Why not, there was actual circumstantial evidences for that hypothesis that Kant was a closet atheist.
Note this from A C Grayling [a reputable philosopher];
I have explained the above statement elsewhere and many have also explained why the above cannot be taken literally in English due to the translation of the German terms translated for ‘deny’ and ‘faith’.
The ‘make room for faith’ [for Kant] is the the provision for morality to work effectively which has nothing to do with real things and epistemology.
You’ll need to be familiar FULLY with how Kant’s Framework of Morality works so as to understand why Kant needed to assume God.
Your opinion is totally off.
You keep repeating the same falsehood. Kant is NOT a theist, Kant is a Deist, this difference is very critical.
You’ll need to solid evidence from Kant to justify your view.
As I had explained in the above posts
[quotes from Kant]
, Kant assumed and presupposed a God to support his moral framework.
Kant never claimed there is a real God nor the possibility of a real God.
According to Kant the idea of God can be assumed within morality only.
There is no possibility the idea of God can be real, i.e. to bring within reality objective reality.
Kant emphasized a lot on ‘possible experience’ thus the possibility of being real, i.e. objective reality.
The idea of God is merely an Idea [a transcendental idea] without Truth nor any relation to any object, i.e. impossible to be real;
Note my main argument is God is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically.
To Kant, the idea of God is a necessity for his moral framework.
The analogy is like an manufacturing company adopting a vision and mission of “ZERO DEFECT” [an ideal] for their products at all times.
This ideal of ZERO DEFECT is obviously an assumption which is impossible to achieve in reality.
However assuming this impossibility of the idea ZERO DEFECT will ensure the company strive for the OPTIMAL best the quality and thus giving customers the assurance they are getting the best possible.
Similarly to the analogy above, within Kant’s morality, the idea of God is merely an ideal assumed but there is no way the idea of God can be real in reality.
So let’s see… Kant’s actual statements are dismissed as “tongue and cheek” while conjecture about what he thought” in the closet” is given credence? Grayling’s interpretation is possible although it’s in a small minority as far as “reputable” published commentaries I’ve read on Kant are concerned.
Nope!
I have explained all the statements you produced re Kant, your views are straw-man[s] and out of context, i.e.
Deny knowledge …make room for faith,
The idea of God is most rational OPINION for morality [Practical Reason].
Your personal opinion, Kant was a theist… NO! NO! NO! Kant was a Deist.
Others?
I have countered all your above claims.
If you insist on the above, you’ll need to produce solid evidence and arguments within the whole context of Kantian Philosophy.
Re Grayling’s claimed ‘Kant was an atheist’ [closet] is not a conjecture. Do you have an idea of the politico-religio climate during Kant’s time. Kant was admonished DIRECTLY by the King, banned and was given warnings.
Given the above threatening situation, any intelligent, wise and rational person would pretend to please the authorities. This is what is happening in many Muslim-majority nations where atheists would pretend to be “theists” to avoid death or severe punishments for being an atheist.
Grayling gave his basis and evidence for his conclusion, read the whole article and tell me where he is wrong.
As far as associating Kant [deism] with God as in theism, there is only a small minority and this theistic group [compelled by confirmation bias] has not understood Kant’s motive for the idea of God is purely for morality [Practical Reason] only. The most famous is Stephen Palmquist together with a few others [countable within all the fingers].
If you have read the whole range of Kant’s philosophy, you will note Kant had a great detest for the idea of God, especially in the area of theism [personal living God]. His anti-theism triggered the King to admonish him directly. [see quote above]
On this basis, Kant’s deism [reasoned God] is most likely a pretension to please the authorities.
As mentioned, instead of the term ‘God’, Kant had a more effective idea for his morality, i.e. the Ens Realissimum which is non-theistic.
Yes, grounded upon a 3+ years of full time study on Kant with continual refresh on it.
Point is I have given my justifications.
All you need is to prove [objectively & not bias as a theist] they are wrong from the whole of the Kantian perspective.
Astute??
The authors are bias with rhetoric on the term ‘faith’.
