Table Of Contentt e r ry F. G o d l o ve
K
“This is a distinctive and original contribution to the current interest in Kant’s a
relevance for philosophy of religion. I recommend it highly.”
n
Wayne Proudfoot, Professor of religion, Columbia university,
author of Religious expeRience t
“Kant and the Meaning of Religion is provocative, constructive, and very welcome. a
In suggesting an unexpected but potentially very fruitful way in which Kant’s n ““ddiissttiinnccttiivvee
d
epistemology can promote the entire field of the academic study of religion, it is in aanndd oorriiggiinnaall””
t
fact an intellectual head-turner.”
h
WWaayynnee
gordon e. miChalson, Jr, Professor of humanities, neW College of e
florida, author of Fallen FReedom: Kant on Radical evil and moRal PPrroouuddFFoooott
RegeneRation and of Kant and the pRoblem oF god M
“This bold and carefully argued monograph takes issue with Nietzsche’s claim that e
Kant, even in the first Critique, displays himself as a ‘cunning Christian.’ Godlove a
convincingly refutes Nietzsche by demonstrating that the key theories defended in
n
the first Critique, especially the distinction between appearance and thing in itself,
i
are not concessions to Christianity. Rather, Kant posed the problem that called
n
into being the philosophy of religion as a modern discipline.”
g
stePhen r. Palmquist, Professor of religion and PhilosoPhy,
hong Kong baPtist university
o
Without Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) there would probably be no modern discipline of f
“the philosophy of religion.” Kant’s considerable influence has ensured that philosophers,
in addressing religious questions, have focused on such issues as arguments for and against R
the existence of God; the question of immortality; the compatibility of human evil and e
transcendent goodness; and the relationship between morality and the divine. Many
l
books already explore the nature of his influence. But this one goes further. It argues that
i
Kant’s theoretical philosophy, also called “the critical philosophy,” contains resources that
g
have much wider implications than just for Christianity, or for those philosophical issues
that relate only to monotheism and its beliefs. For Terry F. Godlove, Kant’s insights run i
o
deeper, and properly applied can help rejuvenate our understanding of the general study
of religion and its challenges. The author thus bypasses what is usually considered to be n
“Kantian philosophy of religion,” focusing instead on more fundamental issues: on Kant’s Kant
account of concepts, experience, and reason, and on their implications for such currently
t
controversial matters as definition and meaning. Kant and the Meaning of Religion is a subtle
e
and penetrating attempt, by a leading contemporary philosopher of religion, to redefine and R
reshape the contours of his own discipline through sustained reflection on Kant’s so-called R
and the
y
“humanizing project.”
f
. Meaning
terry f. godlove is Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Hofstra University.
g
His previous books include Religion, Interpretation and Diversity of Belief (1989, paperback o
1997) and Teaching Durkheim (2005). He is a former editor of the Texts and Translations d Religion
series of the American Academy of Religion. l of
o
v
e
CoveR IMAGe: Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), the Critical Philosophy &
German philosopher. Carving, c. 1750. B.N.
Colorized photo. (Photo by Harlingue/Roger
Modern Religious thought
viollet/Getty Images)
www.ibtauris.com CoveR desIGN: Alice Marwick
Kant.indd 1-3 20/02/2014 11:32
Terry F. Godlove is Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Hofstra
University. His previous books include Religion, Interpretation and Diversity
of Belief (1989, paperback 1997) and Teaching Durkheim (2005). He is a
former editor of the Texts and Translations series of the American Academy
of Religion.
“Kant and the Meaning of Religion aims to show how Kant’s philosophy serves
as a valuable resource for navigating challenging methodological issues in the
field of religious studies. Godlove’s aim is not to commend or support Kant’s
own philosophy of religion but to draw from its epistemology in ways that
advance the discussion of key themes in the academic study of religion. This
requires the reinterpretation or even rehabilitation of the Kantian themes in
question, resulting in fresh perspectives on Kant as well as on the field of
religious studies. Godlove’s book is quite distinctive for the way it draws on
Kant to address religious issues with virtually no appeal to the more familiar
references to the ethical element in his philosophy of religion. Moreover, the
author announces early on that the Kant of this volume ‘has no substantive
connection with Christianity,’ ensuring that his project should have wide
application across the field of religious studies and should not be viewed as
relevant only to the study of religion in the west. Nor should the volume be
seen as one more in a series of works concerning the relative compatibility
between Kant’s religious thought and the biblical outlook. Consequently, one
gets the sense of something genuinely fresh and sophisticated in the way
in which Kant’s thought is invoked here. In short, the book is provocative,
constructive, and very welcome. I think it has tremendous long-term value
and should provoke considerable debate. It reflects not simply the com-
petent efforts of a mature scholar, but the assured work of a seasoned thinker
who has a creative and bold suggestion to make about important matters. In
suggesting an unexpected but potentially very fruitful way in which Kant’s
epistemology can promote the entire field of the academic study of religion, it
is in fact an intellectual head-turner.”
