Megan
Loveless- Section 4
Darwin and Kant’s Views on God
Is the whole subject of God too profound for human intellect? Charles
Darwin would say it is. Darwin discovered evolution, but says that does not
constitute his views on God. Darwin was agnostic although Christians thought of
him as the Anti-Christ because his discoveries proved teachings of the Bible to
be wrong. Darwin still believed that there was a possibility. Evolution could
also be thought of as discovering a new law of nature that was designed by God.
Darwin states:
“...But I own that I cannot see as plainly as
others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on
all sides of us. There seems to me
too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a
beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ
with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice... I feel most deeply that the whole subject is
too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate
on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.”
Darwin goes as far as to say that humans understand God as much
as dogs would understand Isaac Newton. He says that humans should try to
understand, at least, but the whole belief of being agnostic is that we can’t
know for sure. He most likely was questionable on his religious views because he
did not want to criticize anyone’s beliefs.
Immanuel Kant would also agree with Darwin, but with different
concepts. Kant constantly tried to understand reality. He says we “can’t know
the noumenal world of things in themselves, but we can know the phenomenal
world of appearances as presented by our mental spectacles. Noumenal means a
thing in itself or as it truly is. Phenomenal means a thing as it appears to
the observer. So what Kant is saying in this quote is that humans can only know
what we see and could not know it as it truly is. Therefore, there is no way we
could truly comprehend a God because we can only know what we see. Kant thought
that we can’t ever have a complete picture of the way things are. This leads us
to believe that we cannot fathom if there is a God. However, Kant actually did
believe in God although this theory would lead us to think otherwise. He
thought it was part of the “common human understanding.” His defense for the
existence of God was that “morality
is a rational enterprise, morality is only a rational enterprise only if
goodness is rewarded and evil punished, goodness is rewarded and evil is
punished only if there is a God; therefore, there is a God.”
Although both philosophers had different
beliefs on religion, both would most likely answer similarly to the question:
is the whole subject of God too profound for human intellect? Both say that we
can not know, whether it be from our minds not understanding or being able to
view the noumenal world.
Interesting comparison. Kant said part of his goal as a philosopher was to circumscribe reason, so as to make room for faith. Darwin had no interest in destroying faith, so long as it did not impede biological science. Each wanted to extend human understanding without subverting the imagination.
ReplyDeleteBut, "morality is only a rational enterprise only if goodness is rewarded and evil punished" seems strained. Goodness is its own reward, insofar as we recognize it as such.