No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
HUME, KANT, AND FEUERBACH: WHY THE ANTHROPOMORPHIC CRITIQUE REVEALS A FALSE DILEMMA BETWEEN NATURALISTIC ATHEISM AND ANTI-NATURALISTIC THEISM
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2019
Abstract
In current debates concerning atheism, two positions are considered possible: naturalistic atheism or anti-naturalistic theism. Anti-naturalistic theism is motivated by the failure of naturalism to explain the fundamental nature of reality. We, however, endorse anti-naturalistic atheism by reviving the ‘anthropomorphic critique’, arguing that theism misattributes human traits to the deity. Anti-naturalistic atheism is better suited to refute theists, since it undercuts their appeal to science's inadequacies. We trace the anthropomorphic critique from Hume's Dialogues, through Kant's epistemology, and conclude with its reception in Feuerbach. The anthropomorphic critique is an epistemological – not metaphysical – thesis, hence, it is agnostic about the fundamental nature of reality. Yet it convincingly shows that theism is not a tenable position. In essence, we aim to decouple atheism from naturalism, on the basis of a salient critique in the history of modern philosophy, in order to ameliorate current debates between atheists and theists.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2019
References
Notes
1 Dennett, Daniel and Plantinga, Alvin, Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 31Google Scholar.
2 Hume, David, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (New York: Penguin, 1991)Google Scholar.
3 Allison, Henry, Kant's Transcendental Idealism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason (New York: Penguin, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Feuerbach, Ludwig, The Essence of Christianity (New York: Dover, 2008)Google Scholar.
6 Engels, Frederick, Ludwig Feuerbach and the Outcome of Classical German Philosophy (New York: International Publishers, 2010), 84Google Scholar.
A correction has been issued for this article:
Linked content
Please note a has been issued for this article.