Note both the authors, Lawrence Pasternack and [Reverend] Philip Rossi, are theists and Christians. Thus one can expect them to be driven by rhetoric and confirmation bias to soothe their existential crisis.
Kant opened room for faith [on idea of God] as a necessity and purely for his moral framework to be effective. You have to fully grasp how the Kantian Moral Framework works to understand how Kant fit the idea of God [illusory] into it.
When one relies on faith, anything goes [it is subjective] and this include the idea of God which is illusory and an impossibility to be real.
Analogy: A child will have faith in his parents Santa is real [riding on a flying reindeer] deliver Christmas gifts to him.
But there is no way Kant agreed the idea of God can be possible to be real empirically and philosophically. [read the article for this point].
First you dismiss the authors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the ad hominem grounds that they are theists and Christians, then you endorse the article as supporting your position. Which is it?
My point is the article kept mentioning Kant’s idea of God is related to and for the purpose of morality, and did not mention God as real empirically and philosophically.
The theistic Christian authors may have presumed Kant’s idea of God is real which in this case would be a contradiction. They did not argue Kant’s idea of God is real.
As per the article, Kant’s idea of God is related to and for the purpose of morality, period!
Note my analogy, of some parent’s’ purpose of the idea of a real-Santa [illusory and false] is merely to bullshit and please their child.
I don’t see the authors’ viewpoint as at all supportive of yours. Seems to me you are able to read your viewpoint on Kant into anything. To me your perspective on Kant is idiosyncratic. Reputable published commentators that I’ve read don’t share it. But, you have only to read the diversity of neo kantian philosophers to see that numerous plausible interpretations of Kant are possible. Plus subsequent empirical science has shown that some of Kant’s propositions are doubtful. But you’re trying to use absolute atheism to refute absolutist theism. You’re trying to use empiricism which is always inductive as a basis for a deductive argument, when all inductive conclusions are no more than probable. The fact that you don’t recognize the possible fallibility of your proposition suggests that there is an element of fanaticism in your thinking. Wouldn’t that be ironic since you are so concerned about the fanaticism of religionists particularly Muslims? It’s evidence that projecting one’s Shadow side unto others and not seeing it in oneself isn’t limited to the professing religious, fanatical atheists do it as well.
If you read the whole article, the main point is Kant’s used of the idea of God is purely regulative and for the purpose of morality only.
There is no indication where they argued God is real empirically and philosophically.
If so, where?
I am not reading my viewpoint on Kant’s.
I am relying on the whole of Kant’s philosophy and express not my own but Kant’s own view that the idea of God is an illusion which is useful for the purpose of morality.
In the penultimate part of Kant’s CPR, he concluded the following;
Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God. 500
Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God . 507
Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof 518 Kant’s CPR - Smith
In the above, Kant demonstrated it is impossible to prove the existence of God as real empirically and philosophically.
Here is what Kant wrote, if the use of the idea of God is abused, it leads to illusion.
The outcome of all Dialectical attempts of Pure Reason does not merely confirm what we have already proved in the Transcendental Analytic, namely,
-that all those conclusions of ours which profess to lead us beyond the field of Possible -Experience are deceptive and without foundation;
-it likewise teaches us this further lesson,
that Human Reason has a natural tendency to transgress these Limits, and
-that Transcendental Ideas are just as natural to it [Human Reason] as the Categories -are to Understanding – though with this difference,
-that while
the Categories lead to Truth, that is, to the conformity of our Concepts with the Object,
the Ideas produce what, though a mere Illusion, is nonetheless irresistible, and the harmful influence of which we can barely succeed in neutralizing even by means of the severest criticism.
A642 B670
Here is where Kant stated where Transcendental Ideas [leading to illusions] can be useful of used on a regulative basis;
I accordingly maintain that Transcendental Ideas NEVER allow of any Constitutive Employment [the empirically real].
When regarded in that mistaken manner, and therefore as supplying Concepts of certain Objects, they are but pseudo-Rational, merely Dialectical Concepts.
Regulative Facilitate all Rules of Understanding toward a Point of Intersection – a Focus Imaginarius [FI], is an Idea.
