My last post contained a general, non-controversial interpretation of a passage by Kant that was decorated nicely with images meant to disguise my rather shallow, non-threatening treatment of Kant’s philosophy. I did promise, however, that there would be an exciting conclusion… and here is a conclusion, although not a very exciting one:
Kant notices a paradox in his system, and tries to address it head-on, namely if historical religion is above pure rational religious faith or whether it is a mere vehicle which follows inevitably from pure religious faith (117 marginal/ 129 Hackett). Kant says the latter is true, and that a true universal church based on moral religion alone would eventually be able to do away with historical elements. However, ecclesiastical scripture seems necessary for illuminating pure moral faith, and Kant himself relies on scripture often.
However, in my view, these distinctions seem unnecessary and confusing, and Kant’s moral proof for God is unconvincing.
Kant renders God impotent in the causal, empirical world, but gives him judgment over mankind in an unknowable transcendental world. But, if we remove God from the moral equation all together, say in favor of the social contract espoused by Hobbes, or say even a neo-Kantian ideal like Rawl’s fairness principle, we are still able to explain and judge morality without God's interference. Therefore, it seems, we could discard God altogether or instead, the concept of God could only be based on revelation. If we follow reason we would surely do away with God altogether.
I agree that Kant’s moral proof for God is unconvincing. The relationship between a belief in God and morality is understandable if one believes in God, however, one who does not believe in God but strives to apply moral law, are they not considered moral without the belief in God? It does not seem as though God is necessary yet Kant’s theory is derived on that belief as a fundamental element to attaining moral perfection. So then even reason is rooted in a belief in God when reason is typically separate of religion. Kant’s philosophy, having combined reason and faith is confusing. A belief in God is unnecessary to strive for moral perfection and feels contradictory to the entire notion of what it is to utilize reason in our actions.
ReplyDeleteAs discussed in class, Kant's efforts were in part to challenge the dogmatism that had beset and held Christianity. Kant uses the term "moral faith" to describe the effort one must sustain throughout life to be as high an exemplar of moral goodness one may. Kant has provided an ahistorical religion with the motivation for goodness that can be seen in this world and also as a platform for God's judgment. He has provided a solution to an oppressive christian guilt and yet also tightened the reins on human responsibility to each other. I think that faith is a necessary part of Kant's form religion to maintain human motivation towards the good.
ReplyDelete