Here is a good critique of the influence of Immanuel Kant, from a Christian perspective. The errors are the same from any theistic perspective.
The article's conclusion section starts as
Kant posits three questions regarding the ultimate issues of life: “All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions: 1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope?” How a Christian answers these basic questions may serve as an aid in evaluating whether he is more influenced by Kant or Christ. With Kant there is no confidence in objective divine knowledge, no confidence in objective divine guidance or empowerment, and no confidence in objective hope. This stands in stark contrast to those under the influence of Christ who brings confidence in objective divine truth to discover and grow in, confidence in objective divine knowledge and empowerment “to do” (Rom. 7:23), and confidence in divine hope. In fact, Christ is the Blessed Hope (Titus 2:13). Only Christ promises objective truth, enablement, and hope. All Kant offers is doubt and agnosticism which precludes confidence in the arguments of natural revelation or confidence in special revelation. What hope can there be when such revelation is precluded by Kant? What cure could possibly exist for an agnostic who precludes really gaining objective knowledge and truth in natural theology or sacred theology? What a useless and protracted “Kantian revolution”!
Thanks for that link - it was really interesting. I think he was too hard on Kant though. It is only our being swayed by Kant that is wrong, not Kant's actual thinking. He was a Christian, it sounds like in that piece. And he thought hard and pretty honestly, in my opinion. He was right, I think, that there are no 'proofs of God'. Proofs of God are stupid and he just said so. Did you notice that the writer went from 'proof' to 'demonstration' as though they were identical? I can see that there are many, many demonstrations of God, but no proofs here on earth.ReplyDelete
Anyway, I do agree with the writer's beliefs. But I don't think was Kant was wrong exactly. He said what he thought and it was crazy of the world to follow him. Blame it on the subsequent philosophy departments world wide, not on Kant.
Maybe not very many people then had "ears to hear". To hear the truth of Christ. But that wasn't the fault of someone else.
So we say, perhaps, that it was the influence of Kant which is pernicious, rather than Kant himself. And you are right, it was and is the willingness to be influenced by his arguments that we should be responsible for.ReplyDelete