Peer Observation

things-98

in-themselves while the claims that are only contingent existents linked by laws of nature apply to appearances.

In this case both thesis and antithesis may be true.

That these antinomies may be true is crucial to Kant because it means that although theoretical reason cannot prove that neither freedom nor God exist, neither can it disprove them.

Existence of freedom and God can gain credibility in some other way.

Furthermore, in the mathematical class of antinomies, the false hood of the pre-suposition consists in representating in one concept something self-contradictory as if it were compatible (that is an appearance as a thing in-itself)

But to dynamical class of antinomies, the falsehood of the presupposition consists in representing as contradictory what is compatible so that while in the former case, the opposed assertions were both false. In this case on the hand where they are opposed to one another by mere understanding they may both be true.

Kant solved the difficulties involved in the antimonies by pointing out that the thesis holds for the noumenal world and characterizes the stance of dogmatic rationalism.

The antithesis on its own side holds for the phenomenal world and characterizes the stance of dogmatic empiricism.

99

another cause until we are brought to cause which is not contingent and which is therefore unconditionally necessary bases its advance to the primordial being. ⁵⁰

Kant named this unconditioned necessary being „‟ens realissimum‟‟ when he said that „‟the concept of an ens realissimum is therefore of all concepts of possible things that which best squares with the concept of an unconditionally necessary being‟‟.

Ens Realissimum means The Most Real Being.

In the footnote of Critique of Pure Reason, Kant outlined the processes which this ens realissimum undergoes when he opined thus:

This ideal of the ens realissimum although it is indeed a mere representation, is first realized, that is made into an object then hypostatized and finally by the natural progress of reason towards the completion of unity is personified.⁵¹

The proofs of arguments for the existence of God are namely:

a. The Ontological argument b. The Cosmological argument

c. The Physico-Theological argument

3.8.1 THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Ontological proof reasoned from the highest reality to necessity of existence. Its entire trust is in pure a priori argument that begins with the concept of a perfect being. The concept of an absolutely necessary being is a concept of pure reason. These concepts are something the non-existence of which is possible.

Kant made it clear that the concept of ens realisimum possesses all reality and it is a possible being.

Kant went further to say that all reality includes existence, and existence is therefore contained in the concept of a thing that is possible.

100

From this argument, it is inferred that; it is possible that there is a perfect being whose none existence is impossible.

But it makes no sense to say that there could be something whose none existence is possible.

Therefore a perfect being must necessarily exist.

KANT’S CRITIQUE OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Kant was of the view that there are so many obstacles in inferring from a given existence in general to some absolute necessary being.

Verbal definition of an absolutely necessary being does not give rise to existence of the being, that is something the non existence of which is impossible.

Kant was also certain that when the concept of an absolutely necessary being is rejected and the subject is retained, that a contradiction results.

This is why he asserts thus:

To post a triangle and yet to reject its three angles is self contradictory but there is no contradictory in rejecting the triangle together with its three angels. The same holds true of concept of an absolutely necessary being. If its existence is rejected we reject the thing itself with all its predicate and no question of contradiction can arise.⁵²

However, the problem in this argument is that we were not told whether triangles actually exist. If I deny there are triangles then I do not need to affirm that there are three angled figures. Similarly we may state „if there is a God, then there is a being that necessarily exists.

However if I deny there is a God, then I may also reject the claim that there is a necessary being. In this way Kant seeks to block the more from concepts to existence.⁵³

Kant also said that the concept of a Supreme Being is a mere idea which is unable by itself capable of enlarging our knowledge in regard to what exists. It is even competent to enlighten us to the possibility of any existence beyond that which is known in and through experience.

Kant concluded his Critique of this ontological argument by saying that

The attempt to establish the existence of a supreme being by means of the famous ontological argument of Descartes is therefore merely so much labour and effort lost, we can no more extent our stock of (theoretical) insight by mere ideas, than a merchant can better his position by adding a few noughts (zero) to his cash account.⁵⁴

101

Kant in trying to be against this ontology argument defends it as well in the sense that he believed that „the concept of a Supreme Being is in many respects a very useful idea‟‟.

3.8.2 THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

The proof begins with experience and is not a priori or ontological. For this reason and because the object of all possible experience is called the world, it is entitled the cosmological proof.

This proof is „if anything exists, an absolutely necessary being must also exist. Now I at least exist, therefore an absolutely necessary being exists”.

The proof went further to say that „the necessary being must be completely be determined through its own concept‟‟.

Now, there is only one possible concept which determines a thing completely a priori namely the concept of ens realissimum. The concept of ens realissimum is therefore the only concept through which a necessary being exists.⁵⁵

This proof takes its stand in experience and thereby makes profession of being distinct from the ontological proof which puts its entire trust in pure a priori concepts.

