I really enjoyed this book because it really did remind me of Kant. However Fichte sucessfully tackled the topic of divine revelation by using Kant's moral philosophy including Fichte's own form of egoism (not to be confused with narcissism or psychological egoism). Fichte believes that we cannot prove the empirical validity of divine revelations (since such revelations is in the realm of noumena) but instead of confirming the validity of them Fichte proposes that we decide which divine revelations are acceptable as divine revelations on the basis of morality (in the Kantian sense). Strangely, Fichte did not believe that people have to depend on divine revelations to be moral but people who do depend on narratives or stories to guide their moral compass should be receptive to divine revelations. The problem I find with this general argument is that it seems to be missing the point of what the bible means to Christians in general; while I do agree that many Christians depend on the bible for moral guidance, those very same Christians depend on the bible for other reasons such as spiritual growth and intimate communication with God (I personally find these reasons to be dubious but I am merely stating how Christians generally see their bible). Fichte seems to be using the Kantian version of Occam's Razor to take out a lot of narratives that appear immoral, but the problem is that by doing this it seems too similar with what Thomas Jefferson is doing to the bible (Thomas Jefferson took everything out accept some of the sayings of Jesus). Not that I am personally against what Fichte is implying but the consequence of applying such measures seems to be counter-productive because it backfires what was originally intended. If not much of the bible (which Fichte presumes to be a form of divine revelation) is left due to Fichte-Kant's Razor, then it only seems to show that divine revelation does not say very much about morality but actually very little. Nonetheless I enjoyed this book for other reasons.