This paper presents a critique on the Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy.
In his essay, he starts by stating that the occurrence of sin on earth disrupts three main attributes of an almighty God. Kent questions all efforts to think against the question of evil in the essay (Firestone and Palmquist, 2006). In this essay he looks at the holiness of God, secondly he looks at God’s goodness as a ruler, and God as judge. These are the major questions in this essay.
In the essay, he argued that the great intelligence could not be comprehended by an individual’s thought because he perceives it to be higher (Firestone and Palmquist, 2006). According to him, he was right because an individual cannot comprehend supersensible objects within the environment (Firestone and Palmquist, 2006). From the essay, this cannot be said to be a justification (Firestone and Palmquist, 2006). Therefore, individuals cannot justify God, and they need to understand that thought cannot give accurate responses to God’s justifications.
In the essay, there is nothing as counter-purposiveness, which are individual laws that violet human rights. An individual cannot stand for the truth he or she says (Firestone and Palmquist, 2006). However, an individual must always stand for the truth of God’s holiness. It’s this holiness that guides an individual’s consciousness.
In his essay, he claims that a human being is only good so long as he or she stays away from sins and deception, or any form individual deception. He used this thought following individual consciences, because when one behaves without sin he, or she is a good individual (Firestone and Palmquist, 2006). This is challenging because it does no answer the question of holiness. Kant only talks about an individual tendency to deception, and not an individual’s pure reason.