On the other hand, they [Transcendental Ideas] have an excellent, and indeed indispensably necessary, Regulative Employment, namely, that of directing the Understanding towards a certain goal upon which the Routes marked out by all its [Understanding’s] Rules converge, as upon their Point of Intersection.
A643 B671
In the above Kant stated if Transcendental Ideas [idea of God] is used in a mistaken manner, they are pseudo-Rational and are merely Dialectical Concepts, i.e. as illusions.
The only use of excellent and necessary is for Regulative Employment, i.e. for the purpose of Morality in establishing absolute laws which Kant explained briefly in the final chapters as a preclude to his book, The Critique of Practical Reason [Morality].
How many reputable commentators have you read and what is the % of these to the other reputatble commentators who do not hold the theistic claims?
As far as I know, the % is negligible and insignificant.
The theists who read Kant merely focus on the transcendental idea as God used regulatively within morality and ignored Kant’s critical groundings.
Science is very limited thus has very little impact on Kant’s propositions.
Kant’s approach is based on critical thinking, systematic, completeness and holistic approach, thus cover the full spectrum.
Nope I am not trying to use absolute atheism [not such thing] to refute absolutist theism.
What I am proving is the hypothesis, “God exists as real” is moot, i.e. a non-starter.
Kant [not me] used the idea of God [illusory] on a regulative basis for the purpose of morality only to ground absolute moral laws.
I don’t agree, I have argued in the Ethics section, we do not need a God as a basis for absolute moral laws. Humanity [all humans] can do that.
Where did I use empiricism as an inductive basis for deductive arguments?
Note I mentioned above;
What I am proving is the hypothesis, “God exists as real” is moot, i.e. a non-starter.
You on the other hand are claiming God is empirically real but is unable to provide no empirical and philosophical justifications to support your claim.
According to Kant you are merely reifying an illusion as empirically real.
As far as your “Muslim” accusation, that is based on ignorance, ad hominen without argument and justification.
Note I raised this thread;
I have never condemned any Muslims even the jihadist terrorists. The primary fault is not due the Muslims but rather the evil ideology of Islam. The same is, WW II horrors are not due to Germans but the ideology of Nazism grounded on the Main Kampf.
Btw, the Quran is worst than the Main Kampf in terms of anti-semitism, evil and violence.
Whatever claims I have made, they are supported by objective evidence and rational arguments.
Theists made their claims driven by desperate psychology, i.e. the existential crisis.
I think your repeated use of the phrase “real empirically” or “empirically real” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Kant. On top of that, you completely ignored what the authors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article said about Kant’s take on faith. According to Kant reality cannot be known as it is in itself. What empirical observation reveals are phenomena. The human mind structures the phenomenal universe with its own categorical order. The object itself is unknowable. Man has no necessary insight into the Transcendent nor into the world as such. He can only know things as they appear to him not as they are in themselves.
Having misunderstood Kant’s epistemology, you proceed to misunderstand his religion. Kant wanted to rescue not only science from Hume’s skepticism but also religion. For Kant that included moral freedom as well as God. By restricting reason’s authority to the phenomenal world, he opened up the possibility of faith. Science could claim certain knowledge of appearances but it couldn’t arrogantly claim knowledge over all reality. In this way Kant believed he had reconciled scientific determinism with religious belief and morality which depends on free will. Per Kant although one can’t know that God exists, one can believe it and such faith is necessary for morality [the categorical imperative].
But like I said before, science has rendered some of Kant’s propositions doubtful. For example, he thought that Euclidean geometry was synthetic a priori because it worked so well for Newton’s laws of physics. 20th century physics exploded Kant’s assumptions about this.
Point is you are ignorant of Kant’s philosophy.
How much time have you spent on reading the full range of Kant’s works?
Btw, even when one has spent a lot of time on Kant’s work, they could missed the very refined nuances.
What’s wrong with “real empirically” or “empirically real” in relation to Kant’s transcendental ideas?
