Grounding Religious Toleration: Kant and Wolff on Dogmatic Conflict

Main Article Content

Dino Jakušić
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6688-0763

Abstract

This article examines Paul Guyer’s claim that we should attempt to ground the principle of religious freedom on the basis of Kant’s arguments for religious liberty. I problematise Guyer’s suggestion by investigating a hypothetical ‘dogmatic conflict’ between a scientifically and a religiously grounded belief. I further suggest that considering Christian Wolff’s philosophy might provide us with an approach which shares the benefits that Guyer identifies in Kant, while at the same time avoiding the issues Kant might run into that result from the occurrence of the dogmatic conflict. I start by providing a background to Wolff’s philosophy and explaining the notion of the dogmatic conflict. Then I present a potential contemporary case of the dogmatic conflict and try to see how it would be dealt with based on Guyer’s proposal. Finally, I consider what a Wolffian solution would look like, arguing that Guyer’s project might benefit from considering Wolff.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Jakušić, Dino. 2020. “Grounding Religious Toleration: Kant and Wolff on Dogmatic Conflict”. Diametros 17 (65), 12-31. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1559.
Section
Articles
Share |

References

Beiser F.C. (1987), The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
View in Google Scholar

Corr C.A. (1966), Order and Method in Christian Wolff’s Philosophy, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis MO.
View in Google Scholar

Frketich E. (2019), “Wolff and Kant on the Mathematical Method,” Kant-Studien 110 (3): 333–356.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Gava G. (2018), “Kant, Wolff, and the Method of Philosophy,” [in:] Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy, Volume VIII, D. Garber, D. Rutherford (eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford: 271–304.
View in Google Scholar

Gómez-Tutor J.I. (2018), “Philosophiebegriff und Methode,” [in:] Handbuch Christian Wolff, R. Theis, A. Aichele (eds.), Springer VS, Wiesbaden: 73–92.
View in Google Scholar

Guyer P. (2018), “Mendelssohn, Kant, and Religious Liberty,” Kant-Studien 109 (2): 309–328.
View in Google Scholar

Kant I. (1793/1996a), Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, trans. A.W. Wood, G. di Giovanni, [in:] I. Kant, Religion and Rational Theology, Cambridge University Press, New York: 39–215.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Kant I. (1798/1996b), The Conflict of the Faculties, trans. M.J. Gregor, R. Anchor, [in:] I. Kant, Religion and Rational Theology, Cambridge University Press, New York: 233–327.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Kant I. (2007), Critique of Pure Reason, trans. N. Kemp Smith, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Marschke B. (2015), “Pietism and Politics in Prussia and Beyond,” [in:] A Companion to German Pietism, 1660-1800, D. Shantz (ed.), Brill, Leiden: 472–526.
View in Google Scholar

McCaskill N.D. (2016), “Sabàto, after RNC speech, says Obama ‘absolutely’ a Muslim,” Politico, 18 July, URL = https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/antonio-sabato-obama-muslim-225788 [Accessed: 31.07.2020].
View in Google Scholar

Palmquist S. (1992), “Does Kant Reduce Religion to Morality?,” Kant-Studien 83 (2): 129–148.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Schönfeld M. (2002), “German Philosophy after Leibniz,” [in:] A Companion to Early Modern Philosophy, S. Nadler (ed.), Blackwell Publishing: 545–561.
View in Google Scholar

Schwaiger R. (2018), “Ethik,” [in:] Handbuch Christian Wolff, R. Theis, A. Aichele (eds.), Springer VS, Wiesbaden: 253–268.
View in Google Scholar

Strauss V. (2019), “Does the Bill Just Passed by the Ohio House Allow Students to Be Wrong in Science Class without Penalty if They Cite Religious Reasons?,” The Washington Post, 16 November, URL = https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/11/15/does-bill-just-passed-by-ohio-house-allow-students-be-wrong-science-class-without-penalty-if-they-cite-religious-reasons/ [Accessed: 05.02.2020].
View in Google Scholar

Theis R. (2011), “‘Ut & scias, & credas, quae simul sciri & credi possunt’: Aspekte der Wolffschen Theologie,” Aufklärung 23: 17–39.
View in Google Scholar

Theis R. (2018), “Theologie,” [in:] Handbuch Christian Wolff, R. Theis, A. Aichele (eds.), Springer VS, Wiesbaden: 219–250.
View in Google Scholar

Wolff C. (1713), Vernünfftige Gedancken von den Kräfften des menschlichen Verstandes und ihrem richtigen Gebrauche in Erkäntniß der Wahrheit, Rengerische Buchhandlung, Halle.
View in Google Scholar

Wolff C. (1735), Philosophia rationalis sive Logica, methodo scientifica pertractata, Dionysius Ramanzini, Verona.
View in Google Scholar

Wolff C. (1738), Theologia naturalis, methodo scientifica pertractata. Pars prior, Dionysius Ramanzini, Verona.
View in Google Scholar

Wolff C. (1963), Preliminary Discourse on Philosophy in General, trans. R.J. Blackwell, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., Indianapolis.
View in Google Scholar

Wolff C. (1733/2010), Reasonable Thoughts About the Actions of Men, for the Promotion of Their Happiness, trans. J.B. Schneewind, [in:] Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant, J.B. Schneewind (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 331–350.
View in Google Scholar

Wolff C. (2017), The Law of Nations Treated According to the Scientific Method, trans. J.H. Drake, Liberty Fund, Inc., Carmel IN.
View in Google Scholar