One of the most common arguments for the existence of God is philosophical. To make such an argument, one must begin with a questioning of basic assumptions. In this article, we will explore the arguments for and against God, focusing on Hegel’s immanentism and Kant’s cumulative probabilism. We will also consider Thomas’ argument for God and Freud’s projective views of God.
Hegel’s immanentism
Hegel’s philosophy of transcendence reveals the unavoidability of transcendence by demonstrating that immanence is not the end of the world. Hegel also points to the necessity of purposive teleology. But Hegel’s thought has often been misunderstood as mystical spiritualism and the guiding hand of the Geist. In this essay, we explore Hegel’s ideas on transcendence and theology in detail.
Hegel raises the possibility of coexistence in reality in the context of a pantheistic God. While Stoic Gods were superior to time and becoming, Hegel’s God is not One and Supreme but merely Spirit. But while Hegel’s immanentism implies a mystical, transcendent God, Zizek’s return to theology highlights that the two are inextricably linked.
In a Hegel-inspired universe, God is not above the world and has a hand in the governing of everything. Instead, God extends His power over all things from within the world itself. Thus, the Roman Emperor represents a mythical God. The immanent God in the Stoics is the antichristian God. In fact, Napoleon was the first real manifestation of Hegel’s immanent God.
Hegel’s immanentism addresses the role of god in the secular age. The polarity of transcendence and immanence is emphasized throughout his writings. In the philosophical context, immanence affirms the existence of the universe and a transcendent God, but also acknowledges the role of immanence within knowledge. Moreover, it is the knower who is capable of attaining God, other selves, and universe.
Kant’s cumulative probabilism
The most famous example of Kant’s use of cumulative probability is his view that God is the only real possibility during the critical period. While this view may justify a theoretical belief, it cannot be justified by full demonstrative knowledge. However, Kant defended this view when he argued that God cannot be known. The teleological argument is another example of Kant’s use of cumulative probabilism.
The Critique of Pure Reason and On the Conflict of the Faculty of Reason were written by Immanuel Kant, who also wrote Essays on Education and Theology. Both of these works are available in English translations by Arnulf Zweig and Lewis White Beck, who both wrote textbooks on Kant. Both of these works were published by Bobbs-Merrill in 1956.
Another example of the use of cumulative probability is Kant’s use of moral faith. Kant argues that moral faith is an innate, human quality and cannot be acquired. In this regard, religion is an expression of moral values that should be expressed in an ethical commonwealth. However, Kant’s assertion that the only true religion is morality is incompatible with statutory faith, which emphasizes external behavior while true religion focuses on internal commitment. Thus, mere worship is a worthless substitute for a moral commitment.
The idea that existence is a property is similar to the idea that a concept may be perfect. Kant argued that the perfection in question is not mere existence, but rather necessary existence. To add a necessary existence to the concept of being would alter the meaning of the concept of being, effectively making it a modal version of the ontological argument. So, Kant’s cumulative probabilism is not a new concept, but it is a classic one.
Thomas’ argument for God’s existence
Thomas’ argument for God’s existence is one of the most famous philosophical arguments in history. Thomas argues that he can prove the existence of God without appealing to religious authority. This approach has many awkward consequences, but it is still an effective method for proving God’s existence. In his arguments, Thomas uses a number of examples from Scripture to illustrate his point. In particular, Thomas refers to Scripture as the “word of God.”
In his argument for God’s existence, Thomas discusses the five viae that lead from effects to God as the cause. These viae are, in fact, the weaker form of demonstration according to Aristotelian principles, but they nonetheless point to God as the source of all things. Thomas also lodges two possible objections to the existence of God. The strongest of these objections is based on the concept of ‘contingent’.
According to Thomas, substance does not exist as an ultimate subject, but rather as an arrangement of atoms. Thus, if a frog had no substantial form, it would be nothing but an arrangement of atoms. Therefore, a formal cause of a substance cannot be absent from its substance. The same applies to ideas. If a god exists, it must have an idea. That is, there must be a cause for everything in the universe.
Aristotle’s theory of causality also uses the argument from contingency. In other words, every possible being is capable of existing and not existing. There is a time when it does not. This would result in a chain of infinitely many possible causes, and no being can come into existence without an existing one. Thus, we can’t prove the existence of God unless a divine being exists.
Freud’s projective views of God
Sigmund Freud’s projective views of the nature of God, along with Darwin’s scientific thesis of natural selection, continued to influence much of the philosophy of religion in the twentieth century. These theories began to cast the interplay between reason and faith as a struggle between science and religion. The problem with this view is that it cannot be tested or falsified. Rather, it is a rationalization and a defense of one’s own beliefs.
Unlike the views of Jesus or Muhammad, Freud believed in the existence of God. As a result, he compared the divine being to the Hebrew prophets. Consequently, Freud’s projective views of God emphasized the passionate side of Hammerschlag’s character. This is consistent with his analysis of human nature. Freud’s view of the nature of God and religion is not a matter of faith and reason; rather, it is an analysis of human behavior and the psychological processes that lead us to believe.
The first stage of Freud’s view of God is the idea that the concept of God is an anthropomorphic construct and that its characteristics are idealized aspects of human nature. Freud first encountered this projective view while studying under Brentano. Freud accepted this view implicitly and argued that this view explains why we hold religious beliefs in our minds. It also suggests that our religion has its roots in the father-son relationship.
The second stage of the discussion of the role of the unconscious is about Freud’s concept of intention. In this stage, we are unable to discern God. Our sense of God is not rooted in the conscious mind, but is derived from our unconscious. In his later years, Freud became more enlightened and his projective view of God remained unchanged. There were a few other aspects of Freud’s views that are of particular interest to this debate.
Spinoza’s interpretation of human felicity
Spinoza’s philosophical work Ethics (part four of five parts) deals mainly with the question of freedom of the mind. The accounts he presents are based on key metaphysical principles. Spinoza’s main article includes more details on these principles. Spinoza’s interpretation of human felicity is often considered a controversial and difficult topic in philosophy vs theology.
Despite the controversy over the definition of freedom, Spinoza admits that human beings are free to do not do what they please. But in philosophy vs theology, his view of freedom seems to be more in line with determinism than with the notion of free will. Consequently, he argues that a person cannot do anything that is “uncaused” or spontaneous. His “freedom” is the successive proximation of self-causedness.
While both sides claim that their position is correct, the issue is whether the opposite is true. In the philosophy vs theology debate, the concept of freedom is at the core of both sides. Ultimately, Spinoza argues that the idea of freedom is incompatible with God’s view of nature. This view is often criticized by many theological critics, but it’s important to note that Spinoza’s theory of freedom is rooted in the conatus doctrine.
In this article, we examine Spinoza’s conception of freedom from a political perspective. We don’t consider the metaphysical meaning of freedom, but we explore its political connotation and its implications for the state-religion relationship. We also explore Spinoza’s political philosophy as it relates to cultural war and state-religion relations. We can apply Spinoza’s philosophy to political theory and to contemporary debates between religion and politics.