Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Edited from PhD
Posted on academia.edu: May 20, 2023
Preface
This post which is edited work from my PhD demonstrates where Philosophy/Philosophy of Religion can work with Theology and Biblical Studies.
There would be areas of agreement and disagreement with Christian theology and worldview.
The philosophical arguments of Kant are often used by critics of theism and Christianity and therefore at times need to be dealt with by those Christians interested in theological defences, apologetics, and I would suggest at times even evangelism and missions.
One can see why my Doctorate is in both Theology and Philosophy of Religion.
Kantian philosophy
Kantian philosophy originates from philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant like some other prominent philosophers of the Enlightenment era, such as Jonathan Edwards is a sophisticated writer.[1] It would take years of research to become a scholar of Kant, and it should be noted he is not a major player within theodicy discussion.
In his Inaugural Dissertation of 1770, Kant provides the idea that persons can only have a priori knowledge of space and time by the use of forms of the mind, which are imposed by human experience.[2] Kantian scholars Paul Guyer and Allen Wood (1999) with the Introduction to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, note that a priori knowledge originates independently of senses and experience.[3] According to Pojman the word a priori is the Latin for preceding and is considered knowledge that is not based on empirical experience, but is known by the meaning of words or definitions.[4]
In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations.[5] Human experience will determine the method and forms by which particular things are understood by what Kant calls pure intuition.[6] Concerning human experience, Kant reasoned categories are applied to objects not because the objects make the categories possible, but rather because categories themselves provide and constitute necessary conditions for the representation for all possible objects of experience.[7]
Therefore any human understanding of metaphysical reality would not be comprehended by empirical knowledge in a posteriori sense.[8] Guyer and Wood point out that Kant was not an empiricist,[9] as while Kant criticized and limited the scope of traditional metaphysical thought,[10] he also sought to defend against empiricism’s claim of the possibility of universal and necessary knowledge which he called a priori [11] knowledge, because no knowledge derived from experience, a posteriori [12] knowledge, could justify a claim to universal and necessary validity.[13] Guyer and Wood explain that Kant sought to defend the scientific approach to the acquisition of knowledge against skeptics that dismissed rigorous arguments in favor of ‘common sense.’[14]
Kant critiqued the dogmatism of certain metaphysicians negatively,[15] and he also negatively noted as dogmatists those that would be intellectually indifferent to metaphysical inquiry.[16] Kant wished to limit the pretensions of dogmatic empiricists while defending metaphysical theories as a science and necessary in terms of practical reason.[17] Basically, Kant defended metaphysics as important and necessary,[18] but was sympathetic to the empiricists view that certain metaphysical questions were insoluble.[19]
Kant noted that a priori is relational without its own inherent content.[20] It is synthetic and incapable of serving as metaphysical proof.
A priori is relative to an experience only capable of producing appearances, and so a priori is factual as experience which it conditions.[21] Kant reasons objects that were present in empirical human experience were in the phenomena realm, while objects outside were the noumena realm.[22] He writes that the contingent things experienced by persons are phenomena.[23] These are things that could be experienced empirically and would be reasonably accepted as reality.[24] The noumena realm was not available to empirical senses.[25]
Kant explains in a follow up work entitled The Critique of Practical Reason from 1788, that the noumena is the theoretical department of knowledge denied, while the phenomena is one’s own empirical consciousness.[26] All positive speculative knowledge should be disclaimed for the noumena realm according to Kantian thought.[27] Kant concludes The Critique of Practical Reason by noting that the phenomena realm is the external realm where consciousness has existence.[28] The noumena realm is invisible and has true infinity where Kant believes one can reason that contingent personality is dependent on the universal and necessary connection to the invisible world.[29]
Importantly Kant thought it legitimate for one to postulate the noumena realm in a ‘negative sense’ meaning things as they may be independently or how they are represented,[30] but not noumena in the ‘positive sense’ which would be things based on pure reason alone.[31] Instead, noumena categories were only useful by applying them to empirical data structured in forms of intuition.[32]
