Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnist
The German idealists were Christians, weren't they? In my view of Christianity, there is a division between two different currents. On the one hand, there is a dogmatic interpretation that often stresses intellectual righteousness on what I called "the safe side", in stereotypical and shallow representations, practices and ethics. On the other hand, there is a current of spirituality that is much more in line with what you mentioned - of union of matter and spirit, of reconciliation and mystical piety, combined with dynamic notions of virtue; in the words of Friedrich von Schelling (1775–1854): Spirit is invisible nature, nature is visible spirit.
|
The thing about a lot of western philosophers, especially the idealists is, although they all started with a Christian upbringing, they all were taught the classics. Kant read Plato, Schopenhauer read the Bhagavad Gita, etc. The only appeal Kant really has to Christians is that he leaves room for a God in his philosophy, as the way he sees it, humans are incapable of discovering the true knowledge of things and experiencing the world's existence directly. What Kant was doing was bringing Empiricism and Rationalism together, basically the same religion/science divide people see today. In a larger context it is just about the material and all that is immaterial, the world of ideas or forms. The end result is he came out sounding more like a pessimistic Plato with only a pragmatic belief in God. Many phlosophers at this time, and the ones inspired by the idealists, though.. began to challenge their own faith. You have to remember that during this time and following it there was a lot of Romantic art and literature which was drawing upon what knowledge of the pre-Christian religion was still out there. Western Europeans were also now "discovering" the Indian culture and religions. They drew much inspiration from it, not realizing that the basic model of Hinduism is found in all the European paganism that was condemned by Christianity.
As far as Christianity and Science, neither should be watered down to fit each other, but theologians should be open to less literal interpretations when the science pokes large holes into their case. I'm familiar with William James, and yes that sort of Christian philosophy is to be admired, but sometimes I feel they're turning Christianity into something completely different to fit it into reality better. I think they're on the right track of aligning their beliefs and knowledge, but they usually end up with beliefs a bit alien to the core followers of Christianity. There is a sharp divide between intellectualized Christianity, and the form that is actually out there being practiced in churches.
I'd also like to mention that I never fully outright agree with the beliefs and findings of someone else, as pertaining to their entire ethos including their religion. It doesn't matter to me that Kant was Christian or that he valued moralism, what matters is that he truly explored how humans see the world, and realized how everything is just a symbol created for an existence we can't truly perceive.