Implications: WESTPHAL (edexcel)

Philosophy of Religion

WESTPHAL: IMPLICATIONS

Basic Breakdown of the article:

• shift from philosophical theology to philosophy of religion, away from God -> religion -> Hegel’s discomfort with this
• Pre-Kantian ethics: two forms of philosophical theology -> scholastic & deistic (establish God from reason)
• Enlightenment -> new moral religion -> consequence on knowledge and the church
• deist project: 1. focus on knowledge and reason, 2. religious tolerance, 3. rejection of power and authority of the church
• Post-Kantian reconstruction of the deist project: Kant
• Schleiermacher: not a deist, God is everything -> pantheism
• Hegel: unconvinced by Schleiermacher and Kant, defends and develops metaphysics
• Hume and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion: Hume - motives behind religious beliefs
• Marx and Nietzsche
• Kierkegaard (christian philosopher) attacked christian society. 

Key Concepts:

• Ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments/ Aquinas’ five ways used to be irrefutable 
• Enlightenment concepts or Enlightenment Rationalism
• An understanding of the ‘kernel and the husk’
• morality -> deontology (Kant)
• Pure reason -> deists do not believe that reason can explain mysteries/metaphysics, reason over faith
• Historical context -> religious warfare and persecution
• scholasticism and deism
• the return of speaking of God rather than religion: Dawkins, Atkins, Collins (DNA is ‘the language of God’)
• Christ of faith, Jesus of History

