CHRIS L. FIRESTONE a1 a1 New College, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH2 2LX, Scotland
The standard reading of Kant presumes that ‘the moral hypothesis’ is
a necessary and sufficient condition for understanding his philosophy of religion.
This paper opens with the assumption – taken from one of Kant's last works – that
philosophy and theology must always remain in conflict. Then, by way of an
abductive comparison of the positions of Ronald M. Green and John Hick, I
demonstrate that the moral hypothesis leads to religious compromises that contradict
this assumption. To conclude, I argue that the motif of transformation is syptomatic
of the underlying problem and suggest that it be replaced by the motif of transition.