The concept of noumena, according to Kant, was bound to the limit of pretension of sensibility and reason, and therefore only negative noumenon was of intellectual use.[33] Noumena in its negative sense are that which is not an object of sense intuition.[34] Kant rejects concepts of positive noumena based on pure reason[35] because, according to T.C. Williams (1987), noumenal concepts are not determinate knowledge of anything and must be based on a sense of sensible intuition.[36] Kant rejects the positive use of the term as it postulates objective knowledge of a metaphysical realm.[37] The positive sense of the term noumena is therefore fully rejected by Kant.[38] He explains that the noumenal in the negative sense is equivalent to the thing itself and alone is involved in the concept.[39] Kant’s view leads to a moral theology which has a doctrine of God and immortality postulated, along with theories of human free will and morality.[40] His moral theology is postulated and is not dogmatic, rational metaphysics.[41]
The nature of the noumenal realm described by Kant would, to John Hick, cause those who profess natural theology to lower their expectations from proving God’s existence to merely making it probable at best.[42] Hick thinks that these probabilities are based on personal estimates of likelihood and are arbitrary.[43] Kantian philosophy postulates that any reality which existed beyond what can be empirically experienced is not knowable, and therefore God is placed beyond the realm of science based experience.[44] God and morality could not be affirmed as actual or possible concepts, although Kant states that they can be assumed as possibilities.[45] Hick takes this idea of Kant’s and deduces that when it comes to religious doctrine, the noumenal realm that stands behind the phenomena realm may have little in common with corresponding phenomena. I do not disagree with the Kantian view that the noumena realm is not empirically knowable,[46] and I readily admit that God as spirit is not empirically[47] or scientifically provable.[48]
Jesus stated that God is spirit in John 4:24 and therefore God is not of a material nature and cannot be proven by the use of matter or scientific experiment.
Hick states that natural theology can only at best demonstrate that God is probable;[49] however, I hold that Peter D. Klein’s definition of certainty[50] could possibly be applied to natural theology.[51] Klein (1996) in ‘Certainty’ describes the idea as being that a proposition is true if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it.[52] This is a reasonable concept, and I support the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior.[53]
Natural theology therefore would never be 100% certain,[54] but could hypothetically at least be philosophically certain as long as arguments that supported natural theology were true beyond any reasonable doubt,[55] or the arguments for natural theology were superior to those opposing them.
As for Kant, his view allows for the concept of negative noumena.[56] The idea of noumena, according to Kant, was bound to the limit of pretension of sensibility and reason, and therefore only negative noumena was of intellectual use.[57] The use of positive noumena which trusts in pure reason is rejected.
Conclusion
Christian scholarship does not rely primarily on natural theology, which would be considered by certain scholars to simply use pure reason which some also think Kant had demolished.[58]
Revelation from God in Scripture and resulting claims made within could perhaps be tied to Kantian concepts and intuition arising from empirical sensations.[59] This is not a difficulty for a Reformed and some other approaches to Christianity, which do not rely primarily on philosophical deductions, but in supernatural revelation of God through empirical sensations, such as prophets, Christ, the apostles and scribes. My conclusion here, which I realize some will debate, is that Scripture is not primarily metaphysical speculation about God as discussed, but is rather coming through the authors and players within his Bible, which are reasoned to be divinely guided by God.
In other words:
Natural theology at points can be reasonable philosophically as secondary support for theism and Christianity.
Natural theology does not reveal the God of the Bible specifically.
Revelation and Scripture reveals the God of the Bible.
Therefore, Christianity is not primarily based on metaphysical speculation or pure reason.
[1] Blackburn rightly suggests there is a ‘notorious difficulty of reading Kant, made worse by his penchant for scholastic systemization and obscure terminology.’ Blackburn (1996: 206). I would suggest this difficulty will lead to inevitable differences in interpreting Kant.
[2] Blackburn (1996: 205).
[3] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 2).
[4] Pojman (1996: 595).
[5] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66).
[6] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66).
[7] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 3).
[8] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66).
