Dan Synnestvedt

This dissertation explores the relations between humans, God, and nature in Kant's philosophy. It proceeds chronologically. While the shift from a theocentric to an anthropocentric basis is shown, the continuity of Kant's thought is emphasized. The relations between humans, God, and nature consistently revolve around two "givens": insight into nature and oral wisdom. Analysis of these relationships is tied to the contemporary use, and view of, Kant's philosophy for the science and religion dialogue. The dissertation answers the question: Is Kantian religion a satisfactory form of religion to use in the science-religion dialogue, and what features of Kant's philosophy are attractive to people interested in the problem of the "two cultures"? ;The dissertation consistently examines, what was for Kant, a significant issue, namely, theodicy. Theodicy is a useful problem to analyze because it involves humans, God, and nature. A natural disaster provokes questions about our interpretation of nature, the wisdom of Providence, and the meaning of human life on this earth in the universe. I show that while Kant's concept of nature is broader than it seems at first, it becomes entangled with his idea of Providence and associated concepts of fate, chance, and necessity. While I conclude that interpreting Kant's use of Nature as a synonym for Providence renders a number of puzzles in Kant's thought intelligible, this is not an unproblematic interpretation. Kantian theology comes perilously close to pantheism. The relation between science and religion is based on Kant's explanation of reason. Yet reason cannot know how God relates either to human freedom or physical nature. The relationship is ultimately a mystery. Still, Kant defends faith in the meaningfulness of life and hope for progress toward the good. I conclude that Kantian religion is only somewhat successful at maintaining the integrity of religion and is not successful in doing the same for Christianity. Kantian religion is at best a quasi-religion and is therefore not a satisfactory means for advancing the science-religion dialogue