You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is among the most important philosophers in Western history. Born in Königsberg, Prussia (now Kaliningrad), he spent his whole life in the city as a professor at its university. His system — critical philosophy or transcendental idealism — transformed epistemology, ethics and the philosophy of religion at a single stroke. For AQA A-Level Religious Studies (specification 7062), Kant matters on three fronts: he supplies the decisive objection to the ontological argument ("existence is not a predicate"); he draws the limits of what reason can know about God (the phenomena/noumena distinction); and he replaces the failed theoretical proofs with a moral route to God grounded in practical reason. The thread running through all three is a single ambition stated in the Critique of Pure Reason: "I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith." Kant clears reason out of the way precisely so that a different kind of justification for belief can stand.
This lesson sets out Kant's epistemology and the limits it imposes; his demolition of the ontological, cosmological and design arguments; the categorical imperative; the moral argument and its three postulates; and the major lines of criticism, before weighing whether the moral argument succeeds.
Kant's revolution began with the Critique of Pure Reason (1781; second edition 1787). He sought to settle the long quarrel between rationalism (knowledge from reason alone — Descartes, Leibniz, Wolff) and empiricism (knowledge from sense-experience — Locke, Berkeley, Hume). His answer was that both are indispensable, but the mind is no passive receiver of impressions (as Hume held). It is an active organiser that imposes its own structure — the categories of the understanding (such as substance and causality) and the forms of intuition (space and time) — upon the raw data of sensibility. As he put it, "thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." Knowledge arises only where the two meet.
Key term: synthetic a priori. A judgement that is genuinely informative about the world (synthetic) yet knowable independently of experience (a priori). Kant held that "every event has a cause" and "7 + 5 = 12" are of this kind — which is why mathematics and natural science are possible, but also why causality cannot be exported beyond experience.
Kant called this reorientation his Copernican revolution in philosophy. Just as Copernicus explained the apparent motion of the heavens by supposing that the observer moves rather than the stars, Kant proposed that objects must conform to the mind's structure rather than the mind merely mirroring ready-made objects. The mind does not copy the world; it constitutes the world of experience by imposing space, time and the categories. This is why he calls his position transcendental idealism: the spatial, temporal, causally ordered world is empirically real (it is the only world we ever encounter) but transcendentally ideal (its form is contributed by the knowing subject).
The same analysis explains why metaphysics keeps generating insoluble disputes. When reason tries to apply the categories to the world as a whole — beyond any possible experience — it tangles itself in the antinomies: pairs of equally arguable contradictory conclusions (the world has a beginning in time / it does not; there is a necessary being / there is not). The antinomies are not failures of cleverness but symptoms of reason overreaching its proper field. They are a standing warning that the categories, including causality, have traction only within the bounds of sensibility.
This is decisive for religion. The categories are valid only within possible experience. They are the spectacles through which the human mind sees the world; they tell us nothing about reality outside the field of sensibility. Strip away the spectacles and we do not see more clearly — we see nothing at all, because the conditions of seeing have been removed.
Hence Kant's famous distinction:
God, freedom and the immortal soul, if they are anything, belong to the noumenal realm. It follows that theoretical reason can neither prove nor disprove God. The traditional proofs all make the same illicit move: they stretch a category — above all causality — beyond the only territory where it has any purchase. This is not atheism. Kant's point is that the existence of God is simply not the sort of thing theoretical reason is equipped to settle.
This cuts two ways, and candidates should feel both edges. Against the believer, it dismantles every attempt to demonstrate God from the world, because such demonstrations require the very category-export Kant forbids. Against the sceptic, it equally dismantles every attempt to disprove God, for the same reason: if causality and the rest cannot be applied beyond experience, then the atheist who claims to have shown that there is no room for God has overreached in exactly the way the natural theologian did. The noumenal is a domain on which theoretical reason must fall silent — which is precisely why Kant must look elsewhere, to practical reason, for any rational warrant concerning God. The denial of knowledge is not the denial of God; it is the clearing of a space that only faith, grounded in morality, can occupy.
