Descartes' and Kants Approaches to God - Term Paper Example

Descartes and Kant’s approaches to God If one takes a look at the civilization which was formed by the humans, one can not help noticing that there is one single idea that should be regarded as fundamental to it. This idea focuses on God. In spite of the fact that some people reject the existence of the higher power; nevertheless, they shape their world view around the rejection of the conventional way of perceiving the metaphysical world, forming the opposition to the believers. Speaking of the latter, it is quite obvious that over the history numerous individuals tried to present their proof for existence of God in order to make other people believe in the validity of their claims. There are two distinct approaches to the issue in question: the one which was proposed by Descartes and the one which was advocated by Kant. I strongly agree with the latter, considering it more adequate as well as trustworthy. This paper will present the view of Descartes and Kant on existence of God and utilize several philosophical theory, suggesting that the approach which as adopted by Kant is more credible. To begin with, one should state the claims which were made by Descartes since the ideas of Kant primarily reject them. Thus, the former developed the so called ontological argument for existence of God: Descartes based his proof on the concept that God is the most perfect creature and, since existence is a part of perfection, He ought to exist (Cahoone 45). One would make no mistake, pointing out that this approach is a rather short one and features fine logic at first sight. Indeed, Descartes takes one premise that both people who believe in God and those who do not believe in God would not reject, namely that He is the most perfect creature. In other words, he is able to appeal to the common ground of the people when they perceive the higher power without connection to any dogmatic principles. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to point out that the idea of God or any deities might have emerged as the opposition to the corrupted material world; so, the metaphysical world as well as its inhabitants is largely thought to be free of vices. That is why the ontological argument which was presented by Descartes makes sense to a certain extent. However, the criticism which was developed by Kant latter makes even more sense. Thus, for this German philosopher, the argument that was presented by Descartes possesses one important flaw which destroys the whole integrity of it: according to the logic of the claim, existence is inseparably connected to the object of idea. That is why the perfection or greatness of idea might be modified by the fact whether it exists or not. One would make no mistake pointing out that Kant is able to attack the argument of Descartes in the area which is highly important, on the one hand, and highly vulnerable on the other. To put it simple, Kant does not call existence the necessary predicate (Harris 105). This kind of thinking might be considered to be revolutionary as it has many important implications not only for this particular issue, but for other areas as well. As for the existence of God, the objection which was brought up by Kant argues that if a person accepts the idea of God, then His existence is truly necessary in the mind of his person; however, one does not have to accept this idea. In other words, the existence of God is closely connected to the position that a person takes, but not the objective reality. It is quite obvious that such an approach is interesting as it does not attack the belief in God directly, but creates equally favorable conditions for people who do believe and those who do not believe. Now, it would be rather important to engage several philosophical theories that would support my choice of Kant’s approach to existence of God. The first theory that will be employed is called empiricism. The name for this theory comes from the Greek word that means experience; so, there is no doubt in the fact that the concept of experience will be central to this theory (Frankenberry 106). Indeed, empiricism argues that a viable tool to check whether a particular idea is valid or should be rejected as invalid is to test it against the experience of a person. In spite of the fact that there has been claims that a particular individuals has experienced the presence of God or that one has witness a certain miraculous activity, all this claims were experienced personally and there was not external and independent observer to prove it. In other words, from the point of empiricism, the approach which is advocated by Kant clearly makes more sense and it may be verified by different experiments. Indeed, people might look for proof for existence of God and construct theories that would feature almost flawless logic, but it is clear that none of these claims is able to bring any factual or material evidence. In addition to that, when Descartes argues the certainty of God existence then there should be a way to experience it, but nobody has even been able to do so. The next philosophical theory which should be engaged in order to prove the validity of the approach which was developed by Kant is pragmatism. One would make no mistake suggesting that the name of this philosophical approach is similar to the word pragmatic as they have the same root. Indeed, the proponents of the above mentioned theory argue that the knowledge that people collect or the ideas that they construct should have pragmatic value in them (Stuhr 10). In spite of the fact that some might put emphasis that the mere existence of the concept of God was able to influence lives of numerous people in a positive manner, pragmatism would reject such claims as invalid as they have more personal value than universal. On the other hand, the approach which was designed by Kant is truly universally useful and brings people to a legitimate answer to the question whether God exists or not. It is quite obvious that pragmatics will always be in favor of ideas that can be applied on wide range of occasions and make general provisions that are flawless and do not distort the existing order of things, but rather reinforce it. That is why, it is absolutely clear that the claim which is made by Descartes about the certainty of existence of God will be rejected by pragmatic as one that can hardly be useful for the people and one containing logical flaws which make it unreliable. However, one should also point out that there is a philosophical theory that might object to the views which were expressed above and prove that the approach of Descartes is the one that should be viewed as viable and more valid. The philosophical theory that would adhere to such claims is called rationalism. Indeed, some people might think that rationalism is likely to reject the idea of God as being irrational to a certain extent, but that is not the key test that this theory uses to verify the credibility of an idea. According to it, the data which is obtained through ratio (which is Latin for mind) should be regarded as the most reliable ones even if they primarily exist in the metaphysical reality and are not backed by evidence that can be experienced by the people with the help of senses. As one can easily see, such approach towards the process of verification is extremely favorable for the position that is taken by Descartes. Contrary to that, the approach which is advocated by Kant can hardly find any support from rationalism as the latter will not limit the evidence to the objects that can be experienced directly, leaving a considerable amount of room for other speculations which will be primarily based on abstract notions and employ formal logic. In other words, the point of view that is taken by rationalism, the existence of God can be proven more effectively by Descartes, rather than Kant. It is my strong belief that rationalism might be a reliable way to verify certain things, but its major flaw that is tends to be detached from reality. That is why it may be quite useful to prove some complex notions which are not of particular importance to the mankind, but the issue of existence of God has significant implications so it can not be verified by such approach. As one can easily see, the idea of God is still a subject of debates which continue over the centuries. The best what a person can do is to choose a side that seem to one more credible. As for me, I think that the approach of Kant towards the existence of God is quite reliable as it can be verified by empiricism and pragmatism. Works Cited Cahoone, Lawrence E. The Dilemma of Modernity: Philosophy, Culture, and Anti-Culture. New York, NY: SUNY, 1988. Print. Frankenberry, Nancy. Religion and Radical Empiricism: The Importance of Self-Definition in Research. New York, NY: SUNY, 1987. Print. Harris, James Franklin. Analytic Philosophy of Religion. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2002. Print. Stuhr, John J. Pragmatism, Postmodernism, and the Future of Philosophy. Boston, MA: Psychology, 2003. Print. Read More