Kant a la Ratzinger

[Justified Saint]

From [i]Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures[/i], pg 51:

“The search for [a] kind of reassuring certainty, something that could go unchallenged despite all the disagreements, has not succeeded. Not even Kant's truly stupendous endeavors managed to create the necessary certainty that would be shared by all. Kant had denied that God could be known within the sphere of pure reason, but at the same time, he had presented God, freedom, and immortality as postulates of practical reason, without which he saw no coherent possibility of acting in a moral manner. I wonder if the situation of today's world might not make us return to the idea that Kant was right? Let me put this in different terms: the attempt, carried to extremes, to shape human affairs to the total exclusion of God leads us more and more to the brink of the abyss, toward the utter annihilation of man. We must therefore reverse the axiom of the Enlightenment and say: Even the one who does not succeed in finding the path to accepting the existence of God ought nevertheless to try to live and to direct his life as if God did indeed exist.”

Thus, like Pascal's wager, Ratzinger sees the Kantian notion of the necessity of belief in God as, well, necessary. There are only two ways to act: you can either act as if God exists or he doesn't. Of course, this does not mean Ratzinger accepts the metaphysical or epistemological implications of the Kantian system, but he does acknowledge the particular historical importance of practicing [i]faith[/i] in God instead of having one's existence proofs in the right order.

[Guest JeffCR07]

One must be very careful about reading too much into this quote of the Holy Father's. In no way, shape, or form is the Kantian notion of the Divine compatible with the actual theology of Pope Benedict. Kant argued, by way of his antimonies, that Reason cannot know that God exists, but that we must be able to act as if He did exist. The Holy Father, however, of course maintains that God [i]can[/i] be known by Reason because he maintains that belief in Revelation is inherently reasonable.

Rather than endorsing a Kantian critique of reason vis-a-vis the notion of God, the Holy Father is saying in the above quote that it would be beneficial for people in the present (read: thoroughly materialistic) world if they allowed themselves to act as if God existed, even if they do not know it with their reason. This notion is Kantian, but not exclusively Kantian, and it by no way follows from the Pope's desire to see people act in such a way that he is in fact advocating the premises and suppositions of Kant.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Justified Saint]

While it is important not to read too much in this passage, likewise it would seem unwise to read too little as well.

The return to Kant is part of Ratzinger's larger concern (in this context) to rethink the Enlightenment's project of a kind of absolute certainty under the name of science instead of God. Kant plays a large part in that project anyway, but with his idea of the "as if" it has a way of reversing the kind of epistemic certainty that leads just as much to atheism as belief. Where Descartes had to prove the existence of God before he could "know" anything at all, Ratzinger acknowledges the importance of being able to act as if God exists and by extension believe in God's existence.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I agree with Jeff that you are probably reading too much into the Ratzinger quote. And I must say that there are a handful of things in that particular book which strike me as erroneous and which I hope, and to some extent suppose, that B16 would no longer assert. He did write that book quite a few years ago.

I can recall Ratzinger identifying Kant as one of the major influences in the modern mentality's problem with understanding the nature of Christian faith.
I believe Ratzinger would say that Kant's philosophy cuts us off from reality and that reason as defined within Kantianism is not the same thing as the reason in relation to faith that the Catholic world-view is based upon. For Catholics reality is the basis of reason; for a Kantian "reason", or the structure of the mind, is the extent of knowable reality. There are major foundational differences and I don't see in what sense you are suggesting a "return" to Kant (I didn't know we ever were Kantians).

Kantian faith and reason are in many ways antithetical to the Catholic world-view

Oh, and I also recall reading something in which Ratzinger highlighted the influence of Kant in radical liberal Christology and exegesis. The Kantian argument which asserts that we can have no contact with objective reality (the so-called noumena) does violence to the authentic Christian consciousness of Christ as the revelation of God and the only path to God. The Kantian perspective logically led many theologians toward the view that Christ can be nothing more than a mythical figure, and furthermore the Divine (the Absolute, Ultimate Reality, God, whatever) cannot come into history in any way and the sacramental order also makes no sense.

I personally have a great many more issues with the idea of an appropriate of Kantian philosophy (although I don't hold it to be worthless), but what I've said above is meant to represent views of Ratzinger that I've encountered and nothing more.

My point is not to attempt an actual critique of Kant, but rather to suggest that your reading of Ratzinger on this point is flawed.

[Justified Saint]

The extent of my "reading" was a few sentences in summary with focus on the point I wanted to emphasize in which I implicitly said that Ratzinger is not a "Kantian". When I talk about a "return to Kant" I am simply using Ratzinger's language and attempting to interpret what he may mean by that (re-read the passage). Thus I am no more suggesting that "we ever were Kantians" than Ratzinger is.

That said, I neither think there is a Kantian "appropriation" nor is Ratzinger attempting one. As both Jeff and I said, the idea in question is not unique to Kant, but it is where Ratzinger wants to tell the story.

There is no mistake in my mind that Kant's thinking is at many points at odds with Catholicism. One doesn't need "Kantian" theologians to realize that his system leads to a denial of sacramentalism since Kant denies all that himself along with labeling institutional religion as supersitious.

Thus I stand by my earlier comments which turn out to have very little to do with the suspicions so far expressed.

[Justified Saint]

P.S.

L_D, what else did you find questionable in that book? Just curious...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1036435' date='Aug 2 2006, 01:11 PM']
The extent of my "reading" was a few sentences in summary with focus on the point I wanted to emphasize in which I implicitly said that Ratzinger is not a "Kantian". When I talk about a "return to Kant" I am simply using Ratzinger's language and attempting to interpret what he may mean by that (re-read the passage). Thus I am no more suggesting that "we ever were Kantians" than Ratzinger is.

