Kant and Religion: Conflict of Compromise?

International Journal of Systematic Theology, 2000

Proponents of 'the poetic hypothesis' in Kant interpretation assume that the third Critique provides the necessary and sufficient conditions for understanding the nature of all theological discourse. This article opens with the assumption -taken from one of Kant's last works -that philosophy and theology must always remain in conflict. Then, by way of an abductive comparison of Gordon Kaufman and Adina Davidovich, I demonstrate that the poetic hypothesis leads to religious compromises that contradict this assumption. To conclude, I argue for an understanding of the motif of holism that is better able to uphold Kant's notion of conflict.

Kant the Question of Theology (Cambridge University Press, 2017), 2017

God is a problematic idea in Kant's terms, but many scholars continue to be interested in Kantian theories of religion and the issues that they raise. In these new essays, scholars both within and outside Kant studies analyze Kant's writings and his claims about natural, philosophical, and revealed theology. Topics debated include arguments for the existence of God, natural theology, redemption, divine action, miracles, revelation, and life after death. The volume includes careful examination of key Kantian texts alongside discussion of their themes from both constructive and analytic perspectives. These contributions broaden the scope of the scholarship on Kant, exploring the value of doing theology in consonance or conversation with Kant. It builds bridges across divides that often separate the analytic from the continental and the philosophical from the theological. The resulting volume clarifies the significance and relevance of Kant's theology for current debates about the philosophy of God and religion.

International Philosophical Quarterly, 2018

A compilation of essays by 14 scholars who promote an "affirmative" reading of Kant's philosophy of religion. The article uploaded here is a prepublication draft of the editors' introduction. For a prepublication draft of Palmquist's essay, entitled "Philosophers in the Public Square: A Religious Resolution of Kant’s Conflict of the Faculties", go to http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/srp/arts/PPSq.htm.

Journal of the History of Philosophy, 2015

The First Preface to Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason contains various characterizations of the distinction between biblical and philosophical theology. Similar characterizations are also found in the Preface to The Conflict of the Faculties. In both, Kant warns the philosopher against trespassing into the purview of the biblical theologian. Yet, in the actual body of both texts, we find numerous occasions where Kant deviates from the rules he initially articulates. The purpose of this paper is to identify these rules, discuss their apparent violations, and consider the implications of this divergence.

This book includes a thoroughly revised and annotated version of the full text (Pluhar's 2009 translation) of Kant's Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason. Kant's text is provided a few sentences at a time, followed by 1-3 paragraphs of commentary on each passage. Variant readings from other recent translations are provided in the footnotes, where relevant, along with comments on the nuances relating to the original German. A detailed Glossary defends the most controversial of the 500+ words whose translations have been changed. Hundreds of variations between the first (1793) and second (1794) editions are noted, with explanations of the rationale in many cases. About 50 "corrections" made to Kant's German text by the Akademie Ausgabe editor are highlighted; many of these are rejected as introducing claims into the original text that Kant would not have made. Kant's sources are identified for many of his claims, and interpretive debates in the recent secondary literature (especially works published in the past 15 years) are summarized with relevant referencs, as well as connections made to related passages in Kant's other writings.

Kantian Review 18.1 (2013), pp.73-97, 2013

In the second edition Preface of Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason Kant responds to an anonymous review of the first edition. We present the first English translation of this obscure book review. Following our translation, we summarize the reviewer’s main points and evaluate the adequacy of Kant’s replies to five criticisms, including two replies that Kant provides in footnotes added in the second edition. A key issue is the reviewer’s claim that Religion adopts an implied standpoint, described using transcendental terminology. Kant could have avoided much confusion surrounding Religion, had he taken this review more seriously. We therefore respond to three objections that Kant failed to address: how the Wille–Willku¨ r distinction enables the propensity to evil to be viewed as coexisting with freedom of choice; how moral improvement is possible, even though the propensity to evil is necessary and universal; and how a ‘deed’ can be regarded as ‘noumenal’.

2014

This book offers a complete and internally cohesive interpretation of Religion. In contrast to the interpretations that characterize Religion as a litany of “wobbles”, fumbling between traditional Christianity and Enlightenment values, or a text that reduces religion into morality, the interpretation here offered defends the rich philosophical theology contained in each of Religion’s four parts and shows how the doctrines of the “Pure Rational System of Religion” are eminently compatible with the essential principles of Transcendental Idealism. http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415507868/

Ashgate, 2009

This book examines the transcendental dimension of Kant’s philosophy as a positive resource for theology. Firestone shows that Kant’s philosophy establishes three distinct grounds for transcendental theology and then evaluates the form and content of theology that emerges when Christian theologians adopt these grounds. to understand Kant’s philosophy as a completed process, Firestone argues, theologians must go beyond the strictures of Kant’s critical philosophy proper and consider in its fullness the transcendental significance of what Kant calls ‘rational religious faith’. This movement takes us into the promising but highly treacherous waters of Kant’s "Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason" to understand theology at the transcendental bounds of reason.

2012

This essay replies to four critics of In Defense of Kant's Religion (IDKR). In reply to Gordon E. Michalson, Jr., I argue that the best pathway for understanding Kant's Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason (Religion) is to conduct close textual analysis rather than giving up the art of interpretation or allowing meta-considerations surrounding Kant's personal and political circumstances to govern one's interpretation. In response to George di Giovanni, I contend that his critique is dismissive of theologically robust readings of Kant for reasons that have very little to do with what Religion actually asserts. Pamela Sue Anderson's essay, I argue, reads Kant on God according to an empirically-biased stream of British interpretation which makes Kant's transcendental philosophy appear foreign to its rationalist heritage. Lastly, in response to Stephen R. Palmquist, I suggest that his reading of Kant's two experiments is done not only in a vacuum, but also according to a perspectival interpretation of Kant that goes beyond what Kant's writings actually maintain.