One of the most challenging things in reading Kant’s _Religion the Boundaries of Mere Reason_ is understanding its most important premise, which is derived from Kant's practical philosophy: that God must be posited as a “postulate” of practical reason. That is, as moral, rational beings, it is necessary for us to assume or will that God exists. Kant has different ways of arguing this point (mostly in the Second Critique). For one thing, to be moral beings, we must conceive of moral perfection or the highest good, and this idealization in turn requires that we suppose an infinite stretch of time to achieve perfection (immortality of the soul) and a being that can ascertain it (God). In other words, the fact that we posit moral perfections (let’s say an utopian world where everyone does good and is happy) requires us to think that we can attain it (ought implies can, as Kant famously said), and that someone can watch the progress, with the whole picture in view.
On a related note, Kant suggests that in the big picture, we have to imagine that ultimately, happiness and morality go together. While happiness is not the aim of moral conduct, according to Kant—and, indeed, doing the right thing often causes discomfort and unhappiness in the Kantian system—we can’t in the end imagine that this disconnect is permanent and all-pervasive. We must postulate a divine creator and law-giver who is working to bring happiness and morality together, in the perfectibility of the created order, or as symbolized through reward and punishment in an afterlife. Of course, the means-end calculation that goes with thinking about going to heaven or hell cannot be central to the Kantian system. But ends are an unavoidable element of the moral life, and Kant can’t conceive of a rational moral philosophy that leaves us thinking that the ends of human activity are all for naught.
In the end, Kant is setting the stage for an argument like Copan’s, namely that ethical ideals, perfectible virtues, or objective moral principles are impossible without positing a transcendent being that grounds them. Now, Kant’s “proof” is a little different: he is not saying that morality “proves” that God exists in the theoretical sense, as an entity (like the traditional proofs did); rather, God is something we must posit as part of our moral life, in the same way we do (and must) posit that we are in fact free. In a sense, if one does not posit God in the moral realm, the game is up: moral principles are random products of nature, and there is no point to adhering to them anyway.
Courtney
ReplyDeleteI think Kant's characterization of Judaism and Christianity is insulting and pretty unfounded. To call Judaism merely a cult that follows juridical law while Christianity is the fulfillment of that by introducing moral law is a poor understanding of what happened, in my opinion. First, the Jewish faith consists of much more than just laws and second, the Christian faith has some pretty arbitrary laws itself. It is hard to take him seriously as a Christian man who concocts some odd argument as to why Christians got it so right. I also do not understand how Christians can argue they are the fulfillment of the Jewish bible and ignore the claims of Muslim people who think their faith is actually the next step after Christianity. I do appreciate, however, Kant's emphasis on religious delusion and the idea that empty actions that one arbitrarily does to please God should not be at the center of religion; one pleases God through ethical living not odd sacrifices or rituals that you actually have some other alterior motive for doing and hope will simply please God as well along the way.
Courtney: Yes I agree with you, to some extent. Although I think when Kant calls Judaism a religion that merely follows juridical laws he is referring to the general characterisation of Judaism being a religion of law (or works) as opposed to Christianity being a religion of faith (a sort of internalisation). I see this more as Kant's attempts to de-emphasise religious rituals and laws rather than to insult the Judaic tradition.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, however, if Kant's philosophy is feasible in the Christian context. Shouldn't there be at least some element of subjectivity (that lies beyond the range of theoretical knowledge) in order for Christianity to "function" as the religion of faith?
Today's class was interesting -- I was particularly intrigued by Clifford's arguments. Part of me wants to agree that we always need to ground our beliefs on evidence especially if these beliefs are going to affect other people. I am concerned, however, by the rigidity of the evidentialist. Would it then render everything pointless and meaningless -- intangible things like love, beauty, art?
Nadine
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I have never read any of Kant’s work, nor have I been exposed to his ideas before. With that in mind, this book was certainly a challenge for me. While Kant has a reputation of being a phenomenal thinker, quite a few of his ideas were totally incoherent. However, there were certainly some stand out ideas. First of all, I like the notion that Kant presents about it making sense for god to exist because of a higher standard/greater good. Thus, because of the morals human beings posses god becomes a necessary idea. Kant is not arguing for or against the existence of god in “Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason”, but rather stating that it makes sense that god does exist. This practical approach to the existence of god was quite different than anything I had been exposed to previously. Frankly, it makes sense. From an ethical and practical standpoint, the existence of god meshes quite well with human nature.
This was probably one of the only things I liked about Kant’s thinking. Frankly, I was appalled at Kant’s unfounded anti-Semitic remarks. To state that Judaism is not a religion, but rather a following of people, is wholly un-merited. I would like to hear Kant respond to the fact that Jesus was Jewish. Therefore, Jesus came from the Jewish faith, and ultimately it was a Jewish man that was the influence for another religion: Christianity. With these facts, it seems inappropriate and unwarranted to say Judaism is not a religion. In fact, it is actually comical, because Christianity was created because of a Jewish man. It frustrates me that Kant can be so intelligent on some issues-morality, good and evil- and so off base when it comes to acknowledging other religions. The easiest “defense” for Kant’s remarks is to say that he was a product of his time, and that there were notions of anti-Semitism when he was writing. However, such claims are copouts. In every time period there are certain prejudices and injustices, but a moral and good person should not get mixed up in such ideas. Which leads me to wonder if I can possibly agree with any of Kant’s teachings when he clearly holds such a skewed view on Judaism. To me, this greatly impacts the way I think of him and his work overall.
