Natural Theology and Aquinas versus Immanuel Kant

11th, defending faith

Natural Theology and Aquinas versus Immanuel Kant

Last time we attempted to understand how Thomas Aquinas, in his ideas of Natural Theology, counteracted the ideas of the Muslims philosophers of his day. They were saying that there is ‘double truth’ and that Integral Aristotelianism was a part of a constructive, though contradictory, view of how God works.

Aquinas was a titan in the middle ages and is known for constructing what is know in the history of theoretical thought the ‘Classical Synthesis.’ This is a philosophy which shows, as well as the theology behind this, and manifests the truth of the existence of God. So strong was this synthesis that it was rare that any opposing view would challenge and debate the existence of God.

Historically the principle arguments for the existence of God are the following:

1. The Ontological
2. The Cosmological
3. The Teleological
4. Moral and historical

The Ontological argument had been formulated by Augustine and later by Anselm of Canterbury. The argument was from ‘being’ …more later.
The Cosmological argument was reasoning from the ‘world’ or cosmos back to the origins of all things. Based on the law of causality that at the beginning there has to be a transcendent cause.
The Teleological approach was by the definition, in the Greek, of ‘telos’ as the end or purpose or goal. This was the argument of intricate design in the universe and as such, would therefore suggest a designer. All around nature we observe things operating in a logical way. Things work with enormous symmetry and this suggests an intelligent creator or designer. So, from the appearance of purpose and order and harmony in the universe - these observations were used to argue for the existence of God.

These constructions had been the means through the centuries for Christians to use in representing their world view. They were formidable arguments and made it possible for Christianity to dominate in Europe. Where in the universities of this age maintained that theology was seen as the ‘Queen’ of the sciences and philosophy as her handmaiden. That philosophy acted as a servant for the aims and goals of theology. For it was seen then that their was a unity in the logical affirmations of this thinking and the evidence that came from it. Also, we must remember from last time and see that Aquinas was not trying to separate ‘nature’ from ‘grace’ but was trying to maintain their unity. Which is why he put together ‘Classical Synthesis’ which reigned for so many centuries.

This was dominant thinking until the massive work of Immanuel Kant took a place of center stage in the late 1700’s. A watershed movement and to some degree revolutionary in scope. Almost the same time as the American Revolution. One of the most significant things to take place in modern history. Sproul notes that in keeping with this revolution the revolution in intellectual thought by Kant’s critic of pure reason was even more far reaching in terms of it’s impact on thinking.

Kant and his critic for the traditional arguments for God

In his famous Critic of Pure Reason, Kant, who had been awaken by the skepticism of the British Empiricists, namely David Hume, was awakened from his slumber. Kant was afraid that Hume’s critic of causality (which we looked at awhile ago in this series) would sow the seeds of destruction for all of science, which then, included religion and faith. The motivation of Kant was to rescue science from skepticism. So as he proceeded in this motivation he put his weigh and effort to Aquinas’ ’Classical Synthesis.’ Giving a comprehensive critic of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. We must understand the Kant wasn’t an atheist or trying to destructive of Christianity but rather he was trying to attack reason in order to make room for faith. He saw Christianity as degenerating into an overarching dependence on human reason and not enough on faith.

He was giving a critic for the ‘arguments’ for the existence of God. But not for the existence of God itself. You may have faith in the existence of God but you may not know the existence of God from natural reason. Kant’s attack was against natural theology. Kant’s position is that there are 2 realms: the Noumenal Realm or (world) and the Phenomenal realm.
The Noumenal Realm had 3 concepts:

1. The idea of God
2. The idea of self
3. The idea of the dianzee or the ‘thing in itself’ or ‘essences’

The third one is about the metaphysical range or level of reality that is above our senses to perceive. We never perceive essence only outward appearances. Never ‘treeness’ or ‘humanness’ but just particular humans or trees. We don’t know the soul of a person by observation. I can’t get an analysis by a specialist and find out how my essence is. Beyond the physical ability of one to get to it directly. The same for the idea of ‘self’. Can we get to it and what it is - to know it. Also God in that same way. Kant questioned how finding these things was possible. Kant was looking for an epistemological answer. Can we know that these three exist or what their reality is through scientific inquiry. His answer was ‘NO’.

All our knowledge is restricted to the Phenomenal realm only. That which can be perceived in phenomena or nature. The world here, of the senses and appearances of nature, can be studied and analyzed and examined scientifically. We cannot get from one realm to the other and make any conclusions. Between these two realms is an unbridgeable gap. The world that is seen as opposed to that which is not seen in its essence and can’t be known. He said the ‘Law of Causality’ works in the Phenomena realm we can’t know if it can be applied to the Nuomenal or metaphysical realm. So we cannot use the reasoning of cause and effect to get into this realm. Can’t get from the ‘cosmos’ to the cause of the ‘cosmos’ or from the natural to the supernatural.

Kant was skeptical that anyone could have the ability to know anything about God in a real sense. But he made a distinction, for practical purposes, that we must live as if there is a God. We must for civilization to be possible. The ‘God hypothesis’ is necessary for meaningful ethics. Because if you don’t have ethics that are enduring then you can’t have civilization. Morality and law must be based on objective virtue. So as not to degenerate from virtuous ethic to a might makes make right. As Dostoevsky said, “If there is no God then all things are permissible, as law becomes reduced to a set of preferences.” there is no such thing as what ‘ought’ to be done.

Faith or credulity?

This critic put Christianity into a crisis. Many subsequently turned away from the Classical Synthesis model and away from natural theology to what was termed ‘Fideism.’ The idea of God is to be taken on faith, a sort of blind faith, or a leap of faith that is way beyond cognition and logic, for God cannot be known or proved in any way. There is no prove for God Kant said. You can assume, presuppose or grant the existence of God but you can’t with rational logic prove anything about God. Again, many capitulated to this policy that Kant put forward. Of course, some did not lie down and play dead, but tried to reconstruct the claims of natural theology.

Can God be known in Kant‘s view?

R. C. Sproul himself, in his teaching career has been very concerned about this conflict and battle. He wants to be true to Scripture and finds a simple conflict in what Kant taught and what is presented in scripture. We have already, in this series, looked at Romans 1 where it says that the invisible God can be known through the things that are made. So, as opposed to what Kant described as not being attainable, Paul states that it can be captured from one realm to the other. There is a general revelation which declares that not only can He be known but is known through the created order. That this information is so manifest and clear that it leaves all who are of human origin without excuse.

Kant’s critic made mankind able to have an excuse. He gave them the criteria of not being able to go to the realm of Noumena and have knowledge of God in this world. The means of being ignorant of what God’s intention is. What we have here is an irreconcilable difference between Paul and Kant. If Paul is right then Kant is wrong. If Kant is right then Paul is wrong.

To conclude, Kant said that his argument boiled down to some form of the Ontological argument. For if we are going to be rational then reason demands that God exists. But, just because reason demands that God exists does not mean that God exists. All it means is that reason demands that it exists. Maybe, in the final analysis is not rational.

This important for it is why from this point in history on people started, from the consequences of Kant’s critic, to develop different philosophic forms of irrationality. Such as existentialism, logical positivism, humanism and relativism. All of which pervade our culture today.