[9] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 2). Norman Kemp Smith within A Commentary to Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ writes that empiricists eliminate a priori principles, appealing to sense experience only, therefore eliminating distinctions between inductive inference and expectation. Smith (1930: xxvii). Blackburn suggests Kant made a strong break from eighteenth century empiricism. Blackburn (1996: 206). Kant was not an empiricist as was David Hume that within (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, notes that for ‘ignorant ages’ persons including geniuses have ambitiously tried to produce new proofs and arguments for natural theology and God. Hume (1779)(2004: 2). Hume also reasoned that the supposed Supreme Being’s infinite divine attributes would be ‘totally incomprehensible’ and that human nature would not have ideas that would correspond to the attributes of this divine being. Hume (1779)(2004: 21). Hume’s degree of scepticism of God and natural theology and dependence on empiricism alone was not the same view as Kant. Kant (1788)(1997: 11). Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 3).
[10] Kant was opposed to speculative views of indefensible rationalism. Blackburn (1996: 206). Cornelius Van Til suggests Kant reasons God is not a law giver to humanity, God cannot reveal himself through nature or human constitution with the image of God. The intellect of human beings makes no positive assertions concerning God. Kant rejects notions of theoretical knowledge of God and, instead, appeals to practical reason and faith. Van Til (1977: 246-247). Plantinga writes that it is suggested by many commentators Kant demonstrated there are insurmountable problems with the idea that the traditional Christian God exists. Plantinga (2000: 7).
[11] Kant called cognitions independent of all experience and the impressions of the senses a priori. Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 136).
[12] Empirical experiences are called a posteriori. A posteriori knowledge is empirical knowledge through experience. Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 136).
[13] Kant argued that inductive inference from data and experience was only possible based upon prior acceptance of views of rational principles established independently. Therefore experience does not validate these principles. Smith (1930: xxvii). Ameriks suggests Kant rejected unjustifiable metaphysical claims in place of principles of theory which are the conditions by which persons orientate themselves within experience. These principles are ‘necessary and discoverable’ therefore defeating empiricism and scepticism concerning reasonable metaphysical claims, and contrasting traditional rationalism and dogmatism. Ameriks (1996: 399).
[14] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 2).
[15] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 3).
[16] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 3). Kant notes in ‘Critique of Practical Reason’ empiricism needs to be contrasted by the necessity of rational a priori principles. Kant (1788)(1997: 11).
[17] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 3). Ameriks writes, for Kant practical reason is that which determines rules for the faculty of desire and will as opposed to the faculty of cognition and feeling. Ameriks (1996: 399).
[18] Ameriks (1996: 399).
[19] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 3).
[20] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 3).
[21] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 43).
[22] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 482). Guyer and Wood note that the phenomena realm is the category applied to appearances whereas things in themselves are the noumena realm, which might be thought of but not known. Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 10). The phenomena realm is that which appears and is therefore empirical.
[23] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 482).
[24] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 482).
[25] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 393).
[26] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 3).
[27] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 26).
[28] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 100).
[29] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 100).
[30] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 13).
[31] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 13).
[32] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 13).
[33] Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 350).
[34] Smith (1930: 413). Ameriks (1996: 400).
[35] Smith (1930: 413). Ameriks (1996: 400).
[36] Williams (1987: 149).
[37] Williams (1987: 150).
[38] Williams (1987: 151).
[39] Smith (1930: 413).
[40] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 846).
[41] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 14).
[42] Hick in Geivett (1993: 230-231).
[43] Hick in Geivett (1993: 230). In contrast I deduce Scriptural revelation would not necessarily be arbitrary estimates of God, but God and any revealed doctrines would be understood by a serious contextual evaluation of the Scripture.
[44] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 1).
[45] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 1). Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 14).
[46] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 393). Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 10). Smid (1999: 10).
[47] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 393).
[48] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 393).
[49] Hick in Geivett (1993: 230-231). Geivett (1993: 49).
[50] Klein (1996: 113).
[51] And Biblical theology as well.
[52] Klein (1996: 113). Blackburn explains that a proposition would be considered certain when there is no doubt concerning its truth. Blackburn (1996: 60).
