Kant Vs. Bergson Religion

Kant’s Summum Bonum VS. Bergson

In class we learned that Kant said that trying to rationally prove God would be fruitless attempt by our rationality. However while this is true, he later returns to the idea of God and an immortal soul in order to help back his ethical theory. Kant and Bergson disagree on many levels in their philosophy. When comparing and contrasting Kant’s idea of God and the Summum Bonum with the ideas of Bergson in Two Sources of Morality and Religion, we see many differences between the two philosophers, and many things that Bergson would criticize Kant for. Bergson creates an idea of a Static religion, which to him is inferior to his other idea of Dynamic religion. Kant’s beliefs in God has many similarities to Bergson’s ideas of Static religion, which shows a criticism of Kant’s way of thinking. Bergson offers a different idea of Dynamic religion as a superior alternative to Kant’s beliefs which allows for evolution, an idea essential to Bergson.

Kant believes that the ultimate Goal of rational beings is the Summum Bonum or Highest good. It is the goal of rational beings, and it is the way of life necessary for happiness. However it is not the concept of happiness that we normally think of. Instead what Kant is saying is that following the categorical imperative and achieving the Summum Bonum allows us to be worthy of happiness. It is still possible to be a completely moral agent, and not be happy. He merely is saying that those who are moral should be the only ones worthy of being happy. The Summum Bonum does not teach people how to be happy, it merely teaches them how to be good and worthy of a pleasurable life.

Kant believes in a Deontological philosophy based on reason, however he admits in his book that in order for people to achieve the Summum Bonum or highest good as it is translated there must be a God and an immortal soul. A short summary of Kant’s argument would be that as rational beings, we are morally obligated to achieve the highest moral good. (This argument is made because to Kant morality is derived from rationality). He then argues that for there to be a highest Good there must be an omnipotent and all knowing God that gives moral order to the Universe. He says that “this Divine Being must be omnipotent, in order that the whole nature and its relation to morality in the world may be subject to his will; omniscient, that He may know our innermost sentiments and their moral worth [this is because moral worth is tied in with our intent and natural tendencies as they stand with duty]; omnipresent, that he may be immediately at hand for satisfying of every need which the highest good demands; eternal, that this nature and freedom ma never fail, etc.” (Kant 642). Therefore in order to strive for the Summum Bonum we must postulate a God as the source of it. He says that throughout time “it was moral ideas that gave rise to the concept of Divine Being that we now hold to be correct” (Kant 643). Without a divine being to bring order to things his system of ethics falls begins to fall apart. His concept of God exists to bring moral order to society. Without God there would therefore be no morality.

This is an idea similar to Bergson concept of Static religion. Bergson defines two types of religion that are both important in society. The first of which is Static religion, and it has some similarities to Kant’s argument. “Static religion … attaches man to life, and consequently the individual to society by telling him tales on a par with those with which we lull children to sleep” (Bergson 200). Bergson says that in a system of closed morality, or unadapting morality, there needs to be a system that prevents people from questioning the system and defying the laws that hold that society together. He says that in static religions myths are created that create Gods and immortal souls that promise reward or punishment in regular life, or the afterlife. These religions say that a higher presence watches them and upholds the doctrine of morality. In a static religions Gods are used as to create standards as ways of life that man should follow. These gods thwart our “intelligence” when it tends to stray and think of ideas that could possibly upset the social order. Bergson believes that facts influences our beliefs, our philosophy, and even our conception of natural laws. Meaning that if an intelligent person gathers certain facts it can change the whole society, because “nothing can resist facts” (Bergson 99). Bergson says that “myths” or hallucinations of facts are created in this type of religion to preserve society; “if intelligence was to be kept at the outset from sliding down a slope which was dangerous to the individual and society, it could be only by the statement of apparent fact, by the ghosts of facts; failing real experience, a counterfeit of experience had to be conjured up” to prevent this (Bergson 99). To prevent people from straying away and using true facts to change society, the myths and Gods in this society create opposing facts to prevent people from straying and using those ideas. It is easy how another parallel to Kant can be made here. In a static religion new ideas that question the standards already set up in that society like morality and other ideas are demonized. According to Bergson Static religion is a completely closed system. This is similar to Kant, not only is God or the divine in charge of handling morality and upholding it in both theories, both Kant and Static religions are in closed systems. Kant’s system of morality does not allow for any moral deviation from the categorical imperative, anything that does so is immoral. Also, since Kant separates science from philosophy and denies scientific knowledge that might change his philosophy, it makes it seem like Kant’s idea of God could be a Static religion. No matter how the times change, to Kant what is moral and immoral remains the same. It is the same thing in a static religion. Anybody that comes up with ideas that differ from the preset norms, or do not follow the norms are demonized. Bergson says that these are created because of The Gods in both these uphold the current norms against all others. As you can see though there are many parallels to between Kant and static religion.

Bergson later in the book describes is superior alternative known as dynamic religion, which, unlike static religion which is based on supposed rules or laws of nature that repress new thought and facts, is actually based on evolution, intelligence, and creativity as he mentions in Creative Evolution. In this he mentions that in Dynamic religion, religion must be based on actual experiences felt by people in that society. He uses an example of Christian saints, or prophets when describing this. To Bergson Dynamic religion is based off of actual experiences. Because it is a religion based on actual experiences it allows for change. Dynamic religion does not make up false experiences to prevent actual contrary experiences, like static religion. It simply relies on the actual. These people who experienced the true mystical experiences are also capable to spread it around and inspire others to find actual relations with God. Bergson mentions the saints as an example of this. Their actual experiences with God allowed them to help inspire others to the Christian Faith. Bergson finds this form of religion superior because it is based on actual experience; it is not based on preventing other from doing things or expanding their intelligence to other areas. It allows for evolution of ideas and society. One can say that there is an example of this in the bible. At first followers of Jesus were chastised for breaking from the current norm, but through an actual encounter with God they were able to make Christianity spread. They were able to evolve beyond what people who hold to only traditional ideas of religion at the time believed. Allowing for new intelligence allowed for new ideas to form and for religion to evolve.

It is clear that Kant and Bergson have many differences in their beliefs. What Kant believes is necessary in the Summum Bonum contradicts greatly with many ideals held by Bergson. These differences seem be the same as their disagreements in Creative Evolution, stemming from Kant’s desire for fixed ideas and Bergson’s plea for the need of evolution.