The Consequence of Kant’s First Critique is
Postmodern Cultural and Epistemological Relativism
Kant’s concept of the demise of knowledge of the universe and God, the creator of the cosmos and the moral anatomy of his ethical system on which it was based, tolerated no transcendent foundation. Kant’s definition of religion is the recognition of all duties as divine commands but this recognition introduces a new element into morality, and then the moral law becomes God’s law, thus destroying man’s autonomy or the recognition remains extrinsic to the moral law, and then religion remains without real impact. Kant’s solution satisfies no one including Kant. His work generating at best: (1) Restriction to the objective phenomenal sphere, the religions consciousness can expect no direct support of its belief from theoretical reason. (2) Since the transcendent does not belong to the objective, phenomenal sphere, it must be approached through the subjective awareness of itself rather than through that of its world (e.g. origin of neo- evangelical rejection of Foundationalism in theology). (3) The subject must be conceived as essentially autonomous, no transcendent really can ever interfere with the exercise of human freedom (origins of Postmodern Ethics/Law, etc.).
These conclusions represent a fundamental challenge to all subsequent speculation about religion (e.g. apologetics, etc.). We are presented with at least 3 challenges: (1) How can we restore the theoretical support of religious faith after Kant’s critique of the arguments for the existence of God? (2) How can a method be conceived from the philosophical study of religion on the basis of experience alone? (3) How can that experience itself be legitimated within the context of human autonomy? Here we are face to face with multicultural tolerance and multicultural Epistemological Relativism of our Postmodern culture at this point. World Views play a crucial part in any constructive discussion. Only tolerant/diversity can possibly be the order/disorder of our Global Village.
Kant had left no avenue open to the religious object but that of experience itself. This must be justified before the former can “properly” be discussed. We therefore thought that Kierkegaard’s attempt to legitimate the religious experience should precede Hegel’s discussion of its meaning. Which method allows us to make meaningful statements concerning the object of the experience on the sole basis of the experience? No wonder Postmodern cultural/epistemological relativism condemns doctrine/theology as idolatry. In fact, all their talk, books, and lectures on the subject is also relativistic idolatry!
James D.Strauss