Kant-is this right?

[sandandfoam]

I'm very new to this type of material and would appreciate some pointers. I read a synopsis of Kant that said "as far as reason goes it is just as likely as it is unlikely that god exists....where both reason and experience fall short, there occurs a vacuum that can be filled by faith" Is it as part of this idea that he said "it is a moral necessity to assume the existence of God"? or does he say that as a seperate argument?
Also can someone suggest where is a good place to start reading what he was about? (I've ordered and am waiting on the 'Think' book suggested in the other thread)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Start here Immanuel Kant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And work your way out.

This should be good too - Kant's Philosophy of Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[harleydavidson]

to stephenw,,hi ,,isn't it strange that in the philosophy sect when you ask about Kant,you only get a few replies,this leads me to believe there are no true "lovers of wisdom " out there. Kant is difficult to understand,and the best way to understand him may be to go to Borders bookstore and get a Kant for dummies book.The quote you present is interesting,the beginning seems to be an incomplete idea,,,"as far as reason goes it is just as likely.." to what?, [exist or not],he doesn't say! the implication is that there is a link twixt reason and god ,if one exists the other ought to also, or visa versa. Mabey it's a poor translation from the German. The last part is clear,where reason and experience fall short faith steps in. Now he further sez "it is a moral necessity[ a moral imperative] to assume the existence of god.." He assumes too much here,he feels that the existence of god can ont be logically proven to reasonable people,so it must be simply belived...harly davidson

 

[Kay]

I've never read Kant directly, but some of my favorite philosophers had him on their favorites list. For example: Keith Ward or CG Jung.

Ward wrote a chapter on Kant's teleology in this book (which google has an excerpt of). He also discusses Kant in his "God, a Guide for the Perplexed."

I wish there actually was a dummies or idiots book about Kant's ideas.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

I don't remember studying Immanuel Kant in Philosophy as far as religion and the problem of Gods existance goes. My first professor had much the same attitude as H.D. He thought the entire class was too dense to grasp anything he was trying to explain. He thought we wern't worth his time. So he probably thought that if Kant is more confusing than the other philosophers we were studying, there would be no way in hell it would get through. I like Kant for his ideas in epistomology. I had a horrible professor, so I'm not as educated in this subject as I'd like to be. I look forward to discussing it with everyone.

 

[McBell]

I've never read Kant directly, but some of my favorite philosophers had him on their favorites list. For example: Keith Ward or CG Jung.

Ward wrote a chapter on Kant's teleology in this book (which google has an excerpt of). He also discusses Kant in his "God, a Guide for the Perplexed."

I wish there actually was a dummies or idiots book about Kant's ideas.

Discovering What Philosopher Immanuel Kant Can Do - For Dummies

 

[emiliano]

I'm very new to this type of material and would appreciate some pointers. I read a synopsis of Kant that said "as far as reason goes it is just as likely as it is unlikely that god exists....where both reason and experience fall short, there occurs a vacuum that can be filled by faith" Is it as part of this idea that he said "it is a moral necessity to assume the existence of God"? or does he say that as a seperate argument?
Also can someone suggest where is a good place to start reading what he was about? (I've ordered and am waiting on the 'Think' book suggested in the other thread)

For Kant’s Moral Argument for the existence of God try Arguments for the Existence of God

 

[harleydavidson]

to emiliano,,hi ol 'friend,,glad you 're here.Kant seems to have adopted the moral argument ,,that to feel morality ,is point to the necessity of a moral being ..i.e god .:bow:,,but we have discussed this before ,and I see this as a weak argument.:sleep:. We cld say the obverse ought to be true,the existence of immorality points to the necessity of an immoral being,but we wld be hard pressed to accept this,,especially in view of the dictum, every agent acts for a good:yes: and further god is not a necessary being,..harley davidson [aka bill]..:shout

 

[Mike182]

to emiliano,,hi ol 'friend,,glad you 're here.Kant seems to have adopted the moral argument ,,that to feel morality ,is point to the necessity of a moral being ..i.e god .:bow:,,but we have discussed this before ,and I see this as a weak argument.:sleep:. We cld say the obverse ought to be true,the existence of immorality points to the necessity of an immoral being,but we wld be hard pressed to accept this,,especially in view of the dictum, every agent acts for a good:yes: and further god is not a necessary being,..harley davidson [aka bill]..:shout

let me see if i understand you...

Kant saw the existence of morality as indicating a supreme moral being, God. you say the existence of immorality should also indicate a supreme immoral being, but people will not accept this. is the Devil not a common factor in people's beliefs were you live? i don't think Christians would be hard pressed to accept the existence of a supremely immoral entity.

though didn't Kant think morality should be autonomous? if so, why does our own morality imply anything about the divine?