This proof retains the connection of absolute necessity with the highest reality but instead of reasoning like the former proof from the highest reality to necessity of existence, it reasons from the previously given unconditioned necessity of some being to the unlimited reality of the being.

KANT’S CRITIQUE OF THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Kant believes that in this argument, there are so many combined pseudo-rational principles that speculative reason seems in this case to have brought to bear all the resources of its dialectical skill to produce the greatest possible transcendental illusion.

Kant said that this argument uses experience in concluding the existence of a necessary being but did not tell us the properties this being may have.

From this argument, Kant came out with dialectical assumptions which the summary is as follows:

1. The transcendental principle whereby from contingent we infer a cause which is only applicable in the sensible world.

102

2. The inference of first cause from the impossibility of an infinite series of causes to a given one after each other in the sensible world. The principle of the employment of reason does not justify this conclusion even within the world of experience.

3. The unjustified self satisfaction of reason in respect of the completion of this argument.

4. The confusion between the logical possibility of a concept of all reality invited into one (without much contradiction) and the transcendental possibility of such a reality. In the case of the latter, there is needed a principle to establish the practicability of such a synthesis, a principle which itself however, can apply only to the field of possible experiences etc.⁵⁶

However, the cosmological proof uses experience only for a single step in the argument to conclude the existence of a necessary being. This made reason to abandon experience from mere endeavours to discover from mere concepts what properties an absolutely necessary being must have (that contains in itself the conditions essential) to absolute necessity.

These are nowhere to be found except in the concept of an ens realissimum and the conclusion is therefore drawn that the ens realissimum is the absolutely necessary being.

In addition, as Kant has previously explained on this argument that every event has a cause, this principle only applies to things within the world of experience. We cannot apply it to the cosmos as a whole that is beyond experience.

Lastly, because the cosmological argument uses the notion of a necessary being it rests in the ontological argument which Kant has already dismissed.

3.8.3 THE PHYSICO-THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Kant asserts that if neither the concept of things in general nor the experience of any existence in general can supply what is required then it remains only to try whether a determinate experience can do it.

This proof which can be proved through the determinate experience is known as Physico-theological proof.

Kant went further to say that if this proof fails then it must follow that no satisfactory proof of the existence of a being corresponding to our transcendental idea can be possible by pure speculative reason.⁵⁷

Kant has a great deal of respect for this proof when he says that „this proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect. It is the oldest, the clearest and the most accordant with the common reason of mankind.‟⁵⁸

103

Moreover, this argument infers the existence of a Supreme Being from the nature and arrangement of the present world. It tells us that the manifoldness order and beauty of the world leads us to infer a cause of its origin and continuance. Such a cause must possess a higher degree of performance than any possible experience of ours. This proof suggests ends and purposes in nature where our observation would not itself have detected them.

SUMMARY OF THE CHIEF POINTS OF THE ARGUMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS 1. There is order in the world with a determinate purpose carried out with great wisdom and

this is a universe which is indescribably varied in content and unlimited in extent.

2. The order is alien to the things of the world and only belongs to them contingently.

3. There exists therefore a sublime and wise cause which must be the cause of the world through freedom.

4. The unity of this cause may be inferred from the unity of the reciprocal relations existing among the parts of the world, as members of an artfully arranged structure.

KANT’S CRITIQUE OF THE PHYSICO-THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS

Kant was of the opinion that physico-theological proof can never by itself establish the existence of a Supreme Being but must always fall back upon the ontological argument to make good its deficiency. It only serves as an introduction to the ontological argument.

Kant said that we cannot know a cause by an analogy with purposive productions of which alone the cause and mode of action are fully known to us.

Kant was also of the view that to prove this argument, we should require other grounds of proof than those which are derived from the analogy with human art.

Kant went further to say that what the argument can prove is an architect of the world who is always very much hampered by the adaptability of the material in which he works, not a creator of the world to whom‟s idea everything is subject.

Kant concluded by saying that the physico-theological argument indeed leads us to the point of admiring the greatness, wisdom, power etc. of the Author of the world but can take us no further.

By Kant‟s last statement, he has implicated himself by accepting the existence of God while he thought he was rejecting it. This was so because when an individual admires the greatness, wisdom, and power of God who is the Author of the world, the person has already accepted the existence of that Author of the world in His Majesty which is God Himself.

104

However, in the final analysis, Kant thinks that this argument also fails. It could only prove that the form of the world had an architect that imposed order on matter that already existed.

This was why he asserts that „attempts to demonstrate Gods existence are altogether fruitless and by their nature null and void‟.⁵⁹