Schleiermacher, though he talked about the infinite more generically in “On Religion”, has a fairly objective interest in what the intuition of this “infinite” is. Overall, it is difficult to see how the infinite distinguishes between God and Nature (they seem like the same thing). This is Spinoza’s influence (see Spinoza’s Ethics). I do not think that Schleiermacher is a pantheist, but I also think that sometimes, by his language, one cannot tell.

You might be giving Kant a little too much credit for towing with Scripture. When Kant sets up his epistemology in the Critique of Pure Reason, there is not much place for religion. Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone is more of an ethical work with religion subordinated to it. In the end, Kant would say that God is not necessary–He is only an incentive for willing the good. Eventually, one should do the good as its own end. So, when you say that Kant has Christ being the only mediator of the good, that is because Kant is speaking to a Christian audience–but the criteria for Christ as mediator is not an exclusive criteria. Buddha might just as well be another mediator. But you are right about Schleiermacher going the same route.

Well, just thought I’d give you one student’s response. Check up my facts for yourself and see whether they are sound.

Jason