A RESPONSE TO CRITICS OF IN DEFENSE OF KANT'S RELIGION

This essay replies to four critics of In Defense of Kant's Religion (IDKR). In reply to Gordon E. Michalson, Jr., I argue that the best pathway for understanding Kant's Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason (Religion) is to conduct close textual analysis rather than giving up the art of interpretation or allowing meta-considerations surrounding Kant's personal and political circumstances to govern one's interpretation. In response to George di Giovanni, I contend that his critique is dismissive of theologically robust readings of Kant for reasons that have very little to do with what Religion actually asserts. Pamela Sue Anderson's essay, I argue, reads Kant on God according to an empirically-biased stream of British interpretation which makes Kant's transcendental philosophy appear foreign to its rationalist heritage. Lastly, in response to Stephen R. Palmquist, I suggest that his reading of Kant's two experiments is done not only in a vacuum, but also according to a perspectival interpretation of Kant that goes beyond what Kant's writings actually maintain.