 

[emiliano]

to emiliano,,hi ol 'friend,,glad you 're here.Kant seems to have adopted the moral argument ,,that to feel morality ,is point to the necessity of a moral being ..i.e god .:bow:,,but we have discussed this before ,and I see this as a weak argument.:sleep:. We cld say the obverse ought to be true,the existence of immorality points to the necessity of an immoral being,but we wld be hard pressed to accept this,,especially in view of the dictum, every agent acts for a good:yes: and further god is not a necessary being,..harley davidson [aka bill]..:shout

OH yes, I remember, you are not very fond of the moral argument, neither am I, I am not sure that we could restart the discussions that we had on the statement “every agent acts for a good” this is an altogether different discussion bord, I’ll just trow you a thought “every agent acts for what it perceives as the supreme good” for a religious agent that is God! In my opinion the supreme good in our times is felicity/happiness and we are all move to act in it pursuit ( the pursuit of happiness.)
To this one “and further god is not a necessary being” Harley Davidson I say I think it through mate!!!!!!!!! If God is not absolutely necessary , who is the first uncaused cause? The supreme good? :shout:shout:shout

 

[harleydavidson]

to emiliano,,,hi bro,,let us just say the good is that which benefits us while observing all the other moral dictums,,i.e. do unto others..greatest good for the greatest number,do no harm etc. We all have to make judgements as to what is good and what is not,but all good is a reflection of the supreme good,,I think we agree on that. Even felicity and happiness are good and thereby reflections. What I mean when I say god is not a necessary being I mean there is no function of that being that is necessary,he is not constrained by anything,he is not forced to any particular action. A god that i constrained ,or forced is not a god as he has no freedom. It has nothing to do with his existence.,,,,harley davidson

 

[harleydavidson]

to mike182,,hi when I see a statement ,,there is usually a opposite,,when you have light ,,you must admit the existence of dark,,,if you have high ,you must have low,if you have wise you also bring along "dumb",,,thats was my point. If you have a supreme good ,you ought to have evil or what is evil but a lack of good.I don't think Satan qualifies as a supreme anything,,he's just a fallen angel,and not supreme.There might be some question as to whether god is necessary for morality. One can believe in do unto others ...etc wtihout the mention of god ,,it's just the right thing to do.Now the existence of a supreme immoral being is really not possible,,beings act for a good ,,evil is a negative thing and is not a motivator.when someone robs a 7-11 store ,they are acting to obtain money which is good ,it,s just the method that is wrong. This is a whole new thread.,,,,,harley davidson

 

[emiliano]

To Bill.
Two points that I like to make: If every agent is moved by good, and God is a divine agent, God is also move by something that we call the good. I’ll get religious and say God is goodness itself He is the supreme good, that is why we are attracted to Him.
Morality is absolutely necessary for a civilised society, without Moral principles a civilised society is impossible that is why when God chose the ancient Israelites as His people, the first thing He did was to give them a moral code, the ten commandments, morality is absolutely necessary, God’s moral principles are perfects, thus God is absolutely necessary agent.
Peace and God’s blessings

 

[Francine]

Morality is absolutely necessary for a civilised society, without Moral principles a civilised society is impossible that is why when God chose the ancient Israelites as His people, the first thing He did was to give them a moral code, the ten commandments, morality is absolutely necessary, God’s moral principles are perfects, thus God is absolutely necessary agent.

The ancient Israelites were given their moral code about 3500 years ago. Human civilization precedes that by 2500 years. Morality is absolutely necessary for a civilized society. Thus moral principles precede God's intervention.

 

[Somkid]

Kant is one way of reasoning and if your ideas fall with in this area there is nothing wrong with it keeping in mind Kant was objective which is what many religious people that read Kant are not. I teach Kant in philosophy of religion not because I necessarily (actually I don't) agree with him but because it is good sound logic and objectivity he uses as a means to his end.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Kant is one way of reasoning and if your ideas fall with in this area there is nothing wrong with it keeping in mind Kant was objective which is what many religious people that read Kant are not. I teach Kant in philosophy of religion not because I necessarily (actually I don't) agree with him but because it is good sound logic and objectivity he uses as a means to his end.

Do you think that Kant was objective?

 

[emiliano]

The ancient Israelites were given their moral code about 3500 years ago. Human civilization precedes that by 2500 years. Morality is absolutely necessary for a civilized society. Thus moral principles precede God's intervention.

You are right, I should have specify that it is the western civilizations that trace the birth of it moral code to Abraham. I like to point out to you that there are very little left of the moral code that formed the civilizations that predate the ancient Israelites. Also what you brought our attentions to does not change the fact that God is a necessary agent, that civilization without a moral code is impossible. There were no Godless civilizations prior to the advent of Communism and anarchism, the first attempted to built a civilised society without God the later a society without rules of any kind, both ended in disaster.

 

[Francine]

There were no Godless civilizations prior to the advent of Communism and anarchism, the first attempted to built a civilised society without God the later a society without rules of any kind, both ended in disaster.

On the contrary, China's civilization predates Communism by thousands of years, and it has been governed by godless philosophies such as Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism.

 

[emiliano]

What I mean when I say god is not a necessary being I mean there is no function of that being that is necessary,he is not constrained by anything,he is not forced to any particular action. A god that i constrained ,or forced is not a god as he has no freedom. It has nothing to do with his existence.,,,,harley davidson

You got me puzzle here bother, there is no function of that being that is necessary? God is the yardstick by which morality is measured, we cannot know if something is moral or how moral without a point of reference. The moral argument is presented as proof of existence because human being are thought as not been able to conceive Law such as these, that moral Laws can only be the works of a being far, far more superior to humans, the fact that man has a conscience is the proof of God, God is a necessary being, for man’s morality. As other members had already stated Kant’s Moral proof is complicated and weak, St. Anselm argument may be a better one. There is also the works of Descartes “Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the notion of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist“. Aquinas God existence been self evident is also pretty good.

 

[Francine]

"Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the notion of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist".

Interesting that you bring up the Ontological Argument in a thread about Immanuel Kant.

Kant's Refutation of the Ontological Argument