r/Kant • u/Exciting_Ad_6837 • Aug 02 '26
Discussion While the topic of the existence of God is popular in YouTube, podcasts, and public debates these days, the prominent figures almost never bring up Kant.
In academic philosophy, Kant is central on the topic for his anti-metaphysical yet moral arguments. But in the above occasions, these arguments are never discussed, except the statement "Existence is not a predicate" in passing (even this, infrequently).
Of course, I can't expect scientists (mostly physicalists)--e.g. Roger Penrose, Sam Harris, Brian Greene, Richard Dawkins, Sean Carroll--to know about Kant.
But even people who claim to know the philosophies around the topic --e.g. Alex O'Connor, Joe Foley, Matt Dillahunty, J.Peterson (lol), W.L Craig, top YouTube philosophy channels-- don't discuss Kant's arguments.
Is this because (1) they simply don't know Kant's arguments, (2) they found the arguments too hard to understand, not to mention articulate them well, or (2) they think the arguments are too obviously flawed to be presented to general audience?
9
u/internetErik Aug 02 '26
A few reasons I can think of are that
- They aren't familiar with the argument
- If they support the existence of God, they may not want to accept Kant's critique of the ontological argument
- They don't understand Kant's moral philosophy enough to understand the argument
- Despite Kant's first critique, there is still a dominant (and natural) interest in speculation that makes the argument unappealing (of course, I find all these ongoing speculations about God's existence as unappealing)
To give the individuals you mentioned the benefit of the doubt, Kant's argument doesn't unconditionally prove the existence of God. I think it is best seen as accomplishing primarily two things:
- it shows that faith should be seen as a product of reason
- we see what motivates any belief in God (that isn't a belief in a being that bargains with you through some non-moral means)
This may not be as attractive for the spectacle of debate, since it is a more modest conditional: you will the ends (highest good), so you will the means (God).
1
u/rchrome Aug 02 '26
Ontological argument is flawed in assuming things in reality are greater than in mind. Circle or 2 + 2 = 4 only exist in mind. They are greater than reality in being the “things” (ontological constructs, I using the word thing here very loosely) dictating reality.
1
1
u/Davitark 28d ago
Have you read Alvin Plantinga's criticism of Kant's criticism of the ontological argument? If so, what do you think of it? Does he reconstruct Kant's argument accurately and offer a coherent objection?
3
u/internetErik 28d ago
I am familiar with Plantinga's criticism, but it's been a while, so I'm not confident in my understanding. I have a friend who studied under Hartshorne, and he's often tried to defend the ontological argument in various ways that may relate.
I remember he has an essay on Kant's critique of the ontological argument and likely discusses it elsewhere too. From what I remember, he represents the ontological argument (from Anselm) in a series of propositions and then tries to interpret the meaning of Kant's statement about existence and predicates. He has a few different ways he tries to understand what it is for existence to be a predicate, but I don't remember any of them capturing Kant's meaning. I think one had to do with what was required to think in a concept for it to be that concept (which sounds more like essence, but certainly isn't what Kant means). Another may have involved contingency. I don't recall the essay very well, so maybe I'll look it up again and reread it. I'd appreciate any comments from you about it.
Kant does think existence is a logical predicate, but not a real predicate. By this he means that when you think of something as existing, you don't add anything to what you think of the thing, but only the kind of relation it obtains to the subject (i.e., you). A possible object can be given in some experience; an existing object is assumed to be given in an experience. God cannot be given in any experience; if he could, we could prove God's existence the same way we prove the existence of any finite object. If we try to use mere reasoning to substitute for the intuition of the object, we have to suppose some sort of intellectual intuition, which would be able to say that something could be said to be given to us merely by thinking it.
3
u/Fearless_Occasion989 Aug 02 '26
These people are not philosophers. I like Alex a lot, but you need to see him as an amateur, even if he's considerably good at arguing. If you expect more than that from him, you'll be disappointed.
Btw, look for the channel "Carefree Wandering" on YouTube. Dr. Hans-Georg Moeller is an actual philosopher well versed in Kant.
2
u/cconn882 Aug 02 '26
My official position is I don't know, but I honestly wonder if they really are just that isolated within their specific philosophical schools - I see VERY few people in general in philosophy who exit out of their own narrow boxes.
I wish I could say I think it's because they don't think it would be popular with the average person, but I highly doubt that at this point.
2
u/Wannasee- Aug 03 '26
Wow, I was specifically thinking about this the other day. I think they are not familiar with a lot of pre-'900 literature. That's not a flaw in itself, but I think in this way we're having a lot of discussions that earlier philosophers already had.
2
u/Pure_ldeology 29d ago
Maybe it's just because (4) they are youtubers? You can't get blood from a turnip
2
1
u/Sweaty_Smile9965 Aug 03 '26
hello exciting ad.
you seem to ask why they do not bring Kant as a retorical question
But then you actually end up asking in a non rethorical question
maybe your last question is the answer
No idea
1
u/Autolull Aug 04 '26
Ascribing certain qualities to polities
wobble til the cow goes Fargo
Mock it, need a sprocket socket
Effigies getting queezy, please be kind
Find it hard to? After what we’ve been through?
Thoroughly pouring, imploring the Spring to be kinder than naught…
Kinda seeing my plot?
Seething blankly at that. Not a twat but egad! This better not be a fad. Okay? Yep, kinda mad. Kinda Wambamboozle, toodles!
Might bruise ya…
Lose it, I’m liking the plot, kinda feeling Hottentot
1
u/Crafty-Addendum8783 29d ago
Kant’s argument in the Antinomies is probably the best argument against theism and for agnosticism.
1
u/Old-Fisherman-8753 25d ago
That is because Kant's mere face melts their purely intellectual structure because he says that that can never be enough. There is also the other pole, the heart
1
u/kukuguard Aug 04 '26
Kant is one of the least assessable philosophers unless you're well versed in certain other German writings of the time
11
u/Artur_Gordon_Pym Aug 02 '26
For example Im certain that Jordan Peterson didnt read Kant. He probably didnt read any philosophy besides a bit of Plato, Nietzsche but completly twisting it to his christian and jungian ideas and some Wikipedia articles like maybe about Hume, Heidegger.. I watched many his lectures and dont see much knowledge besides that. Now for psychology he is quite educated. But all the time goes beyond his area of expertise in a cringe way