[53] This would also accomplish the standard of a proposition being true as it is beyond (reasonable) doubt.
[54] In my view 100% certainty is impossible to grasp for a finite being that cannot have 100% knowledge. Absolute certainty could only belong to an infinite, omniscient being.
[55] Klein (1996: 113). Blackburn (1996: 60).
[56] Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 350).
[57] Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 350). Smith (1930: 413). Ameriks (1996: 400).
[58] Hick in Geivett (1993: 230). Weber (1955)(1981: 203). Geivett would not agree and considers it dangerous to completely dismiss natural theology. Geivett (1993: 69-89). Even after accepting Kant’s critique as reasonable and somewhat valuable, I still reason that philosophical truths about God can possibly be deduced without the use of direct divine revelation and a supernatural event and/or Scripture. Deductions and knowledge concerning a first cause and/or God, do not however qualify as equivalent to the knowledge of knowing God as a result of Scripture and the influence of the Holy Spirit. Philosophical deductions concerning God would not necessarily be of pure reason, and I can agree with Kant that any reasonable deduction and intuition must be tied back to empirical experience by which to make sense of these deductions. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). Blackburn (1996: 205).
[59] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). Blackburn (1996: 205).
AMERIKS, KARL (1999) ‘Kant, Immanuel’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford, University, Press.
FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.
HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.
HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.
HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.
HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
LINDSELL, HAROLD (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
SMID, ROBERT W. (1999) ‘John Harwood Hick, His Life’, in The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology.
SMITH, NORMAN KEMP (1930) A Commentary to Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, MacMillan and Co., Limited, London.
VAN TIL, CORNELIUS (1977) Christianity and Barthianism, Nutley, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.
WILLIAMS, T.C. (1987) The Unity of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, New York.
WEBBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
My readings have only taken me to Anselm and Aquinas who - as scholastics - believed that reason can lead to God while also affirming scripture. Kant certainly represents a post-scholastic viewpoint. Of course the scholastics had opponents during their lifetime, but I was wondering when the break was between them and the more modern strands of philosophy. Is it with Kant? Or someone earlier? Perhaps the Reformation?
ReplyDeleteBlackburn has scholasticism, the philosophy taught in church schools and for theological training, taking place in medieval times in Europe from the 11th to 16th centuries. He connects it from the time of Abelard to Suarez. It was based on the work of Aristotle, but also somewhat Plato. Blackburn does list Aquinas as a prominent scholastic, and Ockham. Blackburn (1996: 342).
ReplyDeleteKant would be of the Enlightenment area, which refers to the philosophical movement among 17th and 18th century Western intellectuals.
Thanks again, Looney.
Blackburn rightly suggests there is a ‘notorious difficulty of reading Kant, made worse by his penchant for scholastic systemization and obscure terminology.’ Blackburn (1996: 206).
ReplyDeleteI was going to say that this article was definitely not one of your more casual reads.
I would suggest this difficulty will lead to inevitable differences in interpreting Kant.
I can certainly see how that could happen.
Hume also reasoned that the supposed Supreme Being’s infinite divine attributes would be ‘totally incomprehensible’ and that human nature would not have ideas that would correspond to the attributes of this divine being. Hume (1779)(2004: 21).
Islam, as an example, believes Allah is unknowable. I think that Christianity is the only religion that believes God is personally knowable. Therefore, any non-Christian saying that God cannot be comprehended is not surprising.
[54] In my view 100% certainty is impossible to grasp for a finite being that cannot have 100% knowledge. Absolute certainty could only belong to an infinite, omniscient being.
Maybe that's why the Bible says, "For we walk by faith, not by sight." (2 Corinthians 5:7)
"Even the skeptic David Hume, a renowned critic of the proofs for God's existence, was so impressed by the force of the evidence that he wrote, "A purpose, an intention, or design strikes everywhere the most careless, the most stupid thinker and no man can be so hardened in absurd systems, as at all times to reject it." [David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1946), 214.]