WESTPHAL: MAIN POINTS	WHAT TO WRITE ABOUT:	SOME IMPLICATIONS:
Intro: shift from philosophical theology to philosophy of religion.	they appear similar, but philosophical theology (theos for God), focuses on religion, this is on ‘purely linguistic grounds’ they are different.  1750 - 1900, definite ‘sea change’ Hegel dislikes that we can talk of religion but less about God.  (irony that he is partially responsible for the distinctions between philosophy of religion and philosophical theology). -> Hegel believes we cannot talk about religion without talking about God. Hegel vs Schleiermacher   ‘assumption that we do not know God’ -> why is there this assumption? Can we not know God via feelings (Schleiermacher) Hegel points a finger at Romantics odd as Hegel himself is responsible for the idea of separating philosophy of religion  clarify distinctions between religion and philosophical theology  unpack ‘post kantian modernity’ -> ideas founded after Immanuel Kant Where do we find philosophical theology in modern day? - Swinburne, Hick, Plantinga	Contrast Hegel with Kant/Hume Kant disagrees with Hegel, we cannot talk about God, because we do not know God, knowledge is created by the mind by ‘filtering sensations through our various mental faculties.’ This has to be applied to experience, metaphysics cannot be explained by pure reason as it not capable of explains things-in-themselves.  Nietzsche: slave morality, and that we can see the effects of religion first hand, but not the effects of a metaphysical being -> sociology.  Which philosophers say that we can know God? - Aquinas (teleological & cosmological), Augustine (evil and suffering, God -> Bible) and Swinburne (cumulative arguments)
Pre-Kantian Philosophical Theology: Scholasticism & Deism	Clarify the distinctions between Scholasticism and Deism: S: pure reason and faith, revelation and authority are harmonious - understand the ‘Augustinian assumption’ of reason. D: separates pure reason (rational kernel - God as a creator or as the enforcer of moral law) from faith, revelation and authority (irrational husk - anything supernatural) both work towards establish the existence and nature of God by ‘means of human reason unaided by revelation’ Kant: to bring religion ‘within the limits of reason alone’ -> talk about what Kant believed should have been done -> also appears later in the article.	Kantian Ethics: Deontology, another form of deontolof is Divine Command Ethics, idea that we have a duty and need for categoric imperative -> God. there is nothing conceivable in the world that ‘can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will.’
Enlightenment and the effects upon pre-kantian philosophical theology	Deism was current during the age of Enlightenment, before Hegel came along.  major advances in science and maths (Newton) ‘immediate precursor’ of Enlightenment as a method to rid the time of religious warfare -> there was a need or want to redefine religion to avoid such horrors.  To make religion objective. Once again, clarify ideas between scholasticism and deism to assert why there was a need to move away. remember: this is a historical narrative ‘moral unity’ -> who talks about law and justice: Hegel does, so does Plato and the idea a unified system: Emile Durkheim Political agenda had consequences for human knowledge (epistemology) and the church (ecclesiology) this non-violent reason could not be tied any church or sect but universal and only through rationalism (based on reason) could this take place.  religion is not biased towards a priori, rationalism thought religion should be limited to commonly available sources of knowledge: experience and reason.  deist project is motivated by three Enlightenment motifs: focus on knowledge and reason religious tolerance rejection of power and authority from the church we need only reason to understand God and distinguishes between good and bad religion, so it still philosophising about God. religion is a ‘all too human social reality’	Kant’s idea of an absolutist ethical theory: deontology.  Medieval era: Aquinas (medieval church attempted to justify religious wars: crusades -> just war theory)  A rational faith can not be bound by sensory experiences (revelation), what would Aquinas say about this?  Kant: the church should be a moral community striving for good will Hegel: strive for self-consciousness and lead to the absolute spirit or consciousness of God Schleiermacher: group united in contemplation of the infinite united by feeling contrast between empirical and a priori reasoning? If we need only reason what about morality-> Hume contrasts with what Kant states. -> talk about Marx and Nietzsche
Post Kantian Reconstructions of the deist project: Kant	Kant is a deist, and went a separate way to Hume, although both thinkers demolishes the traditional proofs for an existence in God. Kant wanted a new approach to religion and replaced the kernel of religion with morality:  no knowledge of God by means of ‘pure (a priori) theoretical reason, only by pure practical reason. (Critique of Practical Reason is thus a way to develop moral arguments) Humans could be deliberately radically evil - choose to be evil (St Augustine’s idea of seminal sin) - Religion with the Limits of Reason Alone tackles this.  Kant’s idea of religion: based of universal reason and in the service of universal morality  morality does not need religion -> duty and good will morality leads to religion  religion is the acceptance and recognition of al duties as divine commands. leading eventually to summum bonum if religion becomes a universal concept that is based on rationality and morality there is no need for us to partake in special duties to God, as he would not accept it anyway, religious rituals or ‘fetish faith’ are necessary adornments. religion is concerned with our duty to others, God is nothing but a means towards human morality.	first, once again clarify what deism is, and the criticisms which Kant brought forth to the traditional proofs in book: Critique of Pure Reason Surely there can be ways to know God through a priori knowledge: Ontological argument.  Contrast Kant with Hegel is morality truly the basis of understanding, surely this could be a transitional error as we can be moral without being religious -> Nietzsche: ‘muddy the water’ Is there truly radical evil in humanity, contrast with Augustine, who claimed that we all have a part of seminal sin, or inherent evil.  talk of the euthyphro dilemma, are things good because God say they are or is it good because it is good.  Kant’s categoric imperative and a dismissive of the hypothetical nature of religion.  Would Aquinas and Anselm agree that God is a means to an end? Aquinas’ natural moral law, religion is only useful for promoting ethics.  How would Hume react? is it means to our own ends?
