J. L. Schellenberg claims that the weakness of evidence for God’s existence is not merely a sign that God is hidden, “it is a revelation that God does not exist.” In Divine Hiddenness : New Essays, Michael J. Murray provides a “soul-making” defense of God’s hiddenness, arguing that if God were not hidden, then some of us would lose what many theists deem a good thing: the ability to develop morally significant characters. In this paper, I argue that Murray’s soul-making (...) defense not only fails to defend God’s hiddenness, it produces an argument for the nonexistence of God. (shrink)

1. Einleitung Kants Aufsatz: „Über das Mißlingen aller philosophischen Versuche in der Theodizee” wird in der Forschungsliteratur sowohl sachlich als auch historisch diskutiert. In philosophiegeschichtlicher Perspektive steht zum einen das Verhältnis der Auffassung Kants zur Theodizee des 18. Jhdts., insbesondere zu Leibniz' Theodizee zur Debatte, zum anderen aber die Frage nach der Stellung des Theodizee-Aufsatzes im Werk Kants selbst, insbesondere im Vergleich zu früheren Äußerungen Kants zum Theodizee-Thema. Daß die Entwürfe der vorkritischen Zeit von denen der kritischen Phase zu trennen (...) seien, behauptete schon die ältere Literatur. Im jüngerer Zeit wurde jedoch argumentiert, in puncto Theodizee falle die entscheidende Grenzlinie nicht mit derjenigen zwischen vorkritischer und kritischer Philosophie zusammen. So meinen Chr. Schulte und G. Cavallar, daß die Vorlesungen über Rationaltheologie, obwohl nach Erscheinen der Kritik der reinen Vernunft gehalten, noch der älteren Phase des Theodizee-Denkens zuzurechnen seien, weil ihnen zufolge Theodizee gelinge, während erst mit dem Theodizee-Aufsatz die neue Phase beginne, für die die These vom Mißlingen der Theodizee kennzeichnend sei. Ausschlaggebend für die Entwicklung der neuen Position mit ihrer Leugnung der Möglichkeit einer Rechtfertigung Gottes könne somit nicht die Vernunftkritik als solche gewesen sein, sondern nur die kritische Reflexion auf das teleologische Denken, wie sie sich in der Kritik der Urteilskraft, also zeitlich in unmittelbarer Nachbarschaft zum Theodizee-Aufsatz findet. Die Ablehnung der Physikotheologie und die Verlegung des Endzwecks der Schöpfung in die Moralität des Menschen reißt Schulte zufolge eine Kluft auf „zwischen der intelligiblen Welt göttlicher Theologie und den Mißständen in der empirischen Welt”, deren Überbrückung mit den Mitteln endlicher Vernunft unmöglich werde. Dementsprechend verabschiede Kant im Theodizee-Aufsatz die Theodizee aus der Philosophie und verweise sie in das Feld des Glaubens. Damit ist über die Frage nach der historischen Einordnung hinaus die viel weiter reichende Frage nach der sachlichen Aussage des Theodizee-Aufsatzes gestellt. Versucht Kant zu zeigen, wie eine philosophische Theodizee mit Aussichtauf Erfolg zu argumentieren habe, oder will er nachweisen, daß nicht nur alle bisherigen Theodizeeversuche gescheitert seien, sondern daß auch alle nur denkbaren zukünftigen Ansätze ihr Ziel verfehlen müssen? (shrink)

During the 1760s and 1770s, Kant entertained a naturalistic approach to ethics based on the supposed psychological fact of a human love for freedom. During the critical period, especially in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant clearly rejected such an approach. But his attempt at a metaphysical foundation for ethics in section III of the Groundwork was equally clearly a failure. Kant recognized this in his appeal to the "fact of reason" argument in the Critique of Practical Reason, (...) but thereby gave up on any attempt to ground the fundamental principle of morality at all. So it is of interest to see how far we might now proceed along the lines of his original naturalistic approach. (shrink)

Kant proclaimed that all theodicies must fail in ?On the Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy?, but it is mysterious why he did so since he had developed a theodicy of his own during the critical period. In this paper, I offer an explanation of why Kant thought theodicies necessarily fail. In his theodicy, as well as in some of his works in ethics, Kant explained moral evil as resulting from unavoidable limitations in human beings. God could not create (...) finite beings without such limitations and so could not have created humans that were not prone to committing immoral acts. However, the work of Carl Christian Eberhard Schmid showed Kant that given his own beliefs about freedom and the nature of responsibility one could not account for moral evil in this way without tacitly denying that human beings were responsible for their actions. This result is significant not only because it explains an otherwise puzzling shift in Kant's philosophy of religion, but also because it shows that the theodicy essay provides powerful evidence that Kant's thinking about moral evil and freedom underwent fundamental shifts between early works such as the Groundwork and later works like the Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason. (shrink)

The paper gives an interpretation of Kant's doctrine of the fact of reason against the background of a constructivist reading of his philosophy, which does not allow us to appeal to any indubitable facts. The fact of reason is the object of a philosophical account of the moral law forms the quid juris part of deduction or legitimization of the law. A more intuitive grasp of the fact is the phenomenon of reverence for duty which ordinary people grasp in form (...) of a feeling and emotion. (shrink)

In the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant presents the moral law as the sole ‘fact of pure reason’ that neither needs nor admits of a deduction to establish its authority. This claim may come as a surprise to many readers of his earlier Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. In the last section of the Groundwork, Kant seemed to offer a sketch of just such a ‘deduction of the supreme principle of morality’ . Although notoriously obscure, this sketch shows that (...) Kant hoped to base the moral law in the freedom that rational agents can claim as members of the ‘intelligible world’ that transcendental idealism makes available to us. In contrast, the second Critique abandons all aspirations of deriving morality from more basic notions of freedom and practical rationality. (shrink)

J. L. Schellenberg claims that the weakness of evidence for God’s existence is not merely a sign that God is hidden, “it is a revelation that God does not exist.” In Divine Hiddenness: New Essays, Michael J. Murray provides a “soul-making” defense of God’s hiddenness, arguing that if God were not hidden, then some of us would lose what many theists deem a (very) good thing: the ability to develop morally significant characters. In this paper, I argue that Murray’s soul-making (...) defense not only fails to defend God’s hiddenness, it produces (ironically) an argument for the nonexistence of God. (shrink)