The claim that a rational philosophical religion is superior to a religion based on historical revelation is what Kant argues. But is it truly possible to construct a religion which is solely based on reason without any root in history?
Kant begins his construction of rational religion by positing that human beings are by nature radically evil. Human beings are evil because they chose to design their moral maxims not for the sake of the universal morality but for their own benefit and self love raising the individual above the universal. Human beings as a species are conscious and aware of the moral law, yet unconsciously but freely chose evil. This evil subsists in human beings before birth and will eternally be within humanity. Evil has a rational origin; it is apriori, transcends experience and has no cause within the boundaries of time. If the origin of evil exists within the boundaries of time then evil would be contingent on experience hence predetermined and it could not be said that humanity choose evil with freedom of the will.
In order to combat the evil in humanity, complete moral perfection needs to be maintained in humanity. This moral perfection is realized through God’s only begotten son. His complete moral perfection is a necessary condition in order for humanity to experience happiness. To achieve happiness as an end Kant postulates the existence of a supreme being with complete moral perfection. Furthermore in order to have an ethical community, where each individual chooses morality as a higher good for all of humanity, Kant argues that there must be someone above and beyond the people how knows, understands and is companionate to the heart of humanity i.e. the son of God.
Kant uses practical reason to postulate the existence of a perfect moral being and construct a philosophical religion so that this religion should be universal and not isolated to a particular history. But is this really what Kant has accomplished? It seems that some of the most pertinent concepts which Kant is using are borrowed from Christianity, which is a religion that has its own cultural history. Without the concepts of radical evil, the son of God and a people of God how would Kant be able to construct his philosophical religion. It seems that Kant’s religion is rooted in a particular history yet Kant wants his philosophical religion to be ahistorical. It seems as though there is a contradiction since Kant wants a philosophical religion which is not subject to the constraints of history yet he is using notions that are rooted in historical developments.
Kant might argue that once these notions exist, by whatever means, reason is free to do with it as it sees fit. But this would only be an admission that Kant’s ideas of religion are contingent on historical developments. It can be argued that every religion will have its own historical and cultural evolution. When applied to religion, reason is a tool which yields to principles which are already desirable and cultural norms for a given people.
I know we discussed this in class but I am still not convinced that Kant's account can not be developed ahistorically. When I was reading Kant I assumed he was using Christianity because it was the religion of the time not because it was necessary to his theory.
ReplyDeleteI am thinking about this book I read by Joseph Cambell called the "hero with a thousand faces." In it he coined the term monomyth or heroes journey. Tt is the basic idea that myths follow a classic journey; there are seventeen stages including things like; the call to adventure and supernatural aid.
I think essential to the heroes journey is Kant's idea of adhering to duty before self interest. So we can emulate Jesus, Dionysius or even Luke Skywalker because the idea of what is moral is given a priori within reason.
Its seems to me his theory is not dependent on Jesus as a historical figure but the IDEA of what Jesus is; which is not temporally dependent.
I agree that the notions which Kant is using in his philosophical religion did go through some journey as myths do. But I think that this would be consistent with my point which is that the ideas in Kant’s philosophical religion have their own conceptual and cultural evolution. The concept of a being with complete moral perfection is an idea which evolved over time and what moral perfection means continues to evolve today. The question is whether an idea which is continuously evolving can be considered as an apriori concept?
ReplyDeleteIt is true that Kant’s attempt to create a philosophical religion without a tie to the historical and cultural experience from which the concept of religion was established is contradictory. It is contradictory in that Kant actually uses historical and cultural development to establish his theory. Part of the frustration of Kant’s theory is that it is impossible to conceive of anything universal without acknowledging and considering historical experience. From what then would we derive any sense of anything? This is the reason that Kant’s theory ultimately is rooted in historical developments and cannot be entirely without historical influence, which is evident in his discussion of the Son of God and the need to emulate him in order to attain moral perfection.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, utilizing the principles of historical religion is beneficial in developing a system to achieve moral perfection because most people who have morals that are considered good, likely received them through religion. A belief in a divine existence is fundamental to Kant’s theory, which further adds to the frustration of understanding the role reason plays in Kant’s theory of morality. Kant’s theory is heavier on the religion side than it is on the reason side.