the critique of pure reason-第123章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



power；　wisdom；　and　other　attributes　of　the　author　of　the　world；　and

finding　we　can　advance　no　further；　we　leave　the　argument　on

empirical　grounds；　and　proceed　to　infer　the　contingency　of　the　world

from　the　order　and　conformity　to　aims　that　are　observable　in　it。

From　this　contingency　we　infer；　by　the　help　of　transcendental

conceptions　alone；　the　existence　of　something　absolutely　necessary；

and；　still　advancing；　proceed　from　the　conception　of　the　absolute

necessity　of　the　first　cause　to　the　completely　determined　or

determining　conception　thereof…　the　conception　of　an　all…embracing

reality。　Thus　the　physico…theological；　failing　in　its　undertaking；

recurs　in　its　embarrassment　to　the　cosmological　argument；　and；　as　this

is　merely　the　ontological　argument　in　disguise；　it　executes　its　design

solely　by　the　aid　of　pure　reason；　although　it　at　first　professed　to

have　no　connection　with　this　faculty　and　to　base　its　entire

procedure　upon　experience　alone。

　　The　physico…theologians　have　therefore　no　reason　to　regard　with　such

contempt　the　transcendental　mode　of　argument；　and　to　look　down　upon

it；　with　the　conceit　of　clear…sighted　observers　of　nature；　as　the

brain…cobweb　of　obscure　speculatists。　For；　if　they　reflect　upon　and

examine　their　own　arguments；　they　will　find　that；　after　following

for　some　time　the　path　of　nature　and　experience；　and　discovering

themselves　no　nearer　their　object；　they　suddenly　leave　this　path　and

pass　into　the　region　of　pure　possibility；　where　they　hope　to　reach

upon　the　wings　of　ideas　what　had　eluded　all　their　empirical

investigations。　Gaining；　as　they　think；　a　firm　footing　after　this

immense　leap；　they　extend　their　determinate　conception…　into　the

possession　of　which　they　have　come；　they　know　not　how…　over　the

whole　sphere　of　creation；　and　explain　their　ideal；　which　is　entirely　a

product　of　pure　reason；　by　illustrations　drawn　from　experience…　though

in　a　degree　miserably　unworthy　of　the　grandeur　of　the　object；　while

they　refuse　to　acknowledge　that　they　have　arrived　at　this　cognition　or

hypothesis　by　a　very　different　road　from　that　of　experience。

　　Thus　the　physico…theological　is　based　upon　the　cosmological；　and

this　upon　the　ontological　proof　of　the　existence　of　a　Supreme　Being；

and　as　besides　these　three　there　is　no　other　path　open　to

speculative　reason；　the　ontological　proof；　on　the　ground　of　pure

conceptions　of　reason；　is　the　only　possible　one；　if　any　proof　of　a

proposition　so　far　transcending　the　empirical　exercise　of　the

understanding　is　possible　at　all。



　　　　SECTION　VII。　Critique　of　all　Theology　based　upon　Speculative

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Principles　of　Reason。



　　If　by　the　term　theology　I　understand　the　cognition　of　a　primal

being；　that　cognition　is　based　either　upon　reason　alone　（theologia

rationalis）　or　upon　revelation　（theologia　revelata）。　The　former

cogitates　its　object　either　by　means　of　pure　transcendental

conceptions；　as　an　ens　originarium；　realissimum；　ens　entium；　and　is

termed　transcendental　theology；　or；　by　means　of　a　conception　derived

from　the　nature　of　our　own　mind；　as　a　supreme　intelligence；　and　must

then　be　entitled　natural　theology。　The　person　who　believes　in　a

transcendental　theology　alone；　is　termed　a　deist；　he　who

acknowledges　the　possibility　of　a　natural　theology　also；　a　theist。　The

former　admits　that　we　can　cognize　by　pure　reason　alone　the　existence

of　a　Supreme　Being；　but　at　the　same　time　maintains　that　our　conception

of　this　being　is　purely　transcendental；　and　that　all　we　can　say　of

it　is　that　it　possesses　all　reality；　without　being　able　to　define　it

more　closely。　The　second　asserts　that　reason　is　capable　of

presenting　us；　from　the　analogy　with　nature；　with　a　more　definite

conception　of　this　being；　and　that　its　operations；　as　the　cause　of　all

things；　are　the　results　of　intelligence　and　free　will。　The　former

regards　the　Supreme　Being　as　the　cause　of　the　world…　whether　by　the

