David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Faith and Philosophy 29 (2):193-209 (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.
|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
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.
George di Giovanni (2012). On Chris L. Firestone and Nathan Jacobs's In Defense of Kant's Religion. Faith and Philosophy 29 (2):163-169.
Stephen R. Palmquist (2012). Cross-Examination of In Defense of Kant's Religion. Faith and Philosophy 29 (2):170-180.
Gordon E. Michalson Jr (2012). In Defense of Not Defending Kant's Religion. Faith and Philosophy 29 (2):181-192.
Stephen R. Palmquist & Otterman (2013). The Implied Standpoint of Kant's Religion : An Assessment of Kant's Reply to an Early Book Review of Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason. [REVIEW] Kantian Review 18 (1):73-97.
Stephen Palmquist (1994). Triangulating God: A Kantian Rejoinder to Perovich. Faith and Philosophy 11 (2):302-310.
Patrick Frierson (2011). Rational Faith: God, Immortality, Grace. In Immanuel Kant: Key Concepts. Acumen Publishing Limited.
Chris L. Firestone (2009). Towards and New Kantian Theology: Theology at the Transcendental Boundaries of Reason. Ashgate.
Andrew Chignell (2012). Introduction: On Defending Kant at the AAR. Faith and Philosophy 29 (2):144-150.
Brian Chance (2013). Causal Powers, Hume's Early German Critics, and Kant's Response to Hume. Kant-Studien 104 (2):213-236.
James DiCenso (2011). Kant, Religion, and Politics. Cambridge 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.
Added to index2012-09-18
Total downloads7 ( #264,410 of 1,696,615 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #186,707 of 1,696,615 )
How can I increase my downloads?