Page History

...

I regret that I've been delayed as long as I have in redeeming my promise to write you further about your Kant and the Problem of God. But as it turned out, making good on my commitment became a bigger project than I anticipated, since it proved to require my re-reading --   yet again!  --  Kant's Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft. Having now finally been able to do this, and having also re-read much of your book (especially Chs. 1, 5, and 6) in the light of it, I'm able, at last, to give you my reactions.

...

I realize, naturally, that I may have failed to understand or fully appreciate a reasoned case that you actually make for your positions. After all, my preunderstanding of Kant has all along been rather different from yours  -- as you yourself observe in the Preface (p. x) --  and, being, in my own revisionary way, what you call a "liberal mediating theologian," I definitely have my own very different views on the underlying systematic and philosophical theological issues and the relevant possibilities for constructively dealing with them in our situation today. But, then, if you think that I have missed or not sufficiently felt the weight of your argument, I can only ask that you let me know by providing a bill of particulars as to
2
where and why I've misunderstood you or underestimated the strength of your case, so that I can reconsider it and, where necessary, learn from my mistakes.

I should also say that it is not my intention here to do anything like full justice either to your book or to my reactions to it in the more particular comments that follow. To do anything like that would require indefinitely more time and energy than I am able to give to it, even if, as I strongly suspect, nothing other than an extended face-to-face conversation would be likely to serve the purpose, anyhow. In any case, I must be content to say enough simply to detail and support the more general assessment implied by what I've already said.

...