necessity　of　his　nature；　or　as　a　free　agent；　is　left　undetermined；　the

latter　considers　this　being　as　the　author　of　the　world。

　　Transcendental　theology　aims　either　at　inferring　the　existence　of

a　Supreme　Being　from　a　general　experience；　without　any　closer

reference　to　the　world　to　which　this　experience　belongs；　and　in　this

case　it　is　called　cosmotheology；　or　it　endeavours　to　cognize　the

existence　of　such　a　being；　through　mere　conceptions；　without　the　aid

of　experience；　and　is　then　termed　ontotheology。

　　Natural　theology　infers　the　attributes　and　the　existence　of　an

author　of　the　world；　from　the　constitution　of；　the　order　and　unity

observable　in；　the　world；　in　which　two　modes　of　causality　must　be

admitted　to　exist…　those　of　nature　and　freedom。　Thus　it　rises　from

this　world　to　a　supreme　intelligence；　either　as　the　principle　of　all

natural；　or　of　all　moral　order　and　perfection。　In　the　former　case　it

is　termed　physico…theology；　in　the　latter；　ethical　or　moral…theology。*



　　*Not　theological　ethics；　for　this　science　contains　ethical　laws；

which　presuppose　the　existence　of　a　Supreme　Governor　of　the　world；

while　moral…theology；　on　the　contrary；　is　the　expression　of　a

conviction　of　the　existence　of　a　Supreme　Being；　founded　upon　ethical

laws。



　　As　we　are　wont　to　understand　by　the　term　God　not　merely　an　eternal

nature；　the　operations　of　which　are　insensate　and　blind；　but　a　Supreme

Being；　who　is　the　free　and　intelligent　author　of　all　things；　and　as　it

is　this　latter　view　alone　that　can　be　of　interest　to　humanity；　we

might；　in　strict　rigour；　deny　to　the　deist　any　belief　in　God　at　all；

and　regard　him　merely　as　a　maintainer　of　the　existence　of　a　primal

being　or　thing…　the　supreme　cause　of　all　other　things。　But；　as　no

one　ought　to　be　blamed；　merely　because　he　does　not　feel　himself

justified　in　maintaining　a　certain　opinion；　as　if　he　altogether　denied

its　truth　and　asserted　the　opposite；　it　is　more　correct…　as　it　is　less

harsh…　to　say；　the　deist　believes　in　a　God；　the　theist　in　a　living　God

（summa　intelligentia）。　We　shall　now　proceed　to　investigate　the　sources

of　all　these　attempts　of　reason　to　establish　the　existence　of　a

Supreme　Being。

　　It　may　be　sufficient　in　this　place　to　define　theoretical　knowledge

or　cognition　as　knowledge　of　that　which　is；　and　practical　knowledge　as

knowledge　of　that　which　ought　to　be。　In　this　view；　the　theoretical

employment　of　reason　is　that　by　which　I　cognize　a　priori　（as

necessary）　that　something　is；　while　the　practical　is　that　by　which　I

cognize　a　priori　what　ought　to　happen。　Now；　if　it　is　an　indubitably

certain；　though　at　the　same　time　an　entirely　conditioned　truth；　that

something　is；　or　ought　to　happen；　either　a　certain　determinate

condition　of　this　truth　is　absolutely　necessary；　or　such　a　condition

may　be　arbitrarily　presupposed。　In　the　former　case　the　condition　is

postulated　（per　thesin）；　in　the　latter　supposed　（per　hypothesin）。

There　are　certain　practical　laws…　those　of　morality…　which　are

absolutely　necessary。　Now；　if　these　laws　necessarily　presuppose　the

existence　of　some　being；　as　the　condition　of　the　possibility　of

their　obligatory　power；　this　being　must　be　postulated；　because　the

conditioned；　from　which　we　reason　to　this　determinate　condition；　is

itself　cognized　a　priori　as　absolutely　necessary。　We　shall　at　some

future　time　show　that　the　moral　laws　not　merely　presuppose　the

existence　of　a　Supreme　Being；　but　also；　as　themselves　absolutely

necessary　in　a　different　relation；　demand　or　postulate　it…　although

only　from　a　practical　point　of　view。　The　discussion　of　this　argument

we　postpone　for　the　present。

　　When　the　question　relates　merely　to　that　which　is；　not　to　that　which

ought　to　be；　the　conditioned　which　is　presented　in　experience　is

always　cogitated　as　contingent。　For　this　reason　its　condition　cannot

be　regarded　as　absolutely　necessary；　but　merely　as　relatively

necessary；　or　rather　as　needful；　the　condition　is　in　itself　and　a

priori　a　mere　arbitrary　presupposition　in　aid　of　the　cognition；　by

reason；　of　the　conditioned。　If；　the