Kant reduced all proofs to three types and rejected each.
"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith." — Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Preface to the Second Edition (Bxxx)
Having dismantled the theoretical proofs, Kant relocates the ground of religious belief to morality. His ethics, set out in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) and the Critique of Practical Reason (1788), grounds moral obligation in reason, not in consequences, feelings or divine commands. The starting point is his claim that the only thing good "without qualification" is a good will — a will that acts from duty, out of respect for the moral law, rather than from inclination or self-interest. Intelligence, courage and even happiness can be put to bad use; a good will alone is good in every circumstance. Moral worth, then, lies not in what an action achieves but in the maxim (the principle) on which it is done. The supreme principle that tests those maxims is the categorical imperative — an unconditional command binding on every rational being simply in virtue of its rationality.
Underlying all three formulas is Kant's account of the special standing of rational agents. Things that serve some further purpose have a price and can be exchanged for an equivalent; rational beings have dignity (Würde), which is "above all price" and admits of no equivalent. This is why persons may never be treated merely as means. Kant is clear that the three formulas are not three different tests but three faces of one principle: universal law (the form of a moral maxim), humanity as an end (its matter or content), and the kingdom of ends (their complete determination in a systematic moral community). A maxim that passes one ought to pass all; the formulas illuminate the same demand from different angles.
Key term: categorical vs hypothetical imperative. A hypothetical imperative commands conditionally ("if you want X, do Y"); a categorical imperative commands unconditionally ("do Y"), regardless of desire. Moral duty consists wholly of categorical imperatives, because obligation cannot hang on inclination.
A worked example shows how the universal-law test operates. Suppose I am tempted, when short of money, to borrow on a promise I have no intention of keeping. My maxim is: "When I need money, I will make a lying promise to obtain it." Universalise it: imagine a world in which everyone in need makes lying promises as a matter of course. In such a world no one would credit a promise to repay, so the very institution of promising — which my deceit relies on — would cease to exist. The maxim therefore cannot even be conceived as a universal law without self-destructing. Kant calls this a contradiction in conception, and the duty it generates a perfect (exceptionless) duty.
A second kind of failure is subtler. The maxim "I will never help anyone in distress" can be conceived as a universal law without contradiction — a world of universal indifference is logically possible. But I cannot rationally will it, because as a finite being I will inevitably need others' help, and in willing universal indifference I would be willing away the very assistance I cannot do without. Kant calls this a contradiction in the will, generating an imperfect (latitude-allowing) duty such as beneficence. The two tests together show that the categorical imperative is not a vague appeal to consistency but a precise procedure — and that, crucially for RS, it grounds morality in reason alone, with no appeal to God's commands.
This raises the central question of Kant's relationship to religion. Because the moral law is self-legislated by reason, morality is autonomous: a good action done from duty needs no theological premise. Kant is therefore sharply critical of basing ethics on divine command (which would make obedience merely prudent or fearful, a heteronomy), and equally critical of what he calls "counterfeit service" — supposing that ritual, prayer or doctrinal assent can substitute for the moral conduct that is the whole point of religion. In Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason (1793) he argues that true religion consists in recognising our duties as if they were divine commands, and that the historical faiths are valuable insofar as their symbols and narratives carry this moral kernel. He even reinterprets the doctrine of original sin as the propensity to radical evil — the tendency to subordinate the moral law to self-love — which morality summons us to overcome. Religion, for Kant, is morality extended to its rational hopes, not a separate source of duty.
Kant's moral argument, developed chiefly in the Critique of Practical Reason, does not purport to prove God as the old arguments tried to. Instead it shows that certain beliefs must be postulated — assumed as practically necessary — if moral life is to make sense. These are the postulates of practical reason.
The reasoning runs:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.