"Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone"

THIS IS LONG, BUT WORTH IT. ANYONE FEEL FREE TO ADD OR CORRECT ME.



Immanuel Kant has a bizarre yet rational account of religion. As the title indicates, he limits religion to the limits of reason. This means that certain things are passed by as useless, such as miracles, proofs of God’s existence, and means of grace, even the resurrection. In fact some of these above things are heavily critiqued. By making religion rational, he seeks to develop an idea of religion that is universal. If it is to be universal and apply to all humans, it must not include any historical facts or events, for these would then religion would be contingent upon the news of such facts or events. He thus rules out special revelation. What he does say is universal is the moral law; this [he says] is something obvious in all humans. He states, “Religion is the recognition of all duties as divine commands.” To do anything other than duty is superfluous.

He follows the Christian narrative, starting with the Jews. He says the Jewish faith included statuary laws that were merely provisional. These laws and Judaism itself were used then by Jesus to bring about true religion, i.e. morality. Kant prefers to refer to Jesus as the archetype. This archetype was not necessary to see in person (again, he is making this religion universal), since the archetype lies in all humans through reason. Jesus’ (or other) miracles are superfluous; they only happened to establish the new religion over the old one (which was also established by miracles). The religion is now established and can maintain itself on rational grounds. Kant focuses on the teachings of Jesus that debased exterior rites and elevated interior motives to say that Jesus was advocating true religion as a disposition toward doing one’s duty. Kant gives a list of the worst of the church in its history, and lashes out against priests (“priest-craft”) as controllers of the masses. He goes through means of grace, seeking to show their worthlessness:

1. Praying: thought to be internal service to God; it is really a superstitious illusion. Note: having a spirit of prayer is okay, since it motivates oneself to be moral. Using words is wrong though and presumptuous. Since we cannot be certain of the existence of God, we are not sincere when we pray with words. The one exception is Public prayer, but only because it is a motivating tool for morality, not that we think God is present or anything.

2. Church-Going: thought to be a ceremonial service to God; God is not served, because humans cannot affect supernatural ends with natural means, and God cannot be served By humans/doesn’t need anything. Church is only god as a means of creating a union of moral people. Kant says the church is only provisional until reason is fully liberated.

3. Ceremonial initiation: this act (baptism) aims toward holiness, but brings no actual change/holiness, therefore it is not a means of grace.

4. Communion: good because expands selfish people toward a cosmopolitan community; still not a means of grace.

He says means of grace is a self-contradiction anyway. Humans are to do their duty, simply for the sake of duty, for no other reason. And further still, they are to do it with their own effort. Grace exists beyond the realm of reason, and is not calculable. The “ought” of the law implies that humans are able to do the law. This means humans have freedom. Kant says each person has a supreme maxim that rules his or her conduct. If one simply gives in to their desires and influences, that means at some point in their mind they made “whatever desire is the strongest” as their maxim. This means they are a slave of desire, and are not acting freely. To act freely, is to make the moral law – which is available to all, as if engraved on human hearts– the ruling maxim. Freedom has to exist, otherwise morality exists, for to make moral choices requires freedom. The moral law both reveals and presupposes freedom. (Freedom and determinism are compatible; this will be maybe another roost, or a good conversation to have in person: “for freedom consists not in the contingency of the act…but in absolute spontaneity…such spontaneity is only endangered by predeterminism, where the determining ground is in antecedent time, with the result that, the act being no longer in my power but in the hands of nature, I am irresistibly determined; but since in God no temporal sequence is thinkable, this difficulty vanishes.”)


He deals with original sin in an interesting manner (it seemed pretty logical). I will just mention here that he says humans are responsible for evil, and must by their own effort conquer it. Man made himself what he is morally; otherwise the category of morality does not apply (this is a presupposition of morality). Persons must also lay a hold of the help/make herself worthy of it/ adopt it into her maxim to become good. He says both the fall and the re-ascent are incomprehensible, so we assume both. He then says ought implies can, i.e. it is within our power, since our souls prompt us to become better. Atonement is related to Christ’s work, but [as far as I understand it] Christ is to be a symbolic representation to help motivate morality, rather than actually bring forgiveness. [More on this: On the level of principles, it was a victory: it held greater influence than if he lived on teaching, etc., he opened the portal to freedom. There is refuge under another dominion; we can’t be held against our will any more. Whether this is real or imaginary, I am not sure what Kant thought.]

He calls all worship, prayer and the like “fetish-faith”; whereby people unwilling to live lives of good conduct seek to manipulate God rather than change.

Question: What is you reaction to this system?

Deo Gratias~Thomas