Why is Kant's practical reason for God wrong?

[filambee]

From what I understand, Kant thinks that intuitions based on pure speculative reasoning are meaningless. He holds the notion that God cannot be proven rationally or empirically and that any knowledge cannot exist independently. He believes, however, that morality or a moral law is a function within the human mind that tells us how we ought to act and that it “commands and constrains us absolutely, with ultimate authority and without regard to our preferences or empirical features or circumstances”. This is the foundation of his a rational argument for a reason to believe in God’s existence. He then proposes that the purpose and practical reason of living a virtuous life is to arrive at the highest good - “a world of universal, maximal virtue, grounding universal, maximal happiness”. He thinks that belief in the realization of this world is necessary because disbelief in this ideal would lead to the meaninglessness of morality. Seeing this world unattainable by humans alone, he introduces the existence of God, a being that portions out happiness to those who are morally right. He claims that this type of reasoning is practical because if there were no God, there would be no reason to be good because it would never bring happiness. He thinks that we have infinite amount of time to achieve perfect virtuosity so that we can deserve the ultimate happiness. Therefore, he also has a practical reasoning for immortality of the soul.


Does he use any intuitions when he proposes his practical reason for God in his moral argument? What are some of your other thoughts on the soundness of his moral and theistic claims? Also, this is my first semester of philosophy (philosophy of religion) and my first time encountering Kant, so please correct me if I have any errors in my understanding.

[bennyboy]

Hmmmm. . . I haven't read Kant, so I can only respond to your interpretation.

If there were no God, there would be no reason to be good because it would never bring happiness.

This premise is wrong, almost word for word. First of all, it defines morality as a vehicle for seeking happiness, which is too narrow a definition; morality is behavior focused toward some good goal, but it doesn't have to be happiness. Second, there is no reason to feel that there's a God who wants to make us happy; it's perfectly possible that life's a bitch, and then you die. Creating an entity because that entity is required for your wish fulfillment is a comment only on your wishes, not on the possible existence of that entity.

He claims that this type of reasoning is practical because if there were no God, there would be no reason to be good.

False. There are lots of reasons to behave morally without God:
-not getting your teeth kicked in by the people you've mistreated
-making friends so when your barn is on fire, they'll come put it out
-convincing a woman to let you fertilize her eggs by making her trust and love you
-non-theistic ideals about a perfect world in which people aren't dicks all the time
-human nature

[MindForgedManacle]

The users Genkaus or Apophenia are probably better users to ask this to, as they seem to be knowledgeable in philosophy. However, when I get back from my part-time I think I can answer part of your question.

[Esquilax]

Seeing this world unattainable by humans alone, he introduces the existence of God, a being that portions out happiness to those who are morally right. He claims that this type of reasoning is practical because if there were no God, there would be no reason to be good because it would never bring happiness. He thinks that we have infinite amount of time to achieve perfect virtuosity so that we can deserve the ultimate happiness. Therefore, he also has a practical reasoning for immortality of the soul.

There's the problem!



So Kant can't figure out how humans could do something, so he introduces magic in order to fix that gap in his understanding. Unfortunately, in the real world, one can't think so hard that their handwaving becomes literally true, and similarly, one isn't endowed with this right to know everything; his inability to figure it out doesn't therefore mean that what he feels is the best explanation available to him currently must be the right one.

On this score, Kant needed to just admit he didn't know, and leave it at that.

[genkaus]

From what I understand, Kant thinks that intuitions based on pure speculative reasoning are meaningless. He holds the notion that God cannot be proven rationally or empirically and that any knowledge cannot exist independently. He believes, however, that morality or a moral law is a function within the human mind that tells us how we ought to act and that it “commands and constrains us absolutely, with ultimate authority and without regard to our preferences or empirical features or circumstances”. This is the foundation of his a rational argument for a reason to believe in God’s existence. He then proposes that the purpose and practical reason of living a virtuous life is to arrive at the highest good - “a world of universal, maximal virtue, grounding universal, maximal happiness”. He thinks that belief in the realization of this world is necessary because disbelief in this ideal would lead to the meaninglessness of morality. Seeing this world unattainable by humans alone, he introduces the existence of God, a being that portions out happiness to those who are morally right. He claims that this type of reasoning is practical because if there were no God, there would be no reason to be good because it would never bring happiness. He thinks that we have infinite amount of time to achieve perfect virtuosity so that we can deserve the ultimate happiness. Therefore, he also has a practical reasoning for immortality of the soul.


Does he use any intuitions when he proposes his practical reason for God in his moral argument? What are some of your other thoughts on the soundness of his moral and theistic claims? Also, this is my first semester of philosophy (philosophy of religion) and my first time encountering Kant, so please correct me if I have any errors in my understanding.

While it is great to see a Christian finally moving on from Aquinas' tired old arguments, repeating the moral argument in another form doesn't seem very productive.

Moral argument:
P1. Objective moral values cannot exist without a god.
P2. Objective moral values do exist.
C. Therefore, god exists.

Here, Kant starts by assuming P2. According to him, the existence of moral law is axiomatic. And that is the first point at which he goes wrong. While Kant may regard morality as a function that "absolutely constrains and commands" you on how to act and he regards it as an actual mental feature present in all human being - the rest of us are not so easily convinced. And while this shortcoming would be sufficient to reject his argument, we need not stop there.

Regarding his distinction between pure and practical reasoning, Kant seems to have put himself in a spot. His belief in existence of a moral law and categorical imperatives is a product of pure reasoning - something you know intuitively as true without reference to sensory data. Whereas, other theologians typically start with the god assumption. Practical reasoning, according to him, is of the form "If you want X, do Y". Given that his moral law is not as obviously and absolutely applicable as he'd like, he needed a practical reason for its application as well - thus the existence of god. Compare Voltaire's statement "If there wasn't a god, we needed to invent one". The biggest problem I see with his argument is that he needed the concept of god for his view of morality to have teeth, but if his view of morality was as unconditionally and absolutely applicable as he proposes, then the god-proposition would've been superfluous.

[Doubting Thomas]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable...

[Faith No More]

Hmm...I was under the impression that Kant built upon Hume's criticism of metaphysical knowledge and thought that such arguments were fruitless.

Am I wrong?

[Doubting Thomas]

Hmm...I was under the impression that Kant built upon Hume's criticism of metaphysical knowledge and thought that such arguments were fruitless.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel

[MindForgedManacle]

Hmm...I was under the impression that Kant built upon Hume's criticism of metaphysical knowledge and thought that such arguments were fruitless.

Am I wrong?

Kant certainly waylayed metaphysics in general, which is probably why his masterwork is called the 'Critique of Pure Reason'. This could be a contradiction on his part, and Gen seems to think so. A Kantian would probably - of course - prefer to try and give Kant the benefit of the doubt and give it the most charitable reading.

---

And my thought in another thread has been demonstrated: Genkaus knows everything.

[Faith No More]

Kant certainly waylayed metaphysics in general, which is probably why his masterwork is called the 'Critique of Pure Reason'. This could be a contradiction on his part, and Gen seems to think so. A Kantian would probably - of course - prefer to try and give Kant the benefit of the doubt and give it the most charitable reading.

Well, does anyone know his reasoning behind such justifications after gutting metaphysics so thoroughly?

It appears to me that it is like genkaus pointed out. Kant was hung up on his concept of morality and tried to justify it spuriously in other places.