In the workmanship in question, Kant affirms that she only has a true religion; being able to have some types of faith. In diverse separate Churches ones of the others for the diversity of beliefs, he is possible if to come across with an only same e religion. Kant speaks that she is more convenient to say "This man is of this or that faith" (Jewish, Christian, Maometana, Luterana, Catholic) of the one that to say "is of or of that religion". This last expression not would have to be used, when spoken in public, therefore it is erudite and incompressible, or either, Kant speaks that the man in general, understands for religion its faith of Church that is presented to our directions, to the step that the true religion is occult, interior, and depends on moral disposals of spirit. From there, the initial relation for the supposed ticket of the moral for the religion. In the rational religion presented by Kant, or either, based in the pure reason, they do not exist serving legal or employee: each member receives its orders from the supreme legislator, as orders. The servers of a religious faith are responsible for the duty to conform its teachings and organization to the pure religious faith. What he occurs, he is that many servers forget it last end, I take care of the legal and historical elements to it of the faith of the Church (PASCHAL, p. 188). The rationalism that sprouts of the religion in Kant, must be remained in the limits of the human knowledge. As naturalistic, it will not deny nor will argue the possibility of the revelation, nor the necessity of a divine revelation to introduce the true religion; therefore to such respect no man can decide something by means of the simple reason. The distinction of the natural and disclosed religion, fits by itself to the citizen and for its reason. In the same workmanship Kant it inside perceives the problem of the evil of two perspectives: religious and a other philosophical one. The first one, the world starts with the good, tending later for the evil. No longer second, the man always progresses of the evil for the good. Both, take Kant to think that the principle of the man for the moral law is not presented by the experience, it only about the sample the actions that are contrary to the moral law. To say if the man is bad or good, does not depend on the experience, but on the principle adopted for the man. Convém to become clearly that "the badly radical" expression here, is not understood by Kant as males any, or particular forms of badly, but yes the evil that in them can be imputed. With other words, catastrophic materials, but males that we produce with our actions, of one are not males badly that it depends on us. The "radical" makes alusão to the bedding or root of the evil, or either, the proper condition of possibility of the evil in the morality (ESTEVES, p. 39). We ask, if the evil does not have origin in the reason. But, as it can, if the reason is the source of the moral law. If the evil is not established, nor in the inclinations, nor in the reason, Kant goes in taking them to perceive that the same it is in the principles that the man adopts, being responsible proper it. Thus, the evil alone is badly, when we assent. Thus, we will also strengthen, the idea of that Kant considers the reality history of the man and arrives at a result that transforms the religion into a moral intention. Therefore, already it is not treated to ask if the religion in them brings the peace, but if this peace has to have consequently with the morality, compactuamos with Kant when in its thought it affirms: "two things full me the spirit of admiration and reverence: the covered with star sky above of me and the moral law inside of me "in this case for Kant the sublime one that it provokes ecstasy would be the treplica Natureza-liberdade-Deus. The nature is in this in case that, the accomplishment of the moral end of the man and a field sufficiently explored by the religions of favors.
Bibliografia
ESTEVES, Júlio Cesar Ramos. Kant e o mal radical. Ethica, Rio de Janeiro: Gama Filho, v.6, nº 1, pp. 34-50, 1999.
F. Javier Herrero. Religião e Historia em Kant. 1. ed. São Paulo: Ed. Loyola, 1991. v. 1. 193 p.
KANT, Immanuel.
A Religião nos Limites da Simples Razão. Trad. Ciro Mioranza. São Paulo: Editora Escala.
PASCAL, Georges. O Pensamento de Kant. Trad. Raimundo Vier. 4.ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1992.
Notas
<1> KANT, A Religião nos Limites da Simples Razão, p. 155-157.<1> FILHO, Martins. SILVA, Ives Gandra. Manual esquemático de história da Filosofia – São Paulo: LTr. 1997. P. 207
Altre recensioni su The Religion in the Limit of the Simple Reason