That said, I neither think there is a Kantian "appropriation" nor is Ratzinger attempting one. As both Jeff and I said, the idea in question is not unique to Kant, but it is where Ratzinger wants to tell the story.

There is no mistake in my mind that Kant's thinking is at many points at odds with Catholicism. One doesn't need "Kantian" theologians to realize that his system leads to a denial of sacramentalism since Kant denies all that himself along with labeling institutional religion as supersitious.

Thus I stand by my earlier comments which turn out to have very little to do with the suspicions so far expressed.
[/quote]
My apologies; I wasn't altogether clear on precisely what you were saying so my dismissal was hastey.

I am of the opinion that there is much value in the works of Kant, and as I mentioned before, JP2 does a fine job of appropriating certain Kantian themes into his ethical philosophy. In a way one could characterize JP2's ethics to a large extent as a synthesis of Kant and Scheler. Of course his ethical thought is much more than that, but is would seem to be a useful characterization.

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1036447' date='Aug 2 2006, 01:24 PM']
P.S.

L_D, what else did you find questionable in that book? Just curious...
[/quote]
I should be very clear and say that I don't consider the book to be heretical, nor do I suggest that there are glaring errors in the text. It has been some time since I've read that text and I can't seem to find my copy at the moment, but my impression of my impression of that text is that certain things are at times left open which to my mind are not so open. The work was penned in the late 60's if I'm not mistaken, and it is well known that Ratzinger had the reputation of a kind of "free thinker" in those days. While I can't say I have a problem with that, it does strike me as odd that an introductory text would at times have such a flavour.

One famous example is the radtrad assertion that Ratzinger denies the resurrection of the body in this book. While I must disagree with this conclusion (as I recall his point was to stress the resurrection of the person in such a way as to avoid any traces of dualism), I might agree that the discussion and phrasing is ambiguous and possibly inappropriate for a book of this class.
There are many authors with whom I have these sorts of problems. I'm a bit too opinionated for my own good and I tend to be very touchy when it comes to phrasing and style, but this type of criticism is not the same as an accusation of heresy.

I regret using a term so strong as "error" in my previous post. The issues I have are not so much explicit doctrinal error as much as they are errors, in my opinion, in the area of phrasing and style. Misleading, ambiguous, or possibly misguided statements and perspectives. But again, this is my opinion and I'm not so stubborn as to suppose I am absolutely, without a doubt right.

Perhaps the subject at hand (the place of Kant) makes for a decent case in point.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1036450' date='Aug 2 2006, 12:43 PM']
I should be very clear and say that I don't consider the book to be heretical, nor do I suggest that there are glaring errors in the text. It has been some time since I've read that text and I can't seem to find my copy at the moment, but my impression of my impression of that text is that certain things are at times left open which to my mind are not so open. The work was penned in the late 60's if I'm not mistaken, and it is well known that Ratzinger had the reputation of a kind of "free thinker" in those days. While I can't say I have a problem with that, it does strike me as odd that an introductory text would at times have such a flavour.

One famous example is the radtrad assertion that Ratzinger denies the resurrection of the body in this book. While I must disagree with this conclusion (as I recall his point was to stress the resurrection of the person in such a way as to avoid any traces of dualism), I might agree that the discussion and phrasing is ambiguous and possibly inappropriate for a book of this class.
There are many authors with whom I have these sorts of problems. I'm a bit too opinionated for my own good and I tend to be very touchy when it comes to phrasing and style, but this type of criticism is not the same as an accusation of heresy.

I regret using a term so strong as "error" in my previous post. The issues I have are not so much explicit doctrinal error as much as they are errors, in my opinion, in the area of phrasing and style. Misleading, ambiguous, or possibly misguided statements and perspectives. But again, this is my opinion and I'm not so stubborn as to suppose I am absolutely, without a doubt right.

Perhaps the subject at hand (the place of Kant) makes for a decent case in point.
[/quote]

According to my edition, the book was written shortly before he became pope. Would you be referring to his classic text [i]Introduction to Christianity[/i]? This work was written in the 60s and is certainly much more theologically rigorous, and one might say speculative, than the slim volume I am citing.

On the whole I found it to be a quite stunning and beautiful meditation on the Apostle's Creed, though I don't doubt that some portions might be considered more speculative than others.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1036495' date='Aug 2 2006, 02:41 PM']
According to my edition, the book was written shortly before he became pope. Would you be referring to his classic text [i]Introduction to Christianity[/i]? This work was written in the 60s and is certainly much more theologically rigorous, and one might say speculative, than the slim volume I am citing.

On the whole I found it to be a quite stunning and beautiful meditation on the Apostle's Creed, though I don't doubt that some portions might be considered more speculative than others.
[/quote]
I'm dumb. All this time I thought we were talking about [i]Introduction to Christianity[/i]. In fact I've never read the text to which you are referring.

Add this to my list of embarassing blunders.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1036500' date='Aug 2 2006, 01:52 PM']
I'm dumb. All this time I thought we were talking about [i]Introduction to Christianity[/i]. In fact I've never read the text to which you are referring.

Add this to my list of embarassing blunders.
[/quote]

No problem, we all make mistakes -- like Kant.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1036503' date='Aug 2 2006, 03:00 PM']
No problem, we all make mistakes -- like Kant.
[/quote]


I pray that I will never make mistakes quite like Kant. hehe

[Guest JeffCR07]

lol, this thread rules, by the way :

[N/A Gone]

yea it does. I am writing a christology final on Kant vs Jesus and this thread was hilarious

sorry for the rebirth of the zombie thread