Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Philosophical Theology<\/a><\/em>, p. 25:<\/span><\/p>\n Theology cannot serve to explain the appearances of nature to us.<\/span> As Kant remarks in a footnote to A 689 = B 717 of the Critique of Pure Reason, ignava ratio<\/em> was the name given to a "sophistical argument" of the "ancient dialecticians," the so-called Lazy Argument. <\/span><\/p>\n Diligent reason attempts to account for all natural phenomena in natural terms. The role of God is accordingly attenuated. He becomes at most a sustaining cause of the existence of nature, but not a cause of anything that occurs within nature. See my earlier discussion of divine concurrence<\/a>. The squeeze is on, and it is no surprise that Schopenhauer squeezes God right out of the picture by rejecting the very notion of causation of existence, as I explain in Schopenhauer on the Cosmological Argument.<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n This is relevant to my series on Plantinga's new book. The crucial question is whether there is any room for divine guidance of the evolutionary process.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Philosophical Theology, p. 25: Theology cannot serve to explain the appearances of nature to us. In general it is not a correct use of reason to posit God as the ground of everything whose explanation is not evident to us. On the contrary, we must first gain insight into the … Continue reading “Kant on Ignava Ratio<\/i>, Lazy Reason”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[270],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10007","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-kant"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10007","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10007"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10007\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10007"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10007"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10007"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
In general it is not a correct use of reason to posit God as the<\/span>
ground of everything whose explanation is not evident to us. On the<\/span>
contrary, we must first gain insight into the laws of nature if we<\/span>
are to know and explain its operations. In general it is no use of<\/span>
reason and no explanation to say that something is due to God's<\/span>
omnipotence. This is lazy reason. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n