– Gordon E. Michalson, Jr, Professor of Humanities, New College
of Florida, author of Fallen Freedom: Kant on Radical Evil and Moral
Regeneration
and of Kant and the Problem of God
“This is a distinctive and original contribution to the current interest in Kant’s
relevance for the philosophy of religion. Rather than focusing on Kant’s
concept of God and philosophical theology, Godlove shows how his epis-
temology and reflection on the role of concepts in experience can illumine
topics in the study of religion. His reading of Kant is informed by issues
raised by Nietzsche, Geuss, Brandom, and McDowell, among others, and by
recent theorists of religion. I recommend it highly.”
– Wayne Proudfoot, Professor of Religion, Columbia University
“This bold and carefully argued monograph takes issue with Nietzsche’s claim
that Kant, even in the first Critique, displays himself as a ‘cunning Christian.’
Godlove convincingly refutes Nietzsche by demonstrating that the key
theories defended in the first Critique, especially the distinction between
appearance and thing in itself, are not concessions to Christianity. Rather,
Kant posed the problem that called into being the philosophy of religion as a
modern discipline. Thus, in a way that is distinct from theology (where God’s
existence is assumed and/or – presumably – ‘proved’), Kantian epistemology
sets theism and atheism on an equal footing, as genuine alternatives, thus
making the modern secular age possible for the first time. Godlove’s provoc-
ative claim, that Kant moves toward a reductionist position that ultimately
embraces religion without God, is sure to spark resistance from those who see
Kant’s later work (especially Religion within the Bounds of Mere Reason) as the
work of a Christian reformer. What will not be debatable, for those who take
on board Godlove’s impressive argument, is that in the first Critique Kant
does not express his final position on the meaning of religion, but only lays
the philosophical groundwork for his subsequent discussions.”
– Stephen R. Palmquist, Professor of Religion and Philosophy,
Hong Kong Baptist University
Kant
Kant
and the
Meaning
and the
MReealniginiog n
of
Religion
of
the Critical Philosophy &
Modern Religious Thought
the Critical Philosophy &
Modern Religious Thought
terry F. Godlove
terry F. Godlove
Published in 2014 by I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd
6 Salem Road, London W2 4BU
175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010
www.ibtauris.com
Copyright © 2014 Terry F. Godlove
The right of Terry F. Godlove to be identified as the author of this work
has been asserted by him in accordance with the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book,
or any part thereof, may not be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the
prior written permission of the publisher.
Library of Modern Religion, vol. 40
ISBN: 978 1 84885 528 1 (HB)
978 1 84885 529 8 (PB)
978 0 85773 489 1 (ebook)
ePDF ISBN: 978 0 85772 325 3
A full CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
Typeset in Adobe Caslon Pro by Initial Typesetting Services, Edinburgh
Contents
Preface & Acknowledgments vii
Introduction 1
1. Concepts 12
I. Enough is Not Everything 14
II. The Spatial Theory of Concepts 18
III. Preliminary Implications 28
2. Definition 37
I. Varieties of Definition 38
II. Religion in General 46
III. Criticism 52
IV. Essentialism 65
3. Reason 69
I. The Theorizing Mind 70
II. Regulative and Constitutive 76
III. Reconstruction 82
IV. A Ptolemaic Capstone 89
Kant and the Meaning of Religion
vi
4. Experience 96
I. Kant’s Non-conceptualism 97
II. On Religion 102
III. Proudfoot’s Criticisms 107
IV. The Christian Faith 116
V. Dependence and Illusion 120
5. Self 124
I. James, the subjective, and the social 126
II. Kant on self-awareness 132
III. The social construction of apperception 139
IV. Varieties of conformity today:
social, religious, epistemic 144
6. Meaning 151
I. Explanations of meaning in terms of use 152
II. A deflationary account of “God” 158
III. From philosophy of religion to religious studies 167
Conclusion 179
Notes 189
Bibliography 223
Index 237
Preface &
Acknowledgments
began taking courses in religion as an undergraduate, but
If rom the first and throughout graduate school I was easily
distracted. In a course on ritual I got stuck on what it is to
act intentionally. In a course on religious experience I had trouble
getting past the noun. The meaningfulness of religious language?