What is “real empirically” or “empirically real” is like seeing a real table, feel it, sit on the table, and doing whatever with the real table which can be solidly justified to be true.
Where is your God which can be seen, touched and justified to be true as “real empirically” or “empirically real”?
I did not ignore the authors of the SEP article totally. Their article indicate the belief [faith] in a God [not real] is valid for morality, I can agree with that. But they never proved God exist as “real empirically” or “empirically real.”
SEP should have a non-bias article on ‘Kant and Religion’ written by a non-religious author who is objective and rely merely on what Kant presented in his books.
Yes, what is empirically real are phenomena [as emergences not appearances] which Kant claimed are real as per his stance as a Empirical Realist. [read up Kant’s CPR on this]
Kant demonstrated there is no such thing as a real noumenon or thing-in-itself.
If you try to reify and objectify the noumenon or thing-in-itself as a real thing [empirically & philosophically] then you are churning up an illusion.
But according to Kant [not me] the thing-in-itself can be termed as ‘God’ for the purpose of morality.
As such, Kant has set aside [not literally deny] knowledge for faith in this circumstance of the purpose of morality.
You are misrepresenting Kant.
Kant condemned ‘religion’ to his utmost contempt. Read his,
In a way, but in more precisely manner, Kant demonstrated it is impossible for God to exists as real empirically and philosophically.
Nevertheless the “idea of God” is a necessity for Kant’s Moral Framework. This is like the idea of SantaClaus which is one useful mean to please children and companies to make money.
Note I have provided loads of quotes from Kant, but you do not understand them because you have not read Kant thoroughly and thus ignorant of Kant’s philosophy in depth.
Here is another relevant quote continued from the previous quote.
Kant stated below, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, are impossible to be real empirically because they are initiated as thoughts SOLELY by Reason, but nevertheless their concepts are useful.
Analogically,
Kant demonstrated the idea of God - the pure-perfect-absolute-Entity is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically, but nevertheless this idea of God is useful for the purpose of morality.
By general admission, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, etc., are not to be found. We require, however, the Concepts of them (though, in so far as their complete purity is concerned, they have their Origin solely in Reason) in order properly to determine the share which each of these natural Causes has in producing Appearances.
Kant’s CPR A646 B674 - Smith
Kant did his best to rely on the limited Scientific Knowledge during his time but they do not have any significant impact on his main thesis, one e.g.; God is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically but is nevertheless useful of the purpose of Kant’s Framework of morality.
I often lamented if only the latest scientific knowledge, e.g. neurosciences, genomics, evolutionary psychology, QM, etc., were available to Kant then, Kant would have been more precise* with his theories. *More precise but not abandoning his various theses.
Just thought I’d mention that Kant is neither the constitution nor the Bible nor a current scientific model.
This does not mean that discussions of Kant’s ideas and positions (and the various interpretations by experts of these) is not a valid topic.
But in the end what is happening in this exchange is in part one person defending his ‘Bible’. IOW there is an appeal to authority on Prismatic’s part that needs Kant to have position X. If he has it, then appealing to the authority of Kant continues to ‘work’. If not, not.
IOW this argument parallels what happens when an atheist criticizes the Bible as a source of knowledge.
Ironically.
It’s not all that is happening, but it is a large part of the motivation.
How can you be so ignorant of what is going on in practical reality?
The default is every one who made a serious claim or proposition, in the philosophical, intellectual, rational, community and the likes will always defend their proposed thesis or hypothesis until it is proven to be false or not tenable.
Generally we do not meet a stupid person who make a positive claim and declare it is false and ignore all requests for justifications of their claim.
The point is whether one defend one’s position based on critical and rational arguments with evidences [as in Science, Philosophy and other rational pursuits] or simply be dogmatic with one’s position like the theists’ belief in God based on blind faith.
I have maintained my intellectual integrity to ensure I defend my position of whatever [with solid arguments and justifications] until I am convinced there are rational and justified counters to prove my position is false.
I doubt you will dispute with me that Kant’s philosophy was enormously influential on the subsequent history of thought though you may disagree that it can be widely interpreted even by the academic experts since you seem to be quite certain that your interpretation is the only correct one.
