Just a note about my posts on Kant’s “Kingdom of God.”
There have been many theologians and philosophers (many who were Christian) whom I have read in the past who espoused that Kant was perhaps an atheist. This was due in large part to Kant’s work The Critique of Pure Reason; especially in this work where Kant attempts to demonstrate why the current arguments for God’s existence (those which were prevalent during his day) were at best untenable.
This reading of Kant, the reading if his Critique of Pure Reason, in the absence of his other works, leads these thinkers to what I have heard called a neo-Kantian view of Kant. This view, I believe, is an erroneous view of Kant’s thinking. Kant actually bridges the gap between the noumena and the phenomena through the practical and the moral (Kant has actually formulated an alternative to the traditional arguments for God’s existence in his work The One Possible Basis for a Demonstration for the Existence of God). A more thorough reading of Kant’s works fleshes this out. This being the case, to think Kant was an atheist, or even agnostic is, at best, a faulty view.
While I do not agree entirely with Kant’s assessment of his “Kingdom of God,” I think, at least, that it communicates that Kant was attempting to incorporate his Christian Protestant Pietistic roots into his moral and religious philosophy. Moreover, the posts below certainly demonstrate that Kant held to a certain semi-Pelagian view of human nature, and here I part ways with his thinking since I am decidedly a Calvinist. However, I posted these parts here to at least demonstrate an aspect of Kant that way too many readers of Kant overlook. I hope you enjoy them.
This reading of Kant, the reading if his Critique of Pure Reason, in the absence of his other works, leads these thinkers to what I have heard called a neo-Kantian view of Kant. This view, I believe, is an erroneous view of Kant’s thinking. Kant actually bridges the gap between the noumena and the phenomena through the practical and the moral (Kant has actually formulated an alternative to the traditional arguments for God’s existence in his work The One Possible Basis for a Demonstration for the Existence of God). A more thorough reading of Kant’s works fleshes this out. This being the case, to think Kant was an atheist, or even agnostic is, at best, a faulty view.
While I do not agree entirely with Kant’s assessment of his “Kingdom of God,” I think, at least, that it communicates that Kant was attempting to incorporate his Christian Protestant Pietistic roots into his moral and religious philosophy. Moreover, the posts below certainly demonstrate that Kant held to a certain semi-Pelagian view of human nature, and here I part ways with his thinking since I am decidedly a Calvinist. However, I posted these parts here to at least demonstrate an aspect of Kant that way too many readers of Kant overlook. I hope you enjoy them.
posted by T.B. Vick | 11:17 AM
6 Comments:
T.B. - this is my first time here. I love your blog name and philosophical emphasis. I will be returning!
Hey Jonathan,
Welcome, glad you have visited. I actually visit your site fairly regularly as I am out on web visiting various blogs. So, welcome.
I'm pretty sure his moral argument for God appears in some of his ethical writings. I don't remember where offhand, but he thinks the only meta-ethical view that makes any sense presupposes God.
Jeremy,
It has been awhile since I have visited Kant's moral writings, however, I believe it is through Kant's categorical imperative through practical reason where he is arguing or presupposing God.
This can be found in two of his works Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals and The One Possible Basis for a Demonstration for the Existence of God
The below comments were posted in the comments section of the Bunyan quote. I wanted to move them to this section so everyone could see them where they actually belong."
_______________________________
Patrick said...
What you say about Kant is largely true, I think. God and immortality are conditions for the proper expression of pure practical reason. He says, too, that this is Glaube rather than knowledge, but he also says that this Glaube (belief) occasions a more powerful assent than mere knowledge. However, I would say, putting aside Kant's biography, that his philosophy does not allow for a Christian God but a philosopher's God. Kant feels free to "think" God in that the thought of God involves no logical contradiction. Where one goes from here is an extremely interesting question. I do not see it leading Kant anywhere near The New Testament. That he was an atheist, however, as you point out, strikes me as dead wrong. He attached far more importance to the practical side of his thinking than the theoretical. He saw the dogmatic philosophers of his day, as he called them (Leiniz-Wolff) as promoting atheism by constructing proofs of the existence of God that 1) did not affect the belief of the masses one bit, 2) were so subject to criticism and debate that they called faith itself into doubt. And it was this very precisely that he wanted to avoid by writing the first true philosophical science.
4:57 AM, December 15, 2005
______________________________
T.B. Vick said...
Patrick states:
"God and immortality are conditions for the proper expression of pure practical reason."
This is a good way of putting it Patrick and this is the latter part of Kant's thinking in his moral philosophy.
I never said Kant was an atheist. In fact I emphatically deny that claim (re-read my "note about my posts on Kant’s “Kingdom of God.”"
I think you raise and intersting point when you say that perhaps Kant's God was one of philosophy and not a Christian Theistic God.
That may in fact be how it is cashed out in Kant's overall presentation, however, I honestly think Kant believed that what he was asserting could perhaps point one to some notion of the Christian God; but I am uncertain of this and am speculating - much to Kant's insistence that I not do that ; )
You are correct by declaring that Kant placed more emphasis on the practical aspect of his philosophy than the theoretical, most contemporary scholars of Kant do not see that though, and this is one reason why they get lost or confussed in Kant (especially with a mere one-sided reading as I pointed out in my posts).
Thanks for your thoughts. Sounds like you have really read Kant.
*However, next time post your comments in the Kant section and not in a quote from Bunyan ; )
10:18 AM, December 15, 2005
LOL. That's funny Patrick, no 'Bunyan bungles' occurred so I think we're safe.
You are Kantian after my own heart ; ) it is rare to find someone who is well rounded when reading or studying Kant.
I actually studied under one of the best Kantian scholars in the U.S. at Marquette University - Father John Treloar, S.J. (who has written a ton of stuff on Kant and spent 30 plus years devoted to Kantian studies). Albeit he is no longer at Marquette (which was a terrible loss for them).
Treloar also demonstrated to us how many 'top-notch' scholars have made a mess of Kant, so it is all to prevalent.
In the future I intent to post some more articles about Kant and his theological philosophy.
Post a Comment
<< Home