Westphal, example Part A (MADE UP)

Unlike Kant, the Romantic Friedrich Schleiermacher and the anti-Romantic Hegel are not properly described as deists. But with Kant they are major figures in the post-Kantian effort to reformulate the deist project. Schleiermacher addresses an audience unsympathetic not only to the metaphysical quarrels of scholastic and deistic philosophical theologies, whose claims about providence and immortality he dismisses as ‘externals’, but also to the moral rigourism of a Kantian alternative. Both metaphysics and morality belong to the husk of religion: its kernel is to be found in feeling, in ‘the immediate consciousness of the universal existence of all finite things, in and through the Infinite, and of all temporal things in and through the Eternal.’ 

(a) Examine the argument and/or interpretations in the passage 

Westphal’s essay about The emergence of modern philosophy of religion is a historical narrative of the change from philosophical theology to a study of the philosophy of religion. Westphal recreates this timeline from post-kantian ethics or the scholastic project and how it transitions into modern philosophy or philosophy of religion and the deist project. Most importantly, the emergence of philosophy of religion was a signpost for the move away from the focus of discussions based on God’s existence and on religion itself and what it meant for philosophy and humanity. In the article, Westphal utilises major key thinkers of the centuries most importantly those form before Kant and the scholars of the Enlightenment movement. This movement would see the rise of thinkers such as Kant and Hume, who rejected metaphysics on the grounds that reason and rationality would provide a greater study of philosophy of religion than the meaningless discussions of a unverifiable transcendent deity. 

The extract provided is taken from the Westphal’s narrative of the emergence of the deist project or Post- Kantian reconstruction of the deist project. To explain the deist project, Westphal uses the following philosophers: Hegel, Kant, Hume and Schleiermacher. However, the passage states that Schleiermacher and Hegel are not ‘properly described as deists’, we may interpret this as meaning that these two scholars as not being deist but perhaps they share similar elements to Kant in terms of the fact that these two philosophers reimagined what the deist project could aspire to be. Fundamental to the emergence of the deist project is the fact that it wanted to move away from the feelings of religious warfare and intolerance, both Schleiermacher and Hegel do try and unravel this. Schleiermacher’s basic differences from Kant can be sought out in the kernels of their arguments. In the article, the deist project is claimed to want to distinguish between the kernel (reason) and the ‘irrational husk’ (faith, authority an revelation). Whilst Kant does so by replacing reason with morality, Schleiermacher does so with feeling . 

It is from this understanding that we are able to comprehend why key thinkers such as Schleiermacher have been included despite not being considered as ‘proper’ deists. Westphal states that Schleiermacher’s audience is unfeeling to the struggle between the deistic and metaphysical quarrels of the two sides (scholastic and deistic), but also Kantian ethics and arguments. This means that Schleiermacher is attempting to bring a new alternative reach into the deist project. However, Schleiermacher dismisses all these concepts as ‘externals.’ This phrase reveals a lot about the thinker as the external could be likened to the irrational husk of religion which includes the rituals and religious dogmas. On the other hand, ‘externals’ could also be likened to the arguments provided for by Kant, the fact that morality is independent of God and why we should aspire towards this, are all seen as inferior to what Schleiermacher dictates as the true importance of religion: feeling. Now, having established that Schleiermacher prizes emotions perhaps this is the reason for why he has a distaste and his audience have a distaste of the ‘moral rigourism’ of Kant. Kant’s reconstruction of the deist project means that it is too structured and unfeeling. This appears to resonate with the idea of proportionalists such as Hoose. Hoose also considered the Kant’s outline of his argument as unfeeling and dismissive of the ontic goods. And it would be these feelings of virtues that Schleiermacher that made him distinct from Kant. 

Unlike Kant, Schleiermacher dedicated himself to the ‘kernel...found in feeling’, this feeling could be expressed through our experience of finite things, namely things that were not necessary such as God. Thus, Schleiermacher is still considered a deist because the core of his argument does not lie within God but on experience of the finite and the feelings it evokes. Westphal uses the phrase ‘all temporal things in and through the Eternal.’ This basically implies that through the feelings we express and feel from our experienceof the finite is what leads to God; a contrast to Kant who uses morality as his lead towards God. However, Schleiermacher’s notion of feeling through finite things does not mean that we have to consider the dogmas of religion, although Schleiermacher does not deny the right of the individual to partake in rituals he does not consider it as a necessary concept. In fact, Schleiermacher’s principles may be compared to H. P. Owen, in terms of direct awareness. This is because Schleiermacher is comparing the idea that our feelings of the finite are similar to a form of pantheism. This ideology suggests that God is all around and can be found all around us, in some ways it is a form of an animistic religion. Thus, we can compare Schleiermacher with Owen because the latter stated that out experience and awareness of others, also revealed knowledge of God and so how we feel about others is also a representation of God. 

In which case, we can interpret Schleiermacher as a thinker that is similar to Kant on the accounts that he also tries to separate the husk and the kernel of religion, but whilst Kant dismisses the abstract as ‘fetish faith’, the former has some dependency on religious experiences. Probably because these experiences do not have to have come about through the metaphysical direct immediacy but also through our experience with nature. Otto describes this awe inspiring feeling in the phrase mysterium, tremedum et fascinans, and ultimately led to a feeling of the numinous. This relates to Schleiermacher as he described it as the ‘immediate consciousness.’ Furthermore, although Schleiermacher cannot be considered as a traditional deist thinker, perhaps he is included by Westphal because the scholar has brought something new to the reimagining of the project. The ‘immediate consciousness’ may imply that if all individuals are able to experience this feeling of unity through cumulative experiences then rather than relying on a God, we are unified through a shared experience. As a result of this, we are able to gain cohesion between religions and avoid religious warfare, nor would it rely on the cleric as it is non-discriminatory. However, it also means that if God is such a personal God, that there is no need for a church or in fact separate religions because these experiences are not constricted to rituals but the greater community who are able to recognise the reality of God in what is temporary and finite. 

Moreover, Schleiermacher’s argument is wholly deistic no matter that it may accept religious dogma and right as his take and acceptance of pantheism would wholly contrast with the scholastic principles. The scholastic school was connected by the will to have the husk and kernel to be united, and God to be at the centre. Scholasticism was supported by thinkers such as Anselm and Aquinas, great thinkers in their own right, but subject to criticism in the new age of Enlightenment. In Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, he commented that God was the prime mover and the only necessary being and thus we should aspire to worship and accept God as fundamental to our lives because he created the world. This contrasts greatly with Schleiermacher’s pantheist take on religion and because this is evident from the extract’s comment: ‘metaphysical quarrels of scholastic ...whose claims about providence and immortality he dismisses as ‘externals.’ This is a reference to the scholastic arguments from cosmology, teleology and ontology, based on the idea that none of these truly captured the importance of region since they had no appreciation of emotion or feeling. 

In conclusion, Schleiermacher is a deist, but perhaps not in the traditional sense, his thought process still expresses a clear divide and transition from emphasising the importance of God to a greater emphasis on the notion of a personal God that we can experience if we unlock our ‘immediate consciousness.’ In which case, he is a deist as he criticises not only the idea of emphasising just God without feeling but the idea of scholastic arguments when in reality we should just focus on the numinous experiences.