Continuation of Kant’s reconstruction of the deist project.	A true church will be based solely on the ‘moral self-improvement of humans’ nothing more than a moral community, Kant who at first focused on human sinfulness makes way for the Pelagian view that humans can choose to be perfectly good,  Christ should be viewed as an example of moral perfection and not claimed on history  Lessing: philosopher who also believed that knowledge of God did not depend on historical evidence, instead we should demythologise religion and not depend historical evidence. -> can be challenged and questioned.  back to removal of fetish faith, can we trust the scriptures and the bible.	Ayer would agree to an extent with the idea not relying Christ an empirical figure, but someone or a symbol to look ups o. maybe… explain who Kant is an what he wanted to achieve,contrast with the atheist idea of a church, and religion, claim that it can never be rational, as it a human made concept. (Dawkins and Freud) Compare and contrast with Hegel’s view of Christ.
What did Schleiermacher say?	Not proper deist, but major thinker in post-kantian deistic reconstructions. He was a Romantic.  still wanted to change our approach to God, he did not care for complex arguments for God, instead the essence of religion is in feeling,  pantheistic approach ‘vain mythology’ to cast all our efforts into one distinct object.  He supported Spinoza on the idea of pantheism, not distinct and personal. His Church: -> contrast with Kant who saw church as a moral community.  a communion that recognised the feeling of unity as true religion does not completely reject rituals and ‘fetish faith’ (Kant),  it is present to allow others to also seek the true meaning of religion, again focus on religion not a God. can use ideas and practices, we need a concrete way of religion but does this not contradict the notion, that it’s just feeling? Is Schleiermacher imply that something needs to induce the feelings?	confirm who Schleiermacher and Hegel are and then why they differ from Kant Schleiermacher relied on feelings as the kernel, metaphysics and Kant’s morality differed on this ground. Schleiermacher’s audience disliked Kant’s rigorous morals, it appeared too structured, and lacked the emotion and free will apparently granted. Pantheism also different to Kant’s idea of a non-animistic religion -> contacts with Aquinas who stated that there must have been one prime mover or necessary being, in a world of contingency. Feelings were cast above: James, Otto (mysterium tremedum et fascinans)  Paul Tillich: symbols are good, because the ‘point beyond themselves.’
Intro: What did Hegel say?	Hegel does not agree with either Kant although he sympathises with Schleiermacher he believes him to be ‘confused’  and that rejects all Romantic ‘immediacy’ -> empty on actual knowledge.  immediacy is dogmatism in disguise -> blind unquestioning faith Schleiermacher idea of infinite and eternal are concepts not simply feelings.	criticism of Schleiermacher, how can we determine which feelings are true: love is often a clear example, where what we believe is love is betrayed  Hegel sympathises with Schleiermacher because they both believe in Spinozism, however, it is good because it does not fall into the trap of being a anthropomorphic being as with Aquinas’ idea as designer
In depth: What did Hegel say?	gives himself two tasks: defending metaphysical theorising  developing a religiously significant metaphysics philosophy and religion are the same but have different forms: Philosophy -> true conceptual knowledge  Religion -> tied to sensory images and historical narratives scholastic and deistic theologies fail to ‘free themselves sufficiently because their concepts can only be applied to the finite and not the eternal and infinite.  Hegel states that we need to reimagine and re-interpret the philosophical concepts of Idea and Spirit,  justify philosophical speculation provides us with concepts suitable for doing philosophical theology.	Who is Hegel? was a German philosopher of the late Enlightenment movement. he was known for developing absolute idealism, which attempt to overcome the mind, spirit and subject. Kant vs Hegel Kant - rejected the notion that we can talk about metaphysics  close in on ‘aftermath of Kant’ what happened that changed after Kant’s writings? What did Kant say about God? he reduced the old traditional proofs to empty statements.  ‘sensory images and historical narratives’ -> Resurrection of Christ, Miracles and religious experiences, so you could then bring in Otto and James. (would disagree with Hegel who saw these two concepts as nonsensical) Compare Hegel with Schleiermacher, talk about Romantic ‘immediacy’
Idealism/Spinozism: What did Hegel say?	Hegelian Idealism - notion that we can overcome the spirit and the mind, is something that resonates better with Plotinus and Aristotle than Berkeley and Kant. Plotinus and Aristotle preferred the thought/contemplation Berkeley and Kant preferred to be sceptical of the reality of Ideas, independent of the mind.  Lessing also supported or sympathised with Spinoza but this led to him rejecting Christian ideas, for Hegel it meant a complete radical reinterpretation of Christianity, freeing it from mythology.  But then Hegel is unlike Spinoza as he does credit that there is a personal God that is one distinct object (traditional theism). As Kant proved there are two distinct objects as we can determine between the finite and infinite God.  world (finite) God (infinite) -> Kant concluded that reason is able to perceive between the two.  differs from Spinoza because he claims that ‘his highest category is spirit rather than nature of substance.’  so Hegel: God or spirit vs Spinoza: God or nature	Lessing: philosopher who also believed that knowledge of God did not depend on historical evidence, instead we should demythologise religion and not depend historical evidence. -> can be challenged and questioned.  explain comparison between thought versus the sceptics.  why is Hegel’s similar views with Spinoza dangerous? if we had to completely demythologise Christianity then what would have to be eliminated and removed? eg. Resurrection of Christ, the Virgin Mary?  It would affect the whole foundations of religion. How did Hegel lead to Spinoza.  How does this contrast with classical theism? necessity and contingency. If this is the case can we really have knowledge of God, and if it is two distinct objects, do we empirically feel out the finite spirit?
What is religion?	the elevation of ‘finite spirit to absolute or infinite spirit’ Religion form: it is misunderstood as an encounter with ‘Someone Other’ Philosophical form: discovery of the highest form of human self-awareness, the sole locus in the infinite totality is the ‘only reality’ this elevation occurs in all religions but mostly in Christianity,  but to do so, Christianity has to be put into a philosophical form, reinterpreting the old forms,  self awareness or the elevation is revealed in religion, philosophical form makes God fully manifest, incarnation is the central christian truth, Jesus is not the topic but he is the embodies of divine awareness.	Compare the different churches of Hegel, Schleiermacher and Kant look above for opinions on their ideas of how religion should be approached.  God is found in self awareness.  compare with atheists who would say that religion is a human concept: Marx: ‘opiate of the people’ contrast with Kant’s notion of Jesus Christ, look back up (add yourself what does it mean to reinterpret religion. why is incarnation so important.
Hume and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion	Modern philosophy grew out of a deep dissatisfaction with historic Christianity’ Response from Hume was different to Kant’s Hume did not seek to reconstruct a inoffensive alternative, he commented that perhaps the problem did not lie at the husk or the kernel of religion.  We had to question the motives that laid behind religion and its practices. we are holy and pious in order to flatter and please God, why do we do this? Hume says it is because we do so because he have ‘selfish hopes’ that will eventually be fulfilled - contrast with Kant -> summum bonum and an afterlife. Hume said that this lead to self deception, because it has ‘reduced the sacred to nothing but a means to its own ends.’	explain the differences between philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, remember this is also established in the opening paragraphs of the article.  Westphal: what does he mean ‘historic Christianity’ is it perhaps, the traditional proofs and the scholastic project? Kant’s approach to morality and why it differs to Hume - Hume saw that it muddied the water and that it was selfish, whereas Kant saw it as a way of fulfilling our duty.  Hume was an atheist, and also had much to say on the traditional proofs along with Kant,  what benefits do religion people take/ promise of salvation a better afterlife? Dawkins’ religious morality is just a sucking up, we can be moral without having to suck up. It muddies the waters (Nietzsche)  But Kant still argues that divine command is not selfish, it is fulfilling a duty, but why should we feel obliged to listen to what we do not the govern of.
Marx and Nietzsche: What did the suspect?	focus on self-deception and self-interest  Marx: questions the function of religion rather than the motive: what function religion plays in society,  legitimise structures of social dominance religion gives the impression that it is the natural order of God.  it created a justification for the exploitation of the weak, because religion is primarily a ‘matter of social privilege seeking legation and of the oppressed seeking consolation’ Nietzsche: focus on slave morality -> envy ‘slave revolt in morals’ the slaves want revenge so they do so through religion they feel as though they have moral superiority over the rich, and exploiters  God is thus a tool for them to believe that the evil people will get retribution	Marx: was a philosopher/sociologist and looked also at Hegelian philosophy he was indeed an atheist. Nietzsche: was also an atheist and advocated nihilism, which is the movement away from religion. He was a thinker and sociologist. you could comment on how different Marx’s approach were from the psychological perspective: Freud historical evidence for abuse of religion: eg. Tsarist Russia, autocracy, and manipulation of the Church, King Henry VIII idea of Heaven and Hell -> biblical scriptures declare this is religion all about hurting and condemning the rich? There are rich people who do attempt to do good,
Others are also suspicious who are religious: Kierkegaard	suspicious isn't all of secular though,  Kierkegaard criticised the bourgeois (upper middle), he attacked Christian society.  they have been confused with the Kingdom of heaven, because they think that life on earth is already perfect as it is. we cannot make these comparisons.	explain the outline of the secular criticisms and how it compares or contrasts with what Kierkegaard says, relying on the fact that he is a theist.