Terrestrial cases seemed hard enough. My teachers were asking
whether religion is discovered or invented—but to me the deeper
mystery was over the nature of general concepts. Over time
these and other distractions assumed a Kantian form. The result
is an attempt to locate Kant’s theoretical philosophy in a range
of contemporary discussions bearing on the study of religion.
Individual chapters can be read on their own but my aim has
been to present a single train of thought organized around Kant’s
theory of concepts.
For criticism and encouragement I thank Nancy Frankenberry.
Thanks also go to Bernard J. Firestone, Dean, Hofstra College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences, for and with whom it has been a pleas-
ure to work these last several years. The book has been improved by
discussion, support, and feedback from many Hofstra colleagues,
Kant and the Meaning of Religion
viii
including Brian Cox, Tony Dardis, Neil Donahue, Warren Frisina,
Gregory Kershner, Mark McEvoy, Ira Singer, Harold Skulsky,
Stavros Valenti, Dan Varisco, and Kathleen Wallace. I am also
glad to record debts to Wendy Baskett, Ehud Benor, Andrew
Dole, Mark Gardiner, Hannah Godlove, Ron Green, Dietmar
Heidemann, Amy Himsworth, Wendy Lochner, Brian Mahan,
Mike Michalson, Wayne Proudfoot, Kevin Reinhart, Gail Rubin,
and Carolann Young, to audiences at a variety of conferences
and colloquia, and to several anonymous readers. Neither Henry
Levinson nor Hans Penner—both now deceased—would find
much to like in the details of what follows, but I like to think they
could each make out a few larger lessons learned. Readers famil-
iar with Manley Thompson’s work on Kant will have no trouble
detecting his influence, greater by far than the notes reflect.
This book continues my long and productive association with
Alex Wright. For several years, and in various moods, I have been
reminding him that this book was his idea. Now I wish only to
thank him for his patience and professionalism.
The scaffolding of chapters one and two appeared in article form
as “Religion in General, not in Particular: A Kantian Meditation,”
Journal of the American Academy of Religion (2010), and the sub-
stance of chapter three as “The Objectivity of Regulative Principles
in Kant’s Appendix to the Dialectic,” Proceedings of the Eleventh
International Kant Congress, Pisa, Italy, 2010 (De Gruyter, 2013).
I am grateful to the editors and publishers concerned for permis-
sion to rework and include this material.
In earlier work I have expressed my gratitude to my partner in
life and to my children. This book is dedicated to my parents, to
my mother in law, and to the memory of my father in law. Full of
life themselves, they have given me a vivid sense of its possibilities.
Introduction
n Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche calls Kant a hinterlistigen
IChristen—a “cunning Christian.”1 As I understand him,
Nietzsche is saying that Kant’s philosophy draws religious
themes into play at two levels. At one level, Nietzsche places the
entire edifice of what we know as Kant’s “critical” philosophy of
religion—the destruction of the traditional arguments for the
existence of God, the apparent modesty in denying knowledge
to make room for a morally driven faith, the practical “postulates”
of the existence of God and of the immortality of the soul, the
necessity of the highest good, the contribution of divine grace,
and so on. In Twilight and elsewhere, Nietzsche seems to think
this entire business is too superficial, too ad hoc even to merit
critique. But at a deeper level, at the heart of Kant’s Critique of
Pure Reason, Nietzsche finds a darker move. He thinks Kant’s
Christianity extends even to the bedrock claim that we know
objects only as they appear to the senses and not as they may
be in themselves. For Nietzsche, and for such contemporary
critics as Raymond Geuss, talk of things in themselves extends
a pernicious fiction dating from Socrates’ talk of forms through
the Christian invention of heaven. Here is how Geuss puts
the point:
