t 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: