Download WESTPHAL FROM START TO FINISH

The Argument
 In modern times Philosophy has shifted from an
interest in God to an interest in religion
(from “Philosophical Theology” to “Philosophy of
Religion”)
 Kant, and others, have tried to find the good
essence (the kernel) of religion - and discard the
unnecessary elements (the husk)
 Hume, and others (Marx, Freud) - consider the
problem to be the kernel itself, religion, which is a
bad thing.
An Outline of the Text
 Introduction
 Before Kant
 Scholasticism
 Deism
 After Kant
 Discovering the Husk: Kant, Schleirmacher, Hegel
(rebuilding Deism)
 Discarding the Husk: Hume, Marx, Nietzsche
(suspicion of religion)
The Text
Introduction
 Philosophical theology and the philosophy of
religion appear to have different subject matters
 There was a shift in thinking from the time of Hume
and Kant to that of Nietzsche, when philosophising
about religion took centre stage at the expense of
talking about God.
 Hegel noticed this: Westphal observes that
philosophy of religion has now replaced
philosophical theology.
The Text
Scholasticism and Deism
 Philosophical theology was in two forms, scholastic and
deist, both of which are concerned with establishing the
existence and nature of God by means of reason unaided
by revelation.
 Scholasticism held that reason, faith, revelation and
authority should work together.
 Deists, however, separated faith and reason by
separating the rational ‘kernel’ and the irrational ‘husk’ of
religion.
 Westphal suggests examples of kernel as including God as
creator, and husk as anything miraculous.
Deism
 Deism emerged in the Enlightenment, from a desire to
define a religion which would foster moral unity in society
– not one based on authority of a special revelation.
 Deists believe reason (not authority) could provide all the
knowledge necessary of God. They reject scholasticism.
 They tried to separate good religion from bad: which is
why there was the shift in talking about religion rather
than God.
 The aim was not to prove the existence of God but rather
to make religion an ally of morality.
 This was necessary because it was thought that Hume
and Kant had destroyed the classical arguments for the
existence of God.
The Text
Kant
 Kant rebuild the Deist project – believing we can
have knowledge of God by use of reason alone.
 Rational religion was acceptable in the cause of
universal morality. Religion was not essential to
morality, but could be useful to the moral life.
 Universal religion could not, however, be founded
on duties to God.
 The doctrines of the Church must be given a rational,
ethical foundation (independent even of historical
facts).
Schleiermacher
 Schleiermacher rejected the moral rigours of Kantian
religion
 He identifies the kernel of religion to be found in a
deep unity of feeling with God, contemplated as the
Infinite and Eternal
 True religion is still clothed in particular ideas and
practices, although these are no guarantee of true
religion.
 In other words, Religious Experience is more
important than Religious Knowledge or Belief.,
Hegel
 Hegel rejected both Kant’s and Schleiermacher’s
understandings of religion
 Religion and philosophy are the same, but only
philosophy can gain true knowledge – in particular, a
philosophical understanding of the concepts of Idea and
Spirit.
 Religion elevates the finite spirit to the infinite, which
becomes the focus of self-awareness
 This is found most fully in Christianity through the aid of
philosophy. Philosophy enables human reason to fully
manifest the full nature of God and the central truth of
Christianity is the Incarnation.
The Text
Hume
 Hume aimed to establish how far the problems of
religion lay in its disposable husks. This lead to a new
suspicion of religion.
 Scepticism questions the evidence which supports
religious beliefs, but suspicion of religion questions
the motives underlying religion and the motives
behind it
 Hume thought the function of religion was a flattery
of the gods, which was motivated by the believer’s
hopes and fears.
Marx & Neitzsche
 Marx and Nietzsche shifted the focus to psychology
and sociology.
 They have no interest in arguments for the existence
of God – they focus on the purpose of religion
 Marx argues that religion encourages repression and
legitimises social exclusivity.
 Nietzsche argued that religion was rooted in slave
morality, creating a false moral superiority and
making the strong feel guilty.
Conclusion
 It is not only those opposed to religion who share
this suspicion of it.
 Kierkegaard too – a Christian – challenged the use of
Christianity to support the social order and
respectablity.
 The change in philosophical interest from God to
religion challenges the idea that a “Christian” is just
a good citizen, because of which “The biblical
tension between Jesus and every established order
is lost.”
The Text
Implications
 Westphal’s own views are hardly expressed,
but appear to be with Kant, and Kierkegaard
- in favour of the kernel of religion (see last
sentence)
 If Kant etc are followed, then what aspects
of religion are the husk and which the kernel?
 If Hume etc are followed, then is religion
itself a bad thing?