Should we Fear Immanuel Kant?
Should we Fear Immanuel Kant?
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), was a great philosopher. I, for one, am quite appreciative of him, (although I have some serious divergence from him). Kant essentially brought together the millenniums-old separation of rationalism and empiricism/Plato and Aristotle.
Kant's "rational/empiricism," with its "synthetic apriorism" was a dramatic step in philosophical history. Even if you do not understand these terms, do not worry about it. I am going to try to help us all comprehend the main crux of the matters. I am going to try to make this as simple as possible. If you see some errors in what I write, let me know. . . .
The bulk of the unregenerate intellectual world ended up cowering before this diminutive Prussian professor, who never ventured more than 100 miles from the place of his birth. . . . But, do regenerate believers in Jesus need to be afraid of him?; (and, indeed, I do not think he meant to be intimidating to anyone). No; we do not need to be scared--and I will try to explain why (in a moment).
. . . So, Kant was concerned about knowledge (epistemology). His synthesis of the mind constituted of categories able to handle information, and the raw material of sense perception, etc., then led him (Kant) to his theory that we can "know" "phenomena," i.e. ordinary sensed things; but that we could not (really) "know" what he called "noumena." (He thought that we can "know" the "boundaries" of noumena, but not these [metaphysical/real but unseen] realities themselves.)
OK, so here is my response to Prof. Kant, and to his theory. . . . (Try to stay with me.) . . . Is Kant's statement, "We cannot know 'noumena,' " an intelligible one? Is it one that purports to correspond to truth (reality)? IF so, (and I think it is/does), THEN it (his statement itself) *is* a species of purported "noumenal" knowledge. If it is not intelligible; and if it is not a truth claim, then we need not be concerned about it. (But, I think it is intelligible; and it is a [misguided] truth claim.) He ends up affirming and doing the very thing (i.e. claiming to know noumenal reality), that he says cannot be done.
Therefore, is it really true, that Kant did away with the ancient, traditional, classical arguments for the existence of God; and, for that matter, the very idea that we can "know" God at all? No; he did not. (As to what he himself felt about all this personally, I am not in a position to judge.)
I hope this little paper is somewhat helpful for you. I mostly share it with you, because it is important for us to know where the world is, and where the true church may be. . . . The world has largely "waved the 'white flag' of surrender," regarding knowledge, (especially of the most important things, unseen reality)--but the regenerate saints have not done this.
Our God *is* knowable; but He is known in Jesus Christ alone. A God/Man was necessary as our Mediator between us sinners and the holy God, (1 Tim. 2:5).
Immanuel Kant's first name means, "God with us." This "God with us" is Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us know all Three Members of The Holy Trinity through Him; and let us enjoy our loving relation to Them (through Him).
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," (Jn. 1:1/ESV).
Rev. Mark J. Henninger
Treatise #67
23 January 2026
Comments
Post a Comment