ReplyDelete"Referring to this evidence [i.e., the teleological argument/evidence from design], the German philosopher Immanuel Kant in his famous work, Critique of Pure Reason insists that the argument "always deserves to be mentioned with respect." [Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (trans. by N.K. Smith; New York: St. Martin's, 1965), A. 623, B. 651.]
(p. 20, "Christianity for Skeptics: An Understandable Examination of Christian Belief," by Steve Kumar, Hendrickson Publishers)
'I was going to say that this article was definitely not one of your more casual reads.'
ReplyDeleteYes, Kantian thought is one of the most philosophically challenging parts of the dissertation, as is the related work on certainty. Natural theology and gratuitous evil can be quite challenging topics and also the core work concerning compatibilism and incompatibilism is difficult.
Philosophical theology and philosophy of religion can be very intellectually challenging.
'Islam, as an example, believes Allah is unknowable. I think that Christianity is the only religion that believes God is personally knowable. Therefore, any non-Christian saying that God cannot be comprehended is not surprising.'
Kant does make some reasonable points concerning pure reason.
But I allow for God to reveal himself through history and Scripture to the human mind/spirit.
'Maybe that's why the Bible says, "For we walk by faith, not by sight." (2 Corinthians 5:7)'
As noted before on my blogs, God gives us enough finite information to have a reasonable faith/philosophy in Christ.
Thanks, Jeff. Well-done.
Hume and Kant are serious academic critics of Christianity. Not like some of the 'pop' critics out there today.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Jeff.
Revelation and Scripture reveals the God of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteI like that :)
More beautiful pics of scenery Russ.. I love pictures of nature.. Thanks for sharing
Tammy :)
The following quote concentrates on the 'argument from design' regarding the question of God's existence:
ReplyDelete“Although critics have frequently argued that the teleological argument has been conclusively refuted by Hume and Kant, a careful study of the arguments proves otherwise. Philosophers of the caliber of Thomas Reid, F. R. Tennant, A.E. Taylor, Stewart Hackett, Frederick Copleston, Charles H. Malik, Hugo Meynell, and others have cogently responded to Hume’s skepticism. It is worth noting that Hume and Kant were not unbiased minds looking at the facts objectively. Their objections were often based on systems which are generally refuted and rejected by many modern philosophers. As philosopher Charles H. Malik observes, “Hume and Kant did not conclude their skepticism and criticism from their rational investigations” [Charles H. Malik, The Wonder of Being (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1974), 33.] but from philosophical presuppositions which are highly questionable, and which if accepted would undermine their own philosophical conclusions; furthermore, few philosophers share their presuppositions.
It is worth noting that while Hume is often perceived as a skeptic, his comment on the famous Dialogues suggests otherwise. In the Dialogues Philo is the skeptic, Demea the pantheist, and Cleanthes a theist who argues in favor of the teleological evidence. Hume gives his own verdict on the matter, “I confess that, upon a serious review of the whole, I cannot but think that Philo’s principles are more probable than Demea’s; but that those of Cleanthes approach still nearer to the truth.” [Quoted in Norman L. Geisler, Philosophy of Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 116.] The evidence of design in the universe provides adequate grounds for affirming the existence of an intelligent Creator.”
(p. 23, "Christianity for Skeptics: An Understandable Examination of Christian Belief," Does God Exist?, by Steve Kumar, Hendrickson Publishers)
'Revelation and Scripture reveals the God of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteI like that :)'
Thanks. The significance of that point is likely overlooked too much in Kantian thought.
'More beautiful pics of scenery Russ.. I love pictures of nature.. Thanks for sharing'
Trekearth.com is helpful.
Cheers, Tamela.
'Their objections were often based on systems which are generally refuted and rejected by many modern philosophers.'
ReplyDeleteHaving studied in the system, I do think Kant still has a lot of influence on British philosophy of religion and liberal theology.
I would deduce many modern philosophers/liberal theologians find Kant's consideration of theism, more philosophically acceptable than the empiricism of Hume.
In regard to empiricism:
Empiricism ties knowledge to experience. Blackburn (1996: 119).
Empiricism relies on the observable by senses. Blackburn (1996: 119).
First cause would likely be beyond physical matter.