Part (b) Implications

if philosophy shifts its focus away from God to human practice of religion:

• less support for the existence of God, less people will talk about God as a philosophical idea, 
• arguments for God will be ignored
• human experience may be less credible, because less is talked about 
• philosophical philosophers are less likely to support those who state they have had a human encounter with God
• controversial debates less important, 
• believers will be focused less on metaphysics, would spirituality hold less importance in contemporary society?

if we agree that religion is the only basis for religion:

• religions would have to be the same, likelihood with the variety of different cultures?
• traditional aspects of religion may be scrapped or completely removed, 
• religion is reduced to just reason, does this have a place in our life?
• yet human experience would be grounded to rationalism will this help with decision making? and will judgements be more neutral

religion is no more than a system of morality:

• Aspects of faith not concerned with ethics would be marginalised or disappear (again: ritual, narratives/Bible, religious art, worship etc.).
• The emotional content of religion (love, gratitude) would be replaced by a focus on moral duty.
• Religion everywhere would be the same, since rational ethics should be universal.
• Churches, mosques and synagogues would change into moral support groups; all their other curious activities would be irrelevant.
• Human experience would always have to focus on ethics: being moral is the highest good and the only basis for religion. We would always have 
• to be conscious of duty.
• Human society might become more just and moral, since consideration of the moral law would replace self interest and hedonism.

Schleiermacher: religion should be focused solely on feeling:

• Religion would become very personal, as individual sensations and experiences would be the source of ‘truth’, rather than cold logic or Church
• authority.
• External forms of faith (ritual, Church, Bible) would be less important that what the individual feels. Religion would be much more flexible.
• ‘Feeling’ is quite open in terms of what it means: there isn’t really any strict guidance in terms of what religion should be like. People could choose their own values and practices if they ‘felt’ right.
• Human experience on a personal level would take priority; people would be less interested in what authorities had to say, whether priests or
• philosophy professors.
• Reason and logical argument might be marginalised as being less important than individual and personal awareness.

Hegel: religion should be focused on conceptual knowledge of God:

• Religion would feel more academic or intellectual. Philosophy would be the most important support for religion.
• Traditional religious practices (ritual, worship, Bible, etc.) would be less important than the concepts people study.
• Faith might become a bit elitist – the best philosophers would have the best understanding of God, and so would be the most religious.
• Human experience would have to be dominated by philosophical study, since this would be the only way to access the ultimate – God.
• Emotional and non-rational parts of human life might be seen as trivial.

Sceptics: religion is only practiced for the sake of giving people advantages:

• Religion would have to be scrapped; it’s just a big fat institutionalised lie.
• The existence of God would not be seen as an important matter. The arguments for God would be seen as attempts to justify people’s selfish behaviour.
• Religion would lose all moral authority, since it is based on self-interest. People would have to look elsewhere for moral guidance.
• Human life and experience would have to turn away from faith as a source of structure; meaning would have to come from other sources.
• Religious experiences would be understood as anomalies or psychological events. This part of human experience cannot match up with what Hume et al. are saying.