Kant’s Critique

1. Kant’s Critique Kevin Rogers

2. Kant for Dummies • A simple explanation

3. Scope • “If it is fools who say in their heart there is no God, those who try to prove his existence seem to me to be even more foolish.” (J.G. Hamann) • Kant’s critique: • What were his arguments? • Are they sound? • Are they relevant to contemporary arguments? • How do they affect the scope and usefulness of arguments for the existence of God?

4. Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) Enlightenment Philosopher Unite empiricism (Locke) and rationalism (Descartes) Theist (moral argument) Lutheran background Atheism dangerous to society

5. Critique of Pure Reason (1787) • Critiqued: • Ontological argument • Cosmological argument • Teleological (Design) argument • Relevant sections: • Transcendental Doctrine of Elements, • Second Part, • Second Division, • Book 2, • Chapter 3, • sections 3 to 7

6. Definitions of Terms • Impossible existence • Square circles, married bachelors • Contingent existence • beginning • Caused • Do not have to exist • Necessary existence

7. Necessary Existence (Necessary Being) • Possibilities • Uncaused • No beginning • Cause of all other things • Stronger sense: • Exists necessarily • Impossible not to exist • Must exist in all possible worlds

8. Traditional Arguments for Existence of God • Types • Teleological (Design) • Cosmological (First Cause) • Ontological • More there are not, and more there cannot be

9. Overview of Arguments • Cosmological and Teleological arguments: • Been around since Plato and Aristotle • Depend on observations about the actual world • Some basis in Bible (Romans 1) • Ontological Argument • Invented in 11th century • Nearly pure logical argument • No reference to actual world

10. Kant’s Sequence • Considers Ontological first • Ontological fails • Cosmological and Design depend on OA • Hence fall with it

11. Ontological Argument • Historical development prior to Kant • Anselm • Gaunilo • Descartes • Kant’s Objections • Modern Arguments • Assessment

12. St Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109) Benedictine monk Archbishop of Canterbury (1093 – 1109) Proslogion (1078) = Discourse on the Existence of God

13. Anselm’s Argument Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater. Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality. (Proslogion chapter 2)

14. Simple Version • If "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" existed only in the intellect, it would not be "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", since it can be thought to exist in reality, which is greater • It follows that "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" must exist in reality

15. Plantinga’s Summary of Anselm’s Argument • God is defined as the greatest conceivable being • To exist is greater than to not exist • If God does not exist then we can conceive of a greater being that does exist • Thus if God does not exist then he is not the greatest conceivable being • This leads to a contradiction • Therefore God must exist

16. Gaunilo of Marmoutiers 11th-century Benedictine monk In Behalf of the Fool Refutes Anselm using a parody The Lost Island is that than which no greater can be conceived It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea If the Lost Island does not exist, one can conceive of an even greater island, i.e., one that does exist Therefore, the Lost Island exists in reality No intrinsic maximum for the greatest conceivable island Is “a greatest conceivable island” a coherent concept?

17. Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650) • Father of Rationalism’ • Introduced the idea that existence is a perfection • Simplified argument: • The very conception of God includes the possession of all perfections. • Existence is a perfection. • Therefore, it is inconceivable that God does not exist.

18. Kant’s OA Objections OA confuses existence and essence Existence is not a predicate Negation does not entail a contradiction How can a conceptual conundrum in the mind affect a being’s objective existence?

19. Confusing Existence and Essence • Descartes’ simplified argument: • The very conception of God includes the possession of all perfections. • Existence is a perfection. • Therefore, it is inconceivable that God does not exist. • Essence = properties (perfections) • Existence is not a property

20. Existence is not a predicate • Proposition = subject + predicate, eg • A dog has 4 legs • God exists • Predicate contains properties of object • Existence • is an instantiation of an object • is not a property • is not a perfection • Undermine Descartes’ version: • Existence is a perfection: • It would be more perfect to exist than not to exist.