"What would Kant respond to the fact that Jesus came from the Jewish faith?" (Nadine) This, maybe? -- "Historical faith will finally pass over, in however distant a future, into pure religious faith" (6:116). Historical faith has particular validity, and can by no means be neglected, for "ecclesiastical faith naturally precedes pure religious faith" (6:106), so I don't think that Kant would have a problem with Jesus being a Jew...
ReplyDeleteDorian
ReplyDeleteLooking at the distinctions made between Judaism and Christianity, im not sure I recall of the role of a higher being in Judaism. If it were the case that Judaism did not formulate these laws in sight of a higher being, what exactly is there incentive for following these laws?Is it merely so that they may coexist in their community? If happiness and morality are to go together, then which of these, if not both, is Kant suggesting that they do not commit to or are not interested in? Would he be suggesting that people of the Jewish faith, unlike most other humans seek happiness? If however, they were to abide by these laws in sight of a higher being, even if there were a few differences from the Christian faith as to who this is and how this is done, what about the Jewish faith, in sight of Kants reasoning on religion seperate from this precise critisism of the Jewish faith, suggests that it is in some way illegitimate?
I'm in total agreement with Kant's practical philosophy. It is not only problematic but also impossible to posit the existence of God (or the existence of eternal souls and free will) on theoretical grounds. There is no reason why the big G man should be held to a different standard then any other intangible subject. The problem with positing the existence of anything on theoretical grounds is that there is nothing in the world to check these postulations and one could go on and posit the existence of anything, no matter how absurd or ridiculous it may be.
ReplyDeleteForgot to attach my name to the comment, Peter
ReplyDeleteNadine
ReplyDeleteAngela’s response is well taken. Though, I find it hard to believe that Kant would not have the slightest problem with Jesus being Jewish given his critical views towards the Jewish faith. In fact, I find it rather ironic, and the more I think about it the more frustrated I become with Kant’s perception of the Jewish religion. Jesus was Jewish, so it puzzles me why Kant would want to criticize Judaism so strongly when its roots are clearly planted in Jesus.
I also have to say that I am not sure that god should be held to the same standards as other intangible subject/beings. I certainly see the argument here, but shouldn’t given that god be god, be held to higher standards and praise? Sometimes I think that while it is ideal for religion to be held to the same standards as everything else, it is also impractical and unrealistic.
Karen
ReplyDeleteKant’s idea of positing God because of our
moral beliefs makes a lot more sense than Copan’s belief that “if objective moral values exist, then God exists.” Copan argues that objective moral principles are properly basic and are applicable to all human beings. Copan argues that human beings exist because a “personal God exists, in whose image we have been made. The instantiation of moral properties are internally related to personhood, and if no persons existed, then no moral properties would be instantiated.” It seems like a pretty unfounded assumption that moral values lead to there being a God, which is why Kant’s argument that a universal principle of morality does exist, and it is in light of it that we posit a God, not the other way around.
It seems more rational to believe we posit a God by acknowledging universal principles of morality, rather than acknowledging objective moral principles exist, and automatically jumping to God putting them there.
Dorian
ReplyDeleteI cant stop thinking about how Kant says that we postulate God in order to base a moral order on (so that god would be a keeper of that moral order) I think thats totally brilliant ,even though there are probably other reasons why people believe in God but still a good point
I agree with Kant that it seems also unavoidable for reason to extend itself outside the sphere of possible experience due to the fact that this pesky question of, "how did I come to exist?" always seems to crop up. So these proofs for the existence of God are justified, at least in their curiosity. But our understanding has such fixed conditions that it may never be possible to ever know that there is an object that corresponds to our conception of a supreme being. Although after asserting that this is not possible on theoretical grounds Kant posits the existence of God on supposed practical grounds. Kant should have stopped at his refutations of the theoretical proofs because his Moral proof lapses into the same fundamental problems the arguments which he refutes have. Kant's proof relies on too many theoretical assumptions to be taken as completely practical proof.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Kant I couldn't help but think how law minded his writing is especially while describing our binds of "reason through unconditional law" and our free power of "choice" and the ideas of law are reinforced in his discussions of ethical communities, juridicio-civil state, and public juridical laws. He describes humans as each being "his own judge" however having no public authority. I like concept because it discretely points out how institutionalized our world is. Religion and belief are often thought of as separate from institutions but I personally believe the the Catholic Church, as one example, is completely political and extremely powerful. In a situation like this laws are dealt by religious figures and vast wealth increases that power.
ReplyDeleteDimitria
Kant seriously needed an editor.
ReplyDeletegoing off Karen's argument above,your argument reminds me a lot of Terry Pratchett's "Discworld", in which gods come into existence through people and their beliefs rather than the other way around. perhaps it bad wording, but Kant seems to teeter around that idea.It is not necessarily the godhead that is worshiped but the good and the perfection it represents as the ideal we strive for.
K. byrnes
Also, this seems to be confronted with that lovely euthyphro dilemma from before.does the idea of this perfection, this reach towards utopia lessen whent he godhead is removed. It seems that Kant thinks so.
ReplyDeletealso i think it is safe to say that kant is not the "see's all end's all" person when it comes to discussing Judaism and Christianity. also to confront Dimitrias comment, the church was very influential at the time but the intro to the book goes into how the ruler where Kant lived had a lot of say in the religious practices of the time, saying what religion could be practiced, so religion and politics were very close back then.
k. byrnes above, very good t forgetting that part
ReplyDelete