- DanielCC
- Administrator
Offline - Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 765
Re: Kant and the cosmological argument
iwpoe wrote:
Hmm, does that objection have teeth?
No, hence its being abandoned even by those who accepted Kant's other objections as decisive. Virtually no serious philosopher of religion mentions it as anything more than a curiosity these days.
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Kant and the cosmological argument
Hmm, does that objection have teeth?
No, hence its being abandoned even by those who accepted Kant's other objections as decisive. Virtually no serious philosopher of religion mentions it as anything more than a curiosity these days.
But, I mean, I did want to know why we'd think the PM has all perfections.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- 884heid
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/09/2016
- Posts: 64
Re: Kant and the cosmological argument
No, hence its being abandoned even by those who accepted Kant's other objections as decisive. Virtually no serious philosopher of religion mentions it as anything more than a curiosity these days.
Is the main reason for the lack of acceptance of this argument is because almost no philosopher adheres to noumena/phenomena distinction and so on? I am guessing that one would have to assume his metaphysics to entertain that objection if i am not mistaken.
- DanielCC
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 765
Re: Kant and the cosmological argument
No, hence its being abandoned even by those who accepted Kant's other objections as decisive. Virtually no serious philosopher of religion mentions it as anything more than a curiosity these days.
Is the main reason for the lack of acceptance of this argument is because almost no philosopher adheres to noumena/phenomena distinction and so on? I am guessing that one would have to assume his metaphysics to entertain that objection if i am not mistaken.
Even with that distinction it wouldn't make much difference - philosophers would insist that Kant give some further reasoning as to why a necessary being must be a perfect one. Even then Kant has to proof that the theist had no other way of deriving the Divine Attributes on their own terms.
(Kant probably came up with this muddled objection in reaction to Leibniz who on occasioned used the plausibility of the PSR Cosmological Argument as a way of supporting the OA's possibility premise)
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Kant and the cosmological argument
I just took it that the presumption, which is perhaps just Christian, is that nothing really counts as God unless perfect. That doesn't seem outright nonsense.
Last edited by iwpoe (3/22/2016 7:09 pm)
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- Jean65
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/15/2016
- Posts: 23
Re: Kant and the cosmological argument
Hmm, does that objection have teeth?
No, hence its being abandoned even by those who accepted Kant's other objections as decisive. Virtually no serious philosopher of religion mentions it as anything more than a curiosity these days.
It srikes me how different are the views in english-speaking philosophy and in french philosophy. Kant's claim about the dependence of the ontological and the cosmological argument is often said to be worth defending by brilliant philosophers in my country.
- •
Thread Starter- Dennis
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 348
Re: Kant and the cosmological argument
That'd be a surprise, Daniel beat me to it, but I did address that in my post as well, Jean. The a priori and a posteriori business is vital, and so its good to reject Kantian metaphysics. We come to the conclusion of God being metaphysically ultimate via our a posteriori investigations. Kant thinks that this kind of ultimacy is something we assume and then bring it to the world.
Could you name the philosophers who actually defend this Kantian thesis? Thanks.
- John West
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 1,254
Re: Kant and the cosmological argument
It wouldn't surprise me. I would chalk it up to most of the innovative philosophy of religion work in the last 50 years being done in the Anglosphere, though.
(For what it's worth, I write this as someone able to read in both languages, without any ill will towards French philosophy.)
- Dennis
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 348
Re: Kant and the cosmological argument
Just how definitive do these philosophers take his critique to be?
- Jean65
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/15/2016
- Posts: 23
Re: Kant and the cosmological argument
I don't think there are many defence of this kantian thesis in french but I will search.
It should not be surprising because philosophy of religion and natural theology is virtually dead in my country. The last but one good book about it is Garrigou-Lagrange's book.
As far as I know, Kant's critique, here, is taken to be authoritative and a mortal blow to natural theology by academic philosophers and in faculty of theology. In their view,
For example, André Comte Sponville in his book about atheism tell us that he thinks Kant is right without further arguments. ( page 80)
In a science magazine, Luc Ferry said that Kant made a strong refutation of the 3 types of arguments for God's existence.
Edit:
for french speakers, Frederic Guillaud explains the influence of Kant in continental philosophy in this video. It is a bit long, though.
Last edited by Jean65 (3/25/2016 8:34 am)
- •
Thread Starter