One must recommend a study of the eonic effect and model and its solution to the challenge of Kant to find/consider a ‘philosophy of history with a cosmopolitan purpose’ through a ‘hidden purpose of nature’ next to the issue of an ‘agreement between politics and nature’.
The texts of Decoding World History and World History and the Eonic Effect are available online (cf. the post Online texts/downloads)
The issue of ‘god’ is a red herring here and in the larger eonic sequence we see the nexus of ‘god/theism’ is itself a stage in the progression of natural epochs. The issue of god is actually easy: we can have directionality in history without recourse to any idea of ‘god’, an idea whose incoherence swamps its actual usage. Kant himself warns against teleological metaphysics as a proof of the existence of god.
The eonic model shows clearly that world history shows directionality and next to that and in tandem a parallel processor that, for example, shows atheist and theist religions emerge in parallel. Directionality suggests teleology which can only be inferred as a hypothesis of history up to our present. Any model must reconcile free agency and a teleological future, not actually hard to do. (there are multiple possibilities: nature can project purpose and its agents can realize that in practice and/or fail to do so, and/or in discrete continuous model of teleology simply deviate against direction into chaos: looking at the unexpected onset of world wars one suspects the last option)
The idea of god, and to say so is not even atheist, is one of confusion and from the start a degeneration of the original vision of the ‘primitive’ Israelites whose original insight was that to an unnamable IHVH. The rapid degeneration of the this into the theism of ‘god’ is thus not finally relevant to the issue of historical directionality which shows parallel theistic and atheistic (e.g. buddhist) streams. The imputation of ‘god’ to historical directionality is a semantic distraction that has hopelessly muddled not only philosophy of history but theories of evolution such as the speculative pseudo-scientific Darwinian theory (not the same as evolutionary theory beyond natural selection). The attempt by some such as Dawkins to use Darwinian speculations to enforce a philosophy of history/evolution without a macro factor (which has no ‘god’ implications).
We are not able to infer ‘god’ therefore in the perception of the directionality of nature, but the implications of something like Darwinian evolution is equally off the mark. (ONe notes that Kant also has a variant speculation of ‘asocial sociability’ whose significance is unclear in its suggestion of a social Darwinist conflict. But Kant’s essay more validly simply asks a question and rightly sees that it must be left to the future, and indeed the rise of historical archaeology has indeed begun to clarify the issue of historical directionality).
World history shows directionality and ironically Kant’s appearance at the climax of the modern transition is itself bound up in the non-random character of the eonic series. The resolution is to simply bypass both the theology of providence and its religious rule and the false ‘secular’ imputation against teleology in nature.
The projection of a ‘perpetual peace’ must confront the transition from ‘system action’ and ‘free action’ and we see that in our time the collapse of the project of peace into world wars by rogue agents appearing immediately in the switch off the eonic process. But there is still hope for the realization of perpetual peace (we already have a now defunct but still potential United Nations) if a real ‘International’ from the left can deal with the causes of war in terms of the ‘capitalist war on nature’: ideally, a socialist International could guard and equalize ecologies and the welfare of all in a new state of social equality answering to the social Darwinist war of nations.
It is clear that world history shows directionality and this cannot be any kind of implication for ‘god’ issues. We remain with the mystery of greater nature which doesn’t conform to either theistic or atheistic ideas a point clear to the original Israelites who warned of the generation of language in ‘god reference’.
A better question is, what is the nature of ‘consciousness’ and can it, like electromagnetic energies be seen as a general process in nature.
Unfortunately, secular scholars would sacrifice their firstborn before they give up their obsession with Darwinism as a proof of ‘atheism’ and unless they can do so the issues above will simply elude them. The same can be said of the obsession for finding ‘god’ in nature on the part of theologians. But seeing purpose in nature is not a valid proof of the existence of ‘god’, who in any case could not ‘exist’ except in some pantheist version of spectrum of ‘god reference’. There is thus no one who an really discuss the issue here, atheist or theist. The enforcement of Darwinian assumptions in general public/academic contexts makes public discussion of the issues discussed here very difficult or unlikely.
______________Note/update: note that issues of teleology are very tricky. The eonic effect shows ‘nudge’ directionality, something nudges something else in a certain way. Consider an analogy: an army and a general: the general issues ‘directions’ (teleology) while the army tries to carry them out, or tries but fails, or mutinies and does something else. The general thus can ‘direct’ but fail to succeed, etc… This example shows two levels of action, analogous to the macro/micro of the eonic model. Note also that we frequently introduce conscious agents as here into the discussion (i.e. the general) and this tends to make us assume a ‘design’ agent behind some form of directionality. But it does not follow we can generalize this to nature let alone something beyond nature because we cannot be sure of how nature operates or produce any coherent definition of a purpose nature or a metanatural purpose. So the ordinary analogies are misleading.
Kant sketches as a solution to this problem a philosophy of history with a cosmopolitan purpose which is supposed to lend plausibility, through a ‘hidden purpose of nature,’ and to the improbably ‘agreement between politics and morality’” (p. 171). Red flags are waving in the wind. Is Kant sneaking in a providential, though secularized, God? It seems so. Kant wants to combine a cosmopolitan federation of nation-states with the moral kingdom of God on earth.