For
all those dogmatists out there who think that God DEFINITELY does exist or that He/She/It/They DEFINITELY doesn't exist good old Kant
(and others) come to the rescue:
Kant stated the practical
necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason.
As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground
to assume in an absolute manner ... the object of this idea",
but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation
of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good".
The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and
"is necessary from the practical point of view";
compare Voltaire:
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
In the Jäsche
Logic
(1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any
theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom,
because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an
axiom. The reality
of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and
hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als
ob)
there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (9:93, trans.
J. Michael Young, Lectures
on Logic,
p. 590–91).
Along with this 'idea' on reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor, meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.
Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of religious organizations that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967).Nevertheless, other interpreters consider that Kant was trying to mark off a defensible rational core of Christian belief. Kant sees in Jesus Christ the affirmation of a "pure moral disposition of the heart" that "can make man well-pleasing to God".
Kant had exposure to Islam as well and reflected about the role of reason therein.”
Source: Wikipedia – Kant
And from William James (Wikipedia) (author of The Varieties of Religious Experience) (cited in the book Alcoholics Anonymous, There is a Solution, Ch 2, p. 28):
Along with this 'idea' on reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor, meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.
Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of religious organizations that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967).Nevertheless, other interpreters consider that Kant was trying to mark off a defensible rational core of Christian belief. Kant sees in Jesus Christ the affirmation of a "pure moral disposition of the heart" that "can make man well-pleasing to God".
Kant had exposure to Islam as well and reflected about the role of reason therein.”
Source: Wikipedia – Kant
And from William James (Wikipedia) (author of The Varieties of Religious Experience) (cited in the book Alcoholics Anonymous, There is a Solution, Ch 2, p. 28):
From
the introduction to William James's Pragmatism by Bruce
Kuklick, p.xiv.
- James went on to apply the pragmatic method to the epistemological problem of truth. He would seek the meaning of 'true' by examining how the idea functioned in our lives. A belief was true, he said, if it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semihospitable world. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their "Cash Value" was, what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they guided us satisfactorily in this environment. In this sense the pragmatic theory of truth applied Darwinian ideas in philosophy; it made survival the test of intellectual as well as biological fitness. If what was true was what worked, we can scientifically investigate religion's claim to truth in the same manner. The enduring quality of religious beliefs throughout recorded history and in all cultures gave indirect support for the view that such beliefs worked. James also argued directly that such beliefs were satisfying—they enabled us to lead fuller, richer lives and were more viable than their alternatives. Religious beliefs were expedient in human existence, just as scientific beliefs were. “
“Will to Believe Doctrine
Main
article: The Will to Believe
In
William James's lecture of 1896 titled "The Will to Believe,"
James defends the right to violate the principle of evidentialism
in order to justify hypothesis venturing. This idea foresaw the
demise of evidentialism in the 20th century and sought to ground
justified belief in an unwavering principle that would prove more
beneficial. Through his philosophy of pragmatism
William James justifies religious beliefs by using the results of his
hypothetical venturing as evidence to support the hypothesis' truth.
Therefore,
this doctrine allows one to assume belief in a god and prove its
existence by what the belief brings to one's life."
(our emphases)
Comment:
It would seem the “truth” is a far more elusive concept than the
dogmatists (scientific or religious) would have us believe!
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
