Kant's argument for belief in the immortality of the soul appears tenuous. The standard interpretation suggests that immortality is necessary because agents need an endless time in order to become holy (i.e., incapable of deviation from the moral law). Yet Kant elsewhere argues that sensible beings cannot be holy. This interpretation thus cannot make sense of Kant's insistence that agents become holy, supposing instead that this is an error on Kant's part.Against this reading, I argue that progress toward holiness is simply a definition of virtue, and that Kant's reference to it does not contradict itself by implying that sensible beings must become holy at some point in time. Drawing on Kant's account of the Gesinnung in the Religion, I then proceed to offer a novel reading as to why immortality is needed to secure the complete conformity of a disposition with the moral law. Even Kant's staunchest defenders admit that the second Critique's argument for the immortality of the soul appears tenuous. There, Kant argues that we need to believe in immortality in order to secure the coherency of reason in promoting the highest good, which he defines as the synthetic connection between virtue and happiness. While the postulate for God's existence aims to secure happiness, immortality is supposed to secure virtue. In brief, Kant's argument for the latter runs as follows: our duty is to be morally perfect, and since "ought" implies "can", we must be able to be morally perfect. But in order to achieve that state of moral perfection, the soul must be immortal. Why, exactly, remains a matter of debate, but most interpreters have thought that since this task is so difficult, we will need a lot of time (and hence immortality) to achieve it. 1 Despite the apparent philosophical implausibility of this thesis, it nevertheless remains the dominant interpretation.Although Kant himself clearly thought the postulate of immortality was central to the critical project (it makes an appearance in all three Critiques), most interpreters have disagreed. Kant's argument, they claim, is unpersuasive at best, question begging at worst. To name just one of the problems these commentators raise: Kant seems to, without forewarning or justification, introduce the concept of holiness (Heiligkeit). In contrast to a merely virtuous will, it is