Q&A: Kant and Proofs for the Existence of God
Kant and Proofs for the Existence of God
Question
Seemingly, Kant’s doctrine undermines the cosmological and physico-theological proofs for the existence of God. After all, Kant says that causality is nothing more than a category embedded in our thinking, and that we have no choice but to ask of everything, “what is its cause?” However, Kant limits the applicability of the categories to what is within our experience (or within our possible experience). That means causality should not be applied to the world as a whole, including the question of who created the world. Of course one may reject Kant’s doctrine, but my question here is connected to that: what arguments do you hold that refute this Kantian position, and what arguments do you have in favor of applying a priori intuitions also to things not within our experience? (I assume a good answer here would be an analogy to other places where we do this and it seems legitimate to us—for example, in science, where we assume that a simpler theory is also the more correct one. But again, those are things within our experience, so Kant could respond and argue that one may apply such things only to experience.)
In this way, one is “forbidden” to ask about the thing-in-itself, including God, the soul, and the world as a whole. And thus the cosmological and physico-theological proofs fall. a0
And one more small remark—even if we reject most of Kant’s doctrine, we could still remain with the claim that a priori intuitions and concepts can be applied only to things within our experience, so it seems to me the question still stands in any case.
Thanks in advance.
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. Kant indeed does not accept these proofs.
But in my view he is mistaken about causality. It indeed does not derive from experience but is a priori, yet it is not subjective but an objective insight (learned through intuition as a cognitive tool). Incidentally, according to his own approach there is no reason to apply this only to things within our experience, since it is not learned from experience.
Beyond that, the argument does not apply it to things beyond our experience. On the contrary, the claim is that the world must have a cause, but that cause itself (= God) does not require a cause. And this does not contradict the principle of causality, because God is an entity of a different kind from those in our experience.
Kant’s view of causality and his transcendental doctrine have been refuted by me in several places. Two Carts, Truth and Not Stable, and also here on the site in several places.
Discussion on Answer
Intersubjective is completely subjective, just something found in all of us. It is still in us and not in the world.
The world is nothing but the collection of things in it. If they are within our experience, then it is too.
Beyond that, causality is not drawn from experience, so it is incorrect to say that it applies only to things within experience. The mathematical law 2+3=5 would also be true regarding anything, even if it is not within our experience. The same applies to moral ideas.
Regarding the first part, as I understand Kant, he does not claim that causality is subjective, but rather that it is an intersubjective category that enables us to perceive the world. But that really isn’t the issue here.
When I speak about the world, I mean something that is not within our experience, since we cannot perceive the world as a whole (with a definite article), but only parts of it. That is, Kant would argue that one should not apply causality to the Big Bang, for example, and ask who created it, because we could not have perceived what was there in the Big Bang (and that is the meaning of its not falling under “possible experience”).
And in any case, my question is this: it is clear to me that using intuitions, moral and scientific alike, can be done regarding things within our experience, and Kant would agree with that too (except that he would call them “categories” and “forms of perception” rather than intuitions). But can these intuitions also be applied to things not within our experience, like the Big Bang, and ask about it, “what is its cause”? Another example might be asking what gives validity to moral ideas, since one could argue that moral ideas are not within our experience (perhaps this example is less good, because one could argue that we do have a grasp of moral ideas, as you call it “perception in the eyes of the intellect”).
And besides, is there a particular column that refutes the transcendental view? I’d be happy to read it.