Turns out the phrase “empirically real” or “real empirically” is problematic and ambiguous though. Kant has conceded that the really real i.e. “the thing itself” is unknowable. Thus, sensory data is mere phenomena. Yet, per Kant, the mind imposes it’s own order on the data. The structure we know as the “world” is not the world as it is in itself but rather the structure of our mind as the “world”.
So, in what sense can we call this “reality”? From Kant through Darwin, Freud, neuro-scientists, etc., it became evident that human thought and perception is determined, structured, and often distorted by a multiple innate, non-absolute mental “categories” including but not limited to habit, history, culture, social class, biology, language, imagination, emotion, and the unconscious. Your “empirical reality” begs the question,how the human mind can be relied upon to be an accurate judge of “reality”?
So what can we say about reality- as- it- is- in- itself? The wisest e.g. Lao Tsu and Wittgenstein counsel against talking about it. The religions anthropomorphize and mythologize it. Atheists claim they don’t believe in it but they can’t stop talking about it and may be no less obsessed with an image of it than theists. So, here we are.
In “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason”, Kant strongly criticizes ritual, superstition and church hierarchy. How does that differ from “Christian” Soren Kierkegaard’s attack on “Christendom” or theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s “religionless Christianity”?
Perfection is not judged objectively, it is a subjective human value judgement. A “perfect-circle” is something that would meet certain geometrical conditions; it would be an inter-subjective human observation to call that circle “perfect” - it is necessarily a value judgement. In my view, things are not perfect unless people attribute that value to them, and absolute perfection is something that human beings attribute to things, not an actual quantity that can be said to exist or not exist, the observation is based wholly upon what people perceive. So I think that your claim “absolute perfection is impossible” is your subjective viewpoint. You are arguing against what theists may think or claim about the God they believe in, with what you believe. All that you’ve demonstrated is your opinion.
Yes, Kant’s philosophy was highly influential, thus labelled as one of the greatest Western philosophers of all times. I believe he is ‘not one of’ but THE Greatest.
The reading of Kant is divided into two major camps, i.e.
-the non-analytic, e.g. Alison and others
-the analytic camp non-theistic, e.g. Guyer and others
----2a - the theological theist camp - Stephen Palmquist, and others.
I agree totally with the views of camp 1 i.e. Alison and others.
Therefore I am not claiming my interpretation is the only correct one.
I have relied on this view to add on my argument, God is an impossibility to exists as real.
Those in camp 2 believe the thing-in-itself is a thing that exists.
The theists in camp 2a believe the thing-in-itself exists as a real thing, i.e. God.
Kant did not claim the “thing-in-itself” is unknowable.
The thing-in-itself is outside the realm of knowledge, so how can it be known or unknowable.
The question of ‘knowable’ or ‘unknowable’ is moot, i.e. a non-started as far as the ‘thing-in-itself’ is concerned.
I have quoted this many times;
The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it [noumenon] is therefore only of negative employment.
At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
The division of Objects into Phenomena and Noumena, and the World into a World of the Senses and a World of the Understanding, is therefore quite inadmissible in the Positive sense, 2 although the distinction of Concepts as Sensible and Intellectual is certainly legitimate.
For no Object can be determined for the latter [intellectual] Concepts, and consequently they [noumena] cannot be asserted to be Objectively Valid.
A255 B311 - Smith
Kant stated, the concept of the nuomenon is ONLY a Limiting Concept and cannot be taken in the positive sense in terms of knowledge.
Kant repeated the above [re noumenon] many times. Show me where did Kant change his mind on the above thereafter in the CPR?
The noumenon is also the same as the thing-in-itself but in another perspective.
I have already quoted Kant in stating the thing-in-itself can only be used regulatively [you need to understand this term] and NEVER constructively, i.e. positively and objectively.
The thing-in-itself albeit illusory is only good for use within morality but never epistemology, i.e. knowledge to be known or is somewhere unknowable.
Kant never state there is a reality out there to be known.