First cause would be beyond human senses.
I reason empiricism is a limited philosophy in gaining knowledge.
He, Kant, tells nounema, thing-in-itself, many times. It would mean he missing the point?
ReplyDeleteI do not know why, but all the work of Kant what refers to religions, does not quote distortion of Judaism and its Jewish rules, committed by Christianity in general.
Probably in those times the Enlightenment (no both) also had religious obscurantism. Imagine if Kant read the Torah, impossible!
For us Jews, YHWH gives indication of His Supremacy with facts and by reason all the times, for centuries and centuries. It was our sages who persevered in trying to comprehend His Magnificence and His Absolute Supremacy over all things. The modern science has proven that man and the Creator has fundamental ties. Kant and his vain philosophy today would be destroyed in a discussion by any modern scientist.
Regards,
Adelle
'He, Kant, tells nounema, thing-in-itself, many times. It would mean he missing the point?'
ReplyDeleteI think he undervalues the Scriptural revelation of God.
'I do not know why, but all the work of Kant what refers to religions, does not quote distortion of Judaism and its Jewish rules, committed by Christianity in general.
Probably in those times the Enlightenment (no both) also had religious obscurantism. Imagine if Kant read the Torah, impossible!'
I remember from Bible school and seminary, I was taught that the Christian culture in pre-modern times at least did have some unreasonable problems and resentment with Jewish persons. For example, one had to do with the success of Jewish bankers and those involved in finances and another had to do with the fact that with the ceremonial cleanliness laws of the Hebrew Bible, many Jewish persons avoided the diseases that those in the Christian culture obtained.
Jackson J. Spielvogel in the text Western Civilization, Volume II Since 1550, explains on page 625 that Jewish persons in the Enlightenment era/Eighteenth century remained the despised religious minority of Europe. Most lived in Eastern Europe. Jewish persons were restricted in their movements, not allowed to own land or have jobs, forced to pay high taxes and were subject to wrath at times. This included the looting and sometimes massacre of Jewish communities.
The writer states that things did not improve significantly for Jewish persons until a century later with the French revolution.
I reason...
Jewish persons were treated very wrongly at times within this pre-modern culture as were Christian persons at times that for example, would not submit to Church/State Christianity, especially within the earlier era of the Reformation.
Therefore
My take is that Christian culture does not necessarily equate with actually following the Christ of the Bible. Christ taught that Christians were to love others/neighbours as much as self, for example, in Matthew 22 and Mark 12.
'For us Jews, YHWH gives indication of His Supremacy with facts and by reason all the times, for centuries and centuries. It was our sages who persevered in trying to comprehend His Magnificence and His Absolute Supremacy over all things. The modern science has proven that man and the Creator has fundamental ties. Kant and his vain philosophy today would be destroyed in a discussion by any modern scientist.'
Regards,
Adelle'
Cheers, Adelle. I appreciate your perspective.
Really nice :)
ReplyDeleteThanks very much, Miriam.
ReplyDeleteVery in depth article on Kant's ideas and interesting comments too.
ReplyDeleteNice touch putting pics of Kant's home country Germany.
-Blogger Boy-
Ah yes, a post where I connect the images to the article.
ReplyDeleteNot something I usually do.
Cheers
Good morning Mr Murray,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Reuben, am the husband of Adelle, she helps me to publicize my blog posts.
I appreciate the comment,
Hugs.
Good morning, Reuben. Nice to meet you. It is good to blog with you and Adelle.
ReplyDeleteBlessings to the family.
Russ:)
Good Morning, Russ, I'm fine with your visit in my blog
ReplyDeleteThanks Eva, your blog is impressive as usual.:)
ReplyDeleteGood morning.
Beaultiful blog!I am looking for followers myself
ReplyDeleteCongratulagions!
Sorry! My english is bad!
Andre, thanks. Your English is far better than my Portuguese.
ReplyDeleteI followed your blog via Google/Blogger with my Gmail account as a gift. With my blog accounts I follow reciprocally.
Cheers.
Just remember the categorical imperative:
ReplyDeleteWhat if EVERYONE acted this way?
