The irrational thing about science is its concomitant integration of empirical truth and variable theory. What, then, does “believe science” mean? To have faith in the necessarily mutable nature of reality? To trust that humans can describe everything, and still hold no veracity?
Kant began his career with scientific inquiry. He studied gravity and earthquakes. He believed that all knowledge existed a priori. He believed the universe was an effect of rational perception, in and of the human mind. That people had a moral obligation to be kind to one another. That the only thing of value was good will itself.
Kant believed that animals were irrational. “Mere means.” Whereas humans were “ends-in-themselves.” That the only reason to not treat animals cruelly was that it may reinforce cruel behavior between people. But if humans aren’t animals, how does this apply? Were we born out of nothing? He believed humans were rational. I can’t say I agree.
And is faith? Kant thought so. He understood science as a method to explain the phenomenal world. The noumenon—the world as it is in itself—does not, thus, lend itself to such scrutiny. This tracks, rationally. What it suggests, though, lacks stability. The human mind is incomplete. It seems to subsume the irrational.
To Kant, irrationality is defined by its contradiction to universal natural laws. Yet how do we define those, if we lack knowledge of the world as it is in itself? This is irrational. Is it God? I don’t know.
Kant was baptized Emanuel. He changed his name after learning Hebrew. He believed world peace could be accomplished through republicanism. Suggesting citizens would inherently choose apt representatives. Suggesting representatives act in their electors interests. He had a robust social life. He liked to drink wine and play billiards. He never married.
-David Fishkind