Kant’s Critique

Kevin Rogers

Kant for Dummies

• A simple explanation

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?

Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804)• Enlightenment Philosopher• Unite empiricism (Locke) and

rationalism (Descartes)• Theist (moral argument)• Lutheran background• Atheism dangerous to society

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

Definitions of Terms

• Impossible existence– Square circles, married bachelors

• Contingent existence– beginning– Caused– Do not have to exist

• Necessary existence

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

Traditional Arguments for Existence of God

• Types– Teleological (Design)– Cosmological (First Cause)– Ontological

• More there are not, and more there cannot be

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

Kant’s Sequence

• Considers Ontological first– Ontological fails– Cosmological and Design depend on OA– Hence fall with it

Ontological Argument

• Historical development prior to Kant– Anselm– Gaunilo– Descartes

• Kant’s Objections• Modern Arguments• Assessment

St Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109)

• Benedictine monk• Archbishop of Canterbury

(1093 – 1109)• Proslogion (1078) = Discourse

on the Existence of God

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)

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

Plantinga’s Summary of Anselm’s Argument

1. God is defined as the greatest conceivable being 2. To exist is greater than to not exist3. If God does not exist then we can conceive of a

greater being that does exist4. Thus if God does not exist then he is not the

greatest conceivable being5. This leads to a contradiction6. Therefore God must exist

Gaunilo of Marmoutiers

• 11th-century Benedictine monk• In Behalf of the Fool• Refutes Anselm using a parody

1. The Lost Island is that than which no greater can be conceived

2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea

3. If the Lost Island does not exist, one can conceive of an even greater island, i.e., one that does exist

4. Therefore, the Lost Island exists in reality• No intrinsic maximum for the greatest

conceivable island• Is “a greatest conceivable island” a

coherent concept?

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.

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?

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

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.

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”

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?

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?

Response to Kant’s Objections

• Predicate Argument is Irrelevant• Necessary Existence is a Property

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.

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

Does it Apply to Modern Arguments?

• Modal Ontological Argument1. It is possible that an MGB exists2. If it is possible that an MGB exists, then an MGB

exists in some possible world3. If an MGB exists in some possible world, then an

MGB exists in every possible world4. If an MGB exists in every possible world then an

MGB exists in the actual world5. Therefore an MGB exists

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)

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)

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?

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

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

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

Dependency Arguments

• CA Assumes NB is possible• CA assumes NB is God

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.

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

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

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

Kalam Cosmological Argument

• The argument• Justifying the premises• Argument Conclusions

The Argument

• KCA Syllogism1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause2. The universe began to exist3. Therefore the universe has a cause

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

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

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

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

Fine Tuning Argument

• Craig’s formulation :1. 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.

2. They are not due to law or chance.3. Therefore they are due to design.

• Craig uses syllogism to argue for a designer

• Does not link back to OA

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

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

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)

Assessment

• Strong Points– Existence is not a predicate– The arguments are not proofs

• Weak Point– Link between OA and CA/DA is dubious

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

References• Craig, W.L. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd edition, Crossway,

Wheaton, Illinois, 2008.• Joyce, G.H., Principles of Natural Theology, Longmans, Green and Co., New York, Toronto,

Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, 1922.• Kant, I. The Critique of Pure Reason, 2nd edition, 1787, translated by J.M.D. Meiklejohn, A

Penn State Electronic Classic Series Publication, Pennsylvania State University, 2010.• Koons, R.C. Western Theism, Lecture notes and bibliography from Dr. Koons' Western Theism

course (Phl 356) at the University of Texas at Austin, Spring 1998, http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/, in particular Lectures 5&9.

• Plantinga, Alvin, God, Freedom and Evil, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1974. The pertinent section on the ontological argument is quoted at http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.html.

• Robson, Gregory, The Ontological Proof: Kant’s Objections, Plantinga’s Reply, KSO 2012: 122-171, posted August 26, 2012 www.kantstudiesonline.net.

• Worthing, M., Apologetics Intensive Lecture Notes, Section 05, Apologetics, proofs and science, 2012.

• http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/philosophy.htm• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/• http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/pnt.htm