westphal + the emergence of modern philosophy of religion

his approach

identify the history of thought regarding religion and show how the philosophy of religion has shifted from critical analysis of the truth of religious belief to now preferring to prefer to provide alternative explanations of religious belief that are psychological or sociological.

enlightenment

• philosophers like Kant and Hume destroyed the credibility of basing belief in God on reason through their critiques of the arguments for the existence of God (teleological, cosmological & ontological).

• Kant argued that God existed in the ‘noumanal realm’ but all we experience is the ‘phenomenal’ realm – therefore, experience alone could never provide knowledge of God.

• Kant also rejected the ontological argument as mistakenly thinking existence was a predicate.

westphal on kierkegaard

• argued enlightenment meant religion only had faith as basis for belief

• Kierkegaard came after Hume & Kant and insisted that religion could not be based on any rational argument but instead required a ‘leap of faith’.

• Religion can’t be based on reason. He argues that human life is about facing a choice between faith and reason – and there is no guidance that can assist us in this choice.

• We can’t use reason to justify using reason without simply assuming the validity of reason. Similarly, we can’t use faith to justify having faith without assuming the validity of faith.

• So, we simply have to choose faith or reason. We have to take a leap of faith.

westphal’s shift from secepticism to suspicion

• Westphal argues that Hume represented a serious transition in the critique of religion. Until Hume, critics relied on the hermeneutics (interpretive approach) of scepticism – which is the approach of being sceptical of the logical reasons for a person’s belief. This would include critiques of the arguments for God – attempting to show that they were not logically valid.

• However Hume also represented a shift to the hermeneutics of suspicion – which involves critiquing the psychology behind a person’s belief. Instead of asking whether there is a God, philosophy of religion shifted into asking why people believe in God.

westphal on sociological + psychological critiques

• Westphal is implying is that sociological or psychological critiques do not actually say anything about the truth of religious belief.

• They are therefore irrelevant to the question of whether God exists and whether religious belief is true.

• Even if the psychological critiques were true – that religion is about selfishness as Hume says, or delusion and fear like Freud says – that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a God.

• This shows that the psychological critiques can’t be used to dismiss God and religion completely.

• Religious people would often be the first to admit that they are psychologically flawed – as all humans are. However, this can’t discredit God’s existence as the explanation of religious belief.

counter to westphal

• the validity of psychological explanations of religious belief is good evidence that humans created God, not the other way around.

• Technically it’s possible that santa claus and the tooth fairy exist, despite having been completely invented by humans.

• if we have good reason to think that religious belief is constructed by humans then that is the what is more rational to believe.

• If we discover that humans have invented a belief in God due to psychological or sociological factors then that at least gives us good reason to not believe that God actually exists, even if technically it’s logically possible for it to happen to exist.

• If we discover people have made something up then we have no reason to believe that this thing exists and so we shouldn’t.

deism

Reason is completely distinct from revelation. Emphasises impersonal and unknowable aspects of the divine. God might exist, but we can’t know him. E.g. Kant who sought to ‘justify religion within the limits of reason alone

scholasticism

Reason is in harmony with revelation. A Christian philosophy built around medieval scholarship. The value of logic and its application to Christian scriptures. E.g. Aquinas.

kant

• Fetish Faith = bad church.

• A good church should only exist to lead people to good moral duty.

• Kant was a deist who undermined metaphysical deism.

• Kant tried to rescue a belief in God based on reason.

• Kant attempted to reformulate our understanding of God.

There are two parts to Kant’s reformulation:

1. We must know God by practical reason, not theoretical knowledge. This contrasts the a priori ontological argument.

2. There is evil in human nature. So the type of reason needed in enlightened society is one of morality.

schleirmacher

• believed that the ‘kernel’ of religion is to be found in its feeling. He thought that God (the infinite) can be found through concrete objects (the finite). God consciousness through feelings as the base of religion.

• For him, religion was not primarily about proving God’s existence or logical doctrines, but about immediate self-conscious experience—the feeling of absolute dependence on the infinite.

• Schleiermacher believed the revelation of Jesus Christ revealed to us a self-consciousness that leads us to dogma.

• Schleiermacher placed religious experience at the level of pre-reflective intuition, not something that can be proven or disproven through argument.

• He believed the concept of the ‘Church’ and the people of the ‘Church’ was an integral element to knowing God’s self-consciousness. Therefore, he attempted to answer many of the problems set out by enlightenment philosophers.

hegel

• Hegel also dislikes how Schleiermacher restricted religion to ‘feeling through concrete entities’.

• Hegel thinks Kant is unconvincing (didn’t like how he restricted religion to morality) and Schleiermacher is confused.

• God consciousness through the absolute spirit. Hegel believed we can know GOD, and was therefore more focussed on GOD than religion.

• Hegel wrote the ‘phenomenology of the spirit’ which indicates to us how the inner movement of reality (the spirit) is GOD thinking.

• Nothing, for Hegel, is an absolute whole apart from the spirit (our access to God thinking) Hegel demands knowledge of GOD rather than a focus on religion.

weakness of schleirmacher

• By marginalizing doctrine and ethical content, Schleiermacher arguably hollows out religion, removing its normative force.

• Religion becomes a non-cognitive feeling rather than a truth-claim with moral implications.

• Richard Swinburne contends that religion must include propositional content—without beliefs about God, claims about miracles, and ethical commandments, there’s little left to call "religion."

• This criticism is potent, especially in interfaith or moral discourse where shared beliefs and moral norms are necessary for dialogue and action.

• Schleiermacher’s view makes religion incommunicable and risks trivializing it into emotion.