David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Faith and Philosophy 29 (2):163-169 (2012)
In this comment on Firestone and Jacobs’s book, In Defense of Kant’s Religion, I take issue with (1) the authors’ strategy in demonstrating that it is possible to positively incorporate religion and theology into Kant’s critical corpus, and (2) their intention to focus on the coherence of Kant’s theory without necessarily recommending it for Christianity. Regarding (1), I argue that in pursuing their strategy the authors ignore the fact that Kant has transposed what appear to be traditional religious doctrines to a completely different level of reflection, in effect turning them into imaginary tropes intended to mask otherwise irreducible contradictions in his view of human agency. As for (2), I claim that the authors’ intention runs the risk of being disingenuous, since Kant presented his religion as the true religion, opposing it to historical Christianity (unless the latter, of course, is re-interpreted according to his own precepts).
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert Gressis (2009). Chris L. Firestone, Nathan Jacobs, in Defense of Kant's Religion. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 66 (3):167-171.
Gordon E. Michalson Jr (2012). In Defense of Not Defending Kant's Religion. Faith and Philosophy 29 (2):181-192.
Chris L. Firestone (2012). A Response to Critics of In Defense of Kant's Religion. Faith and Philosophy 29 (2):193-209.
Nathan A. Jacobs (2012). A Reply to Critics of In Defense of Kant's Religion. Faith and Philosophy 29 (2):210-228.
Pamela Sue Anderson (2012). The Philosophical Significance of Kant's Religion. Faith and Philosophy 29 (2):151-162.
Chris L. Firestone (2009). Towards and New Kantian Theology: Theology at the Transcendental Boundaries of Reason. Ashgate.
Stephen R. Palmquist (2012). Cross-Examination of In Defense of Kant's Religion. Faith and Philosophy 29 (2):170-180.
Chris L. Firestone (1999). Kant and Religion: Conflict or Compromise? Religious Studies 35 (2):151-171.
Robert Gressis (2010). Review: Firestone, Kant and Theology at the Boundaries of Reason. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 67 (3):187-191.
James DiCenso (2011). Kant, Religion, and Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Allen W. Wood (1970). Kant's Moral Religion. Ithaca,Cornell University Press.
Dennis Schulting (2013). Kant's Transcendental Religious Argument: The Possibility of Religion. In Stefano Bacin & Claudio La Rocca (eds.), Akten des XI. Kant-Kongresses 2010. de Gruyter. 949-962.
Andrew Chignell (2010). The Devil, The Virgin, and the Envoy: Symbols of Moral Struggle in Religion II.2. In Otfried Hoeffe (ed.), Klassiker Auslegen: Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen. Akademie Verlag.
Matthew Caswell (2006). Kant's Conception of the Highest Good, the Gesinnung, and the Theory of Radical Evil. Kant-Studien 97 (2):184-209.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-09-18
Total downloads1 ( #516,117 of 1,692,746 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #182,244 of 1,692,746 )
How can I increase my downloads?