The Argument  In modern times Philosophy has shifted from an interest in God to an interest in religion (from “Philosophical Theology” to “Philosophy of Religion”)  Kant, and others, have tried to find the good essence (the kernel) of religion - and discard the unnecessary elements (the husk)  Hume, and others (Marx, Freud) - consider the problem to be the kernel itself, religion, which is a bad thing.

An Outline of the Text  Introduction  Before Kant  Scholasticism  Deism  After Kant  Discovering the Husk: Kant, Schleirmacher, Hegel (rebuilding Deism)  Discarding the Husk: Hume, Marx, Nietzsche (suspicion of religion)

The Text

Introduction  Philosophical theology and the philosophy of religion appear to have different subject matters  There was a shift in thinking from the time of Hume and Kant to that of Nietzsche, when philosophising about religion took centre stage at the expense of talking about God.  Hegel noticed this: Westphal observes that philosophy of religion has now replaced philosophical theology.

The Text

Scholasticism and Deism  Philosophical theology was in two forms, scholastic and deist, both of which are concerned with establishing the existence and nature of God by means of reason unaided by revelation.  Scholasticism held that reason, faith, revelation and authority should work together.  Deists, however, separated faith and reason by separating the rational ‘kernel’ and the irrational ‘husk’ of religion.  Westphal suggests examples of kernel as including God as creator, and husk as anything miraculous.

Deism  Deism emerged in the Enlightenment, from a desire to define a religion which would foster moral unity in society – not one based on authority of a special revelation.  Deists believe reason (not authority) could provide all the knowledge necessary of God. They reject scholasticism.  They tried to separate good religion from bad: which is why there was the shift in talking about religion rather than God.  The aim was not to prove the existence of God but rather to make religion an ally of morality.  This was necessary because it was thought that Hume and Kant had destroyed the classical arguments for the existence of God.

The Text

Kant  Kant rebuild the Deist project – believing we can have knowledge of God by use of reason alone.  Rational religion was acceptable in the cause of universal morality. Religion was not essential to morality, but could be useful to the moral life.  Universal religion could not, however, be founded on duties to God.  The doctrines of the Church must be given a rational, ethical foundation (independent even of historical facts).

Schleiermacher  Schleiermacher rejected the moral rigours of Kantian religion  He identifies the kernel of religion to be found in a deep unity of feeling with God, contemplated as the Infinite and Eternal  True religion is still clothed in particular ideas and practices, although these are no guarantee of true religion.  In other words, Religious Experience is more important than Religious Knowledge or Belief.,

Hegel  Hegel rejected both Kant’s and Schleiermacher’s understandings of religion  Religion and philosophy are the same, but only philosophy can gain true knowledge – in particular, a philosophical understanding of the concepts of Idea and Spirit.  Religion elevates the finite spirit to the infinite, which becomes the focus of self-awareness  This is found most fully in Christianity through the aid of philosophy. Philosophy enables human reason to fully manifest the full nature of God and the central truth of Christianity is the Incarnation.

The Text

Hume  Hume aimed to establish how far the problems of religion lay in its disposable husks. This lead to a new suspicion of religion.  Scepticism questions the evidence which supports religious beliefs, but suspicion of religion questions the motives underlying religion and the motives behind it  Hume thought the function of religion was a flattery of the gods, which was motivated by the believer’s hopes and fears.

Marx & Neitzsche  Marx and Nietzsche shifted the focus to psychology and sociology.  They have no interest in arguments for the existence of God – they focus on the purpose of religion  Marx argues that religion encourages repression and legitimises social exclusivity.  Nietzsche argued that religion was rooted in slave morality, creating a false moral superiority and making the strong feel guilty.

Conclusion  It is not only those opposed to religion who share this suspicion of it.  Kierkegaard too – a Christian – challenged the use of Christianity to support the social order and respectablity.  The change in philosophical interest from God to religion challenges the idea that a “Christian” is just a good citizen, because of which “The biblical tension between Jesus and every established order is lost.” The Text

Implications  Westphal’s own views are hardly expressed, but appear to be with Kant, and Kierkegaard - in favour of the kernel of religion (see last sentence)  If Kant etc are followed, then what aspects of religion are the husk and which the kernel?  If Hume etc are followed, then is religion itself a bad thing?