Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:03 am

Posted in another forum;

Here is a clue [not the full proof] to Kant's explanation that the idea of God is a transcendental idea, i.e. a transcendental illusion.
Note 'idea' in Kant's case is specifically 'philosophical idea' not just an ordinary ideas.

    For Kant, however, 'The Idea is a Concept of reason whose Object can be met with nowhere in Experience' (L p. 590), or precisely that which does not stand in any relation to an Object.
    -Howard Caygill

The syllogism;

    1. All transcendental ideas are transcendental illusions.
    2. The idea of God is a transcendental idea
    3. God is a transcendental illusion.

One will need to read the whole of the Critique of Reason to understand [not necessary agree with] to counter the above argument.

Here is a clue to P1;

    1. ALTHOUGH a purely Transcendental Idea is, in accordance with the Original Laws of Reason, a quite necessary product of Reason, its Object, it may yet be said, is something of which we have no Concept. A339

    2. For in respect of an Object which is adequate to the demands of Reason, it is not, in fact, possible that we should ever be able to Form a Concept of the Understanding, that is, a Concept that allows of being exhibited and intuited in a Possible Experience.

    3. But we should be better advised and less likely to be misunderstood if we said that although we cannot have any Knowledge of the Object which corresponds to an Idea, we yet have a Problematic Concept of it. B397

    4. The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1

    5. There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

    6. These conclusions [of transcendental ideas] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

    7. They [transcendental ideas] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.


Re P2;

    'The Ideal of Pure Reason' in CPR
    In short, we shall be able to determine it, in its Unconditioned Completeness, through all predicaments.
    The Concept of such a Being is the Concept of God, taken in the Transcendental sense; and the Ideal of Pure Reason, as above defined [pg 489], is thus the Object of a Transcendental Theology.

    A580 B608

What is 'Transcendental' re P1 and P2;

    Neither Space nor any a priori geometrical Determination of it is a Transcendental Representation;
    what can alone be entitled Transcendental is the Knowledge that these Representations are not of Empirical Origin, and the Possibility that they can 2 yet relate a priori to Objects of Experience.
    The application of Space to Objects-in-General would likewise be Transcendental, but, if restricted solely to Objects of sense, it is Empirical.

    A56 B81

What is Empirical?:

    An Empirical Concept or Intuition is one which 'contains Sensation' and thereby 'presupposes the actual presence of the Object' (CPR A50/B74).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Because the 'transcendental' cannot be of Empirical Origin, it cannot be of objective reality, i.e. really-real.

Even for the above, one will need to understand each term very carefully and precisely in accordance to what Kant intended them to be.

Any ideas [general] to the above?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2411
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:22 am

Kant, himself a theist, admits that Hume’s objections against theism are devastating but holds that his arguments undermine only attempted deistic proofs and not deistic beliefs. Remembering that the concepts of the understanding cannot be known to apply to anything that transcends all possible experience, we can see that it will be a challenge for Kant to evade Hume’s dilemma. His approach is to distinguish between a malignant “dogmatic anthropomorphism,” which tries literally to attribute to God natural qualities, such as those attributable to humans, and a more benign “symbolic anthropomorphism,” which merely draws an analogy between God’s relation to our world and relations among things in our world, while avoiding thinking of them as identical. Kant’s example is helpful here: while we have no possible natural knowledge of God’s love for us and should acknowledge that it cannot be identical to any (necessarily limited) human love, we can use analogical language to think and talk about God’s love for us—as the love of human parents is directed to the welfare of their children, so God’s love for us is directed to human well-being. Thus, Kant maintains, we can avoid the vicious sort of dogmatic anthropomorphism which Hume rightly attacks and, for example, attribute to God a rational relationship to our world without pretending that divine reason is exactly the same as ours, for example, discursive and, thus, limited (Prolegomena, pp. 5, 19, and 96-99). Thinking and speaking of God with analogous language can facilitate a theology that neither is anthropomorphic in a bad way nor succumbs to the dialectical illusions from which Kant’s epistemology would save us.

Hence, once one gives Religion its due significance within the corpus, it should be recognized that Kant is not only not an atheist or agnostic, but he is not even a Deist. While theoretical reason is agnostic, and pure rational faith likewise is neutral with regards to any particular historical claim, Kant is clearly open to divine agency in the world.


While practically speaking, we should never expect or depend upon divine aid in this advance, for each person should act as if “everything depended on him” (6:101), Kant nevertheless represents the Highest Good and the Ethical Community eschatologically, as “a work whose execution cannot be hoped for from human beings but only from God himself” (6:100). So, while we must never relieve ourselves of our moral efforts, as we remain responsible for our own moral transformation, this does not exclude divine aid in other respects. Through miracles and revelation, the founding of the Christian church, and so forth, Kant is open to God's agency in this world, giving us the tools we need to facilitate our individual and corporate moral endeavors.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:36 am

KT,
your post do not address the points in the OP.
Where are the references?

They appear to be from readers who have not understood Kant thoroughly and cherry picked and has a theological bias. One of the famous Kant reader with the theological twist is Stephen Palmquist.

Kant is read by a diverse lot of people, i.e. from atheists, theists, philosophical realists, philosophical anti-realists. Unfortunately Kant's work is very difficult to understand [not necessary agree with] that most readers of Kant missed out on the overall essence of Kant's theories and end up imputed their confirmation bias.

Kant is a deist but to Kant God is a transcendental illusion as proven above.
Whilst to Kant God is an illusion, it is nevertheless a useful illusion but only for the purpose of morality and ethics. God should never be assigned as a thing with objective reality.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2411
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:58 am

KT,

from google search noted your first point is from,
https://www.iep.utm.edu/kant-rel/

However note this point where Kant stated God is an impossibility;

    But, as we never can have sensible experience of objects corresponding to such transcendent ideas and as the concepts of the understanding, without which human knowledge is impossible, can only be known to apply to objects of possible experience, knowledge of the soul, of the cosmos, and of God is impossible, in principle.
    https://www.iep.utm.edu/kant-rel/#SH3a

Re the following;

    Thinking and speaking of God with analogous language can facilitate a theology that neither is anthropomorphic in a bad way nor succumbs to the dialectical illusions from which Kant’s epistemology would save us.
    https://www.iep.utm.edu/kant-rel/#SH4a

From what I read of Kant overally, I cannot find anything of substantial that could support the above that Kant is favorable with theology.

Kant wrote, "Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone"
Whilst Kant made some good points on Christianity, his overall view of theology is in the negative which the author you linked
https://www.iep.utm.edu/kant-rel/#H6
failed to highlight.

If Christianity is such a good ideology on morality and ethics, Kant would not have proposed his own system of Morality and Ethics to replace the existing Christianity model.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2411
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am


Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users