Aloha from Honolulu
Comfort Spiral
><}}(°>
><}}(°>
'Just remember the categorical imperative:
ReplyDeleteWhat if EVERYONE acted this way?'
Reasonable.
Cheers.:)
I wonder what Kant looked like?
ReplyDelete-Curious-
Kant
ReplyDeleteI guess Kant's looks will remain a mystery here.
ReplyDelete-Can't See-
I wonder who Kant read to influence his take on life and existence??
ReplyDelete-Wondering Wanderer-
Mystery is over, Kant's pics are here, thx
ReplyDelete-Pic Proof-
Kant
ReplyDelete'Kant attended college at the University of Königsberg, known as the Albertina, where his early interest in classics was quickly superseded by philosophy, which all first year students studied and which encompassed mathematics and physics as well as logic, metaphysics, ethics, and natural law. Kant's philosophy professors exposed him to the approach of Christian Wolff (1679–1750), whose critical synthesis of the philosophy of G. W. Leibniz (1646–1716) was then very influential in German universities. But Kant was also exposed to a range of German and British critics of Wolff, and there were strong doses of Aristotelianism and Pietism represented in the philosophy faculty as well. Kant's favorite teacher was Martin Knutzen (1713–1751), a Pietist who was heavily influenced by both Wolff and the English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704). Knutzen introduced Kant to the work of Isaac Newton (1642–1727), and his influence is visible in Kant's first published work, Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces (1747), which was a critical attempt to mediate a dispute in natural philosophy between Leibnizians and Newtonians over the proper measurement of force.
After college Kant spent six years as a private tutor to young children outside Königsberg. By this time both of his parents had died and Kant's finances were not yet secure enough for him to pursue an academic career. He finally returned to Königsberg in 1754 and began teaching at the Albertina the following year. For the next four decades Kant taught philosophy there, until his retirement from teaching in 1796 at the age of seventy-two.'
Tried to post the entire article, but got an error, so I'll just post the link:
ReplyDeleteRick Warren Teams Up with Swedenborg Cult Follower Dr. Oz
I did a book study with a home group on "The Purpose Driven Life" several years ago, and I didn't see anything wrong with it. But then a couple or more people at a church I started going to a few years later started warning about Rick Warren, and at first I thought they were being too picky and assuming things. But then Rick Warren gave Obama credibility by agreeing to deliver the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Bill Keller, internet evangelist and founder of Liveprayer.com, said, “For Pastor Rick Warren to bless and give the invocation at the upcoming inauguration for a man who will help ensure millions of babies around the world are slaughtered – and force U.S. taxpayers to fund this legalized infanticide – is no different than if Adolph Hitler had asked Warren to give the blessing and invocation when he became Chancellor of Germany.” Rick Warren seems to grow further and further into first hetero-orthodoxy , then unorthodoxy, then heresy and now rank compromise and apostasy, topping his actions up with his appearance at the World Economic Forum Interfaith session at Davos, Switzerland. Oddly enough, however, in the Fall of 2010, John Piper invited Rick Warren to speak at the Desiring God conference, which puzzles me...but apparently he had his reasons.
John Piper is one of my favorite men of God today. Another favorite is Mark Kielar of Word Pictures/CrossTV. Some other men who stand up for the truth today are John MacArthur, Josh McDowell, Paul Washer, and Ray Comfort.
Thanks for the update on Warren's ministry, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteGreat info. I like all your post. I will keep visiting this blog very often. It is good to see you verbalize from the heart and your clarity on this important subject can be easily observed.
ReplyDeleteCheers, to you in India.
ReplyDelete"Therefore, Christianity is not primarily based on metaphysical speculation or pure reason."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the excellent insight re:Kant and for your ability to discern the ultimate authority of Scripture which supersedes all logic.
(and thanks for following my blogs as well!) Take care!!
Thanks, Greg.
ReplyDeleteChristianity is reasonable within this disciplines of Biblical Studies, Theology and Philosophy of Religion.
I am glad to follow you, and I am always looking for followers and links.