What is certain?
Preface
For my PhD revisions I was required to revise my comments on the work of philosopher Immanuel Kant in greater detail, as an influence on John Hick and his soul making theodicy.
In a serious discussion, Immanuel Kant may be mentioned and so this is a useful post.
This part of my Kant revisions defends a view of philosophical certainty. I am not a Kantian scholar.
Article originally published 20090501, revised on Blogger for an entry on academia,edu, 20250817.
The noumena and therefore noumenal realm is the non-material, non-empirical realm of reality
The first citation is background from another part of my Kant section.
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.[1]
[1] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 100)...
John Hick states that natural theology can only at best demonstrate that God is probable;[1] however, I hold that Peter D. Klein’s definition of certainty[2] could possibly be applied to natural theology. [3] Klein (1996) in ‘Certainty’ describes the idea as being that a proposition is true if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it.[4] 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.[5] Natural theology therefore would never be 100% certain,[6] but could hypothetically at least be philosophically certain as long as arguments that supported natural theology were true beyond any reasonable doubt,[7] or the arguments for natural theology were superior to those opposing them.
In regard to the noumena realm of Immanuel Kant making Christian doctrine clearly metaphorical and indefensible, I respectfully disagree with Hick.[8] Christian doctrine is not primarily established through the use of natural theology, but by what many conservatives and some liberals view as the revelation of God through Hebrew Bible writers, and Christ and his New Testament writers.[9]
For Hick to demonstrate that Biblical revelation should be interpreted in a way that denies traditional conservative doctrines, or liberal ones for that matter, would be difficult since by Hick’s own standard[10] his denial of any possible reasonable understanding of the noumenal realm[11] makes his evaluation of Scripture subject to the same negative critique by which he judges traditional theology. Christian scholars therefore, whether conservative or liberal, are left with looking at contextual, historical and methodological issues relating to Biblical interpretation, and attempting to reason out what Scripture is stating and related issues.[12] This despite the fact that the noumena realm cannot be empirically known.[13]
As for Kant, his view allows for the concept of negative noumena.[14] 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.[15] The use of positive noumena which trusts in pure reason is rejected.[16]
Christian scholarship does not rely primarily on natural theology,[17] which would be considered by certain scholars to simply use pure reason which some also think Kant had demolished.[18] Scriptural Revelation in my view, is not to be considered a source of the concept of pure reason as discussed by Kant and reviewers,[19] but rather I see it as similar to how Kant approached theodicy within his brief article.[20]
Scripture, like theodicy approaches can be used as an historical, traditional and authoritative source.[21] Revelation from God in Scripture and resulting claims made within could perhaps be tied to Kantian concepts and intuition arising from empirical sensations.[22] This is not a difficulty for a Reformed and some other approach 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, scribes.[23] As cited, Plantinga reasons that for Kant the intellectual problem is not that persons cannot think about God but that persons cannot come to speculative metaphysical knowledge of God.[24]
My proposition and conclusion here, which I realize some will debate, is that Scripture is not primarily metaphysical speculation about God as discussed,[25] but is rather coming from empirically based sources[26] as God speaks through the authors and players within his Bible.[27]
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. Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 3).
---
[1] Hick in Geivett (1993: 230-231). Geivett (1993: 49).
[2] Klein (1996: 113).
[3] And Biblical theology as well.
[4] Klein (1996: 113). Blackburn explains that a proposition would be considered certain when there is no doubt concerning its truth. Blackburn (1996: 60).
[5] This would also accomplish the standard of a proposition being true as it is beyond (reasonable) doubt.
[6] 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.
[7] Klein (1996: 113). Blackburn (1996: 60).
[8] Hick (1993: 126). Geivett points out Kant postulates the existence of God out of practical necessity within a system of morality. Geivett (1993: 87). I would deduce Christian doctrine could be considered in a similar sense, even from a critical perspective.
[9] Otto Weber discusses this issue. Weber (1955)(1981: 169-331). John Murray suggests that through Scripture the activity of God, the Father, is reflected. Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 148). See also Erickson (1994: 176-177).
[10] Hick (1993: 126). Geivett explains that there is no way of knowing whether or not Hick’s theodicy is true. Geivett (1993: 88).
[11] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 393). Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 10). Smid (1999: 10).
[12] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331). Lindsell (1976: 200-211).
[13] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 26). Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 10). Smid (1999: 10).
[14] Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 350).
[15] Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 350). Smith (1930: 413). Ameriks (1996: 400).
[16] Williams (1987: 150). Smith (1930: 413). Ameriks (1996: 400).
[17] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331). Erickson (1994: 176-177).
[18] 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 through a supernatural event and/or Scripture. Deductions 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).
[19] Williams (1987: 150). Smith (1930: 413). Ameriks (1996: 400).
[20] Kant, Immanuel (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology.
[21] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331).
[22] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). Blackburn (1996: 205).
[23] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331). William G.T. Shedd provides the view that general, natural revelation is not infallible. He differentiates this from Scriptural Revelation. Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 66). Van Til writes that the Reformers reasoned they were listening to Christ directly through the Scriptures as God revealed himself to humanity. Van Til (1977: 246).
[24] Plantinga (2000: 9).
[25] Plantinga (2000: 9).
[26] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). Blackburn (1996: 205). I am not stating that Kant was a Christian philosopher from an orthodox, historical perspective, but Van Til writes that Kant made room for Christ as the Son of God as Christ is viewed as the idea set before humanity for persons to emulate moral perfection. This was done through a historical faith. Van Til (1977: 399). Minimally this does not appear as a complete rejection of Biblical theology.
[27] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 66). Van Til (1977: 246). Lindsell (1976: 200-211).
---
AMERIKS, KARL (1999) ‘Kant, Immanuel’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
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.
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.
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.
http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt
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.
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.
http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_them
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.
WEBBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2007) Wrestling with Angels, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids.