21. Negation is not a Contradiction • Some statements are necessarily true, eg: • All bachelors are unmarried • All squares have 4 sides • Their negation entails a contradiction • “God does not exist” does not entail a contradiction • Thus “God exists” is not a necessary truth • Confuses “necessary truth” with “necessary being”

22. Conceptual Conundrum • Anselm argues for concepts in our minds to the objective existence of God • How can a conceptual conundrum in the mind affect a being’s objective existence?

23. Kant’s Conclusion [The Ontological Argument] “neither satisfies the healthy common sense of humanity, nor sustains the scientific examination of the philosopher.“ Is he right?

24. Response to Kant’s Objections Predicate Argument is Irrelevant Necessary Existence is a Property

25. Predicate Argument is Irrelevant • Plantinga’s Comment on Predicate Argument • Kant's point, then, is that one cannot define things into existence because existence is not a real property or predicate in the explained sense. If this is what he means, he's certainly right. But is it relevant to the ontological argument? Couldn't Anselm thank Kant for this interesting point and proceed merrily on his way? Where did he try to define God into being by adding existence to a list of properties that defined some concept? • If this were Anselm's procedure -- if he had simply added existence to a concept that has application contingently if at all -- then indeed his argument would be subject to the Kantian criticism. But he didn't, and it isn't. The usual criticisms of Anselm's argument, then, leave much to be desired.

26. Necessary Existence is a Property Kant claims existence is not a property to invalidate OA Applies this to necessary existence Necessary existence is a type of existence Hence necessary existence is a property

27. Does it Apply to Modern Arguments? • Modal Ontological Argument • It is possible that an MGB exists • If it is possible that an MGB exists, then an MGB exists in some possible world • If an MGB exists in some possible world, then an MGB exists in every possible world • If an MGB exists in every possible world then an MGB exists in the actual world • Therefore an MGB exists

28. Avoiding Kant’s Fire Now we no longer need the supposition that necessary existence is a perfection; for obviously a being can't be omnipotent (or for that matter omniscient or morally perfect) in a given world unless it exists in that world... It follows that there actually exists a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect; this being, furthermore, exists and has these qualities in every other world as well. (Plantinga)

29. MOA Limitations The MOA is not a proof But obviously this isn't a proof; no one who didn't already accept the conclusion, would accept the first premise… Everyone who understands and reflects on its central premise -- that the existence of a maximally great being is possible -- will accept it. Still, it is evident, I think, that there is nothing contrary to reason or irrational in accepting this premise. What I claim for this argument, therefore, is that it establishes, not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability. And hence it accomplishes at least one of the aims of the tradition of natural theology. (Plantinga)

30. Essence of Argument • If it is possible that a Necessary Being (NB) exists then that NB must exist in all possible worlds • Outstanding Issues • Is a NB possible • Is the NB God?

31. Conclusion on OA • Anselm • It is impossible for God not to exist • Plantinga • If it is possible that God exists, then He must exist • Rational to believe but not proof

32. Impact on Cosmological and Design Arguments • CA and DA predated OA • Kant believed CA and DA presuppose OA • CA and DA may show a Necessary Being (NB) exists • Rely on OA to show NB is God

33. Cosmological Argument • Main attack is dependency on OA • OA says God is NB • CA • argues for NB • Identifies NB as God – relies on OA • Kant accepts there must be NB • Disputes we can show NB is God

34. Dependency Arguments CA Assumes NB is possible CA assumes NB is God

35. 1. Necessary Existence is Possible • The concept of a necessary being appears in both arguments. • The cosmological argument assumes that necessary existence is at least possible since if it is not possible it cannot be actual. • This is a conclusion of the ontological argument. • Thus the Cosmological Argument is dependent on the Ontological Argument.