What Kant presented is a reality emerges interdependently with the subject [humans] i.e. objects are Given within the process of emergence, not as pre-existing externally to be perceived.
Lao Tsu and Wittgenstein counselled against wishing for its existence as real as such an expectation is an impossibility and one will end up with a reified illusion.
Point is, whether the thing-in-itself exists are real or not, knowable or unknowable is moot, i.e. a non-starter.
What Kant proposed ‘moral-based-religion’ is based on pure reason not blind faith, which is deistic not theistic. I have argued Kant is more likely a closet atheist due to the political-religio circumstances during his time and when he was under threat by the King.
Circles are empirically possible because they can be observed in nature.
Note Objective = Intersubjective consensus.
A perfect circle is inferred by empirical observation of circles in nature and this supported by geometrical measurements derived from reason as mere thoughts only.
Who in the world will dispute what is the measurement for a perfect circle - there is no way for an alternative, thus there is intersubjective consensus, i.e. from subjective to intersubjective to objective.
The fact is, the perfect circle is impossible to be real empirically.
But at least, a perfect circle [impossible] is grounded on empirical observation of circles.
While a perfect circle [impossible to be real] is inferred and computed from observations of empirical circles in nature or created by humans, the idea of an absolute perfect God is not grounded on anything real at all [only by psychological drives].
While a perfect circle is related to real empirical circles, an absolute perfect God is not related to anything that is real at all.
Therefore the idea of God has no possibility of relating to anything real.
Nope, it is not my claim at all.
I have stated many times, the term “absolute perfection” attributable to God is done by more advanced theologians like St. Anselm, Descartes with their ontological God.
What you are trying to say is correct, i.e. these theists are highly subjective in attributing ‘absolute perfection’ to their idea of God.
I have argued this subjective motivation to conjure the idea of God as “absolutely-perfect” is due to terrible subliminal existential psychological impulses.
What I have demonstrated is the idea of God as postulated by theists is moot, i.e. impossible to be real.
It is not an opinion.
Rather I have backed up my view with rational arguments and justifications.
You don’t seem to understand, but I don’t see how I could be any clearer? Perfection is a value judgement. Perfect, applied to circles, is a term/emphasis we use to describe how accurately such a circle would comply to a specific geometrical condition. Perfection is a term used to describe how people relate to something, it is something that human beings attribute to something and it is subjective or inter-subjective, it is certainly not objective. Whatever theists claim about God is based upon their value judgements. God could be any number of things and have any number of attributes, but it is human-beings who’ve decided that God is perfect. Perfection is not an actual entity; it exists only in the minds of people - which doesn’t mean that a being that people perceive as perfect is impossible to exist - your claim is absolute and very problematic.
Que? The premise of your argument is that absolute perfection is impossible. You have been arguing this for quite some time. Now you’re saying that it isn’t your claim? Who else has claimed that absolute perfection is impossible here?
To yourself maybe, but it is clearly your opinion.
If not, then what is objective.
Scientific knowledge is objective, do you agree?
But scientific knowledge which is objective is grounded on intersubjective consensus among the specific scientists peers. You dispute this?
Anything with values there is a value judgement.
The question is whether the value judgement is highly subjective, reasonable justified or highly justified.
A perfect-circle within geometry is a highly justified value judgment which is objective [universal] established via intersubjective consensus.
How do you define objective then?
objective:
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
The established measurement of an objective ‘perfect circle’ will not be influenced by personal feeling or opinions.
Therefore wherever the measure of a “perfect circle” is referred to by anyone, it is not their personal judgment based on their personal feeling or opinion but refer to a universal value measurement as a standard in geometry.
You just cannot insist in your personal subjective value judgement as what are to be the measurements for an objective perfect circle.
I have already stated “absolute perfection” is not my claim as an attribute to God.
I said, my claim is, the claim of God with an attribute of absolute perfection by theists, is impossible if such is God is claimed to be real.
Generally an opinion is a view blurted by someone without an justified basis, i.e. any one can expressed any opinion any time.
The above is not something I pick from nowhere but my personal belief with high conviction based on rational arguments and justification.