valid objection, notwithstanding the success we have had in science by making the assumption of the intelligibility of the universe. However, we can use this objection to refute atheists who claim they are being rational and believe the universe is not absurd.

In the chapter titled "Why I Am Not an Atheist," Kenny discusses three cosmological changes or transformations: the development of language in human beings, the origin of life, and the big bang. Since there is no good natural explanation for these changes, he argues, you can't exclude the possibility of a supernatural explanation. Concerning the origin of language he says:

"If we reflect on the social and conventional nature of language, we find something odd in the idea that language may have evolved because of the advantages possessed by language users over non-language users. It seems as absurd as the idea that banks may have evolved because those born with an innate cheque-writing ability were better off than those born without it." (p. 25)

This is why common sense and intuition leads non-philosophers to be theists and not atheists. Since human beings are embodied spirits, the existence of humans cannot be explained by the biology of reproduction and evolution. A supernatural being must have created human beings. Kenny argues in favor of a third philosophical option known as agnosticism.

The Lonely Crowd is a landmark sociological analysis that identifies the personality types called inner-directed and outer-directed. Atheists are obviously inner-directed types because they don't care what other people think. Agnostics are outer-directed types, and feel more comfortable saying they don't know whether or not God exists since so many people believe in God and believe their purpose in life is to serve God. I think this is why some people are atheists and others are agnostics.

Concerning the origin of the universe Kenny says:

"The most fundamental reason in favor of postulating an extra-cosmic agency of any kind is surely the need to explain the origin of the universe itself... It is not the existence of the universe that calls for explanation, but its coming into existence." (p. 28)

Kenny is referring to the big bang, which was an extremely dense fireball of elementary particles that began our universe. Kenny agrees with the following metaphysical proposition: A being that begins to exist at some point in time needs a cause. If you assume that the big bang was a change from nothingness to a being or many beings, then the existence of an "extra-cosmic" agency can be inferred. However, if the big bang was preceded by a vacuum, this inference is not necessary since a vacuum may not be nothingness. A vacuum may be a real being or beings, not a mental being or an idea. A vacuum may have as much status in being as a photon or elementary particle.

A physicists will not find the idea that a vacuum exists strange because it was once thought that a vacuum consisted of a sea of negative energy electrons and that a positron was a hole in this sea. A physicists is also aware of the reality of kinetic energy which can be transformed into as many electron-positron pairs as you want as long as E = mc2.

His third argument against atheism comes from the origin of life itself, which cannot be explained by natural selection:

"This is not to say that neo-Darwinians do not offer explanations of the origin of life; of course they do,... Read more ›