36. Necessary Existence is Actual • Cosmological argument does not assume that necessary existence is possible • Necessary existence is actual and hence possible • Approach currently used in science • Dark Matter and Dark Energy explain galaxy motion • Cannot prove that they are possible • Don’t even know what they are • They are actual and must be possible

37. 2. CA assumes NB is God • The Cosmological Argument relies on the Ontological Argument to associate the necessary being with God. • The Ontological Argument shows that God is a necessary being and therefore exists • The CA shows that a necessary being exists, but then relies on the OA to infer that the NB is God • Not necessarily so - discuss the KCA later

38. Additional Objections to Kant • Space and time • Kant argues space and time are eternal realities independent of God • Examples of necessarily existent that are not God • Used this to argue for possibility of infinite past • Augustine argued against this on theological grounds • Confirmed by modern cosmology • Pure Reason • The CPR is a critique on the limits of Pure Reason • The CPR is an example of Pure Reason

39. Kalam Cosmological Argument The argument Justifying the premises Argument Conclusions

40. The Argument • KCA Syllogism • Everything that begins to exist has a cause • The universe began to exist • Therefore the universe has a cause

41. Justifying the Premises • Premise 1 usually accepted as intuitively obvious • Most effort justifying premise 2 • Philosophical arguments • Impossibility of instantiating an actually infinite set • Impossibility of traversing infinite sequence of causes • Scientific discoveries • Second law of thermodynamics • The Big Bang

42. Argument Conclusions Big Bang marked beginning of matter, energy, space and time Cause must be transcendent, timeless and powerful Attributes not derived from any a priori argument Doesn’t argue that cause is NB or God Limits to properties that are directly implied by the empirical and logical evidence

43. Kant’s Critique of Design Argument Kant: design argument demonstrates a designer Modifies the form of matter but not a creator To demonstrate creator, we must rely on OA and CA Only demonstrate the existence of an architect Limited by the material with which he works The design argument may still be valid, but it is just limited in scope

44. Response to Kant Not a serious concern Aim of arguments is to establish God’s existence Not completely define God’s attributes If the design argument is sound, then it is decisive Main became Darwin’s theory of evolution Provided naturalistic explanation of design for living creatures

45. Fine Tuning Argument • Craig’s formulation : • The fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe and of the constants in the laws of physics are due to law, chance or design. • They are not due to law or chance. • Therefore they are due to design. • Craig uses syllogism to argue for a designer • Does not link back to OA

46. Craig’s Arguments • Craig’s arguments are cumulative • Cosmological: cause is transcendent, timeless, spaceless, powerful, personal • Fine Tuning: Designer • MOA: Necessarily existent and maximally great • Moral: Source of moral values and duties • Resurrection: intervenes in history • Personal: relates to us • Arguments, not proofs

47. Kant’s Scepticism Man of his own time His views reflect influence of Enlightenment Claims cosmological argument based on the “spurious transcendental law of causality” Reflects Hume’s scepticism of cause and effect Enlightenment aimed to achieve certainty but failed Cause and effect intuitively accepted to be true Kant’s desire for certainty is unrealistic

48. Why is Kant Considered Credible It is not to be denied that ever since Kant's time an impression has prevailed widely that the old proofs are no longer defensible. Possibly the mere fact that an eminent thinker had ventured to call in question such seemingly irrefutable arguments seemed by itself almost equivalent to a disproof. But another reason also, extrinsic it is true to the merits of the criticism, but none the less effective, operated in favour of this result. During the last century, rationalism, in the form either of naturalism or of idealism, had become strongly entrenched in the great centres of learning. It was only natural that thinkers who had discarded belief in a personal God should applaud Kant's conclusion, even if they might hesitate to affirm that his criticism of the proofs was in all respects sound. Thus it came about that those who admitted the value of the traditional arguments were regarded as out of date. Often the validity of Kant's objections is simply taken for granted, and the proofs of God's existence dismissed without more ado. Even some of the apologists of revealed religion, eager not to be behind the fashion, discard them as untenable. (Joyce)

49. Assessment • Strong Points • Existence is not a predicate • The arguments are not proofs • Weak Point • Link between OA and CA/DA is dubious

50. Our Response Be aware Don’t overstate Craig is well aware of Kant Craig’s argument are not subject to Kant’s critique Craig’s opponents do not directly use Kant Some of Kant’s arguments reappear