Frederick Aquino

While Newman scholars are nearly unanimous that John Henry Newman is an anti-skeptic, there is less agreement about the contours of his anti-skepticism. In this paper, we seek to lay bare the basic commitments of this anti-skepticism. First, we briefly discuss the type of skepticism with which Newman was most concerned. Second, we lay out Newman’s three-fold commitment to trust as the default epistemic stance. Third, we uncover Newman’s underlying commitment to a moderate form of evidentialism involving fallible evidence and cumulative cases skillfully judged by the illative sense. With Newman’s epistemological commitments that undergird his anti-skepticism laid bare, we can then see more clearly that Newman belongs to the broader tradition of common sense epistemology.

Among John Henry Newman’s contributions to epistemology, his notion of the “illative sense” may be both the most significant and yet the least understood. In this chapter, we seek to rectify this problem. First, we carefully lay out Newman’s notion of the illative sense. Second, we discuss and evaluate three ways in which the illative sense might be understood in light of contemporary epistemology and psychology. Third, we create a model that attempts to fill out Newman’s sketch of the illative sense. We close by answering two prominent objections to the illative sense in light of our model. If we are correct, the illative sense was not only an important innovation in epistemology in the nineteenth century but is also a defensible notion today.

John Henry Newman’s Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent is a masterpiece of religious epistemology, providing astute descriptive analysis of how the human mind actually works in addressing itself to reality, as well as a novel prescriptive vocabulary for fruitfully considering the assent involved in Christian belief. While it is rightly numbered among the most important of Newman’s writings, the Grammar is a difficult and complex work, combining rigorous theoretical argumentation with deeply personal reflection. In this Critical Guide to Newman’s Grammar, editors Frederick D. Aquino and Matthew Levering have assembled ten original essays on the work’s historical background and key themes and ideas. Topics discussed include Newman’s distinctions of real and notional apprehension and real and notional assent, his treatment of the role of conscience and dogmatic propositions in religious reasoning, his understanding of faith and rationality, his notions of the illative sense and the role of inference in intellectual inquiry, and his view of the relation between natural and revealed religion. The contributing authors are an international array of noteworthy Newman scholars, including Frederick D. Aquino, Christopher Cimorelli, John F. Crosby, Logan Paul Gage, Stephen Grimm, Thomas S. Hibbs, Lorraine Keller, Andrew Meszaros, Francesca Aran Murphy, Cyril O’Regan, and Geertjan Zuijdwegt. This collection of essays presents the riches of the Grammar in conversation with contemporary philosophical and theological concerns, guiding readers into its central topics while also advancing its scholarly reception.

In recent years, Duncan Pritchard has developed a position in religious epistemology called quasi‐fideism that he claims traces back to John Henry Newman's treatment of the rationality of religious belief. In this paper, we give three reasons to think that Pritchard's reading of Newman as a quasi‐fideist is mistaken. First, Newman's parity argument does not claim that religious and non‐religious beliefs are on a par because both are groundless; instead, for Newman, they are on a par because both often stem from implicit rather than explicit reasoning. Second, pace Pritchard, Newman's distinction between simple and complex assent does not map onto the Wittgensteinian distinction between groundless hinge commitments and beliefs that flow from these hinges. For Newman, simple and complex assent differ in terms of the believer's level of awareness of their grounds. Third, and finally, Newman does not reject Locke's evidentialism in toto. Instead, he argues that certitude is not restricted to beliefs stemming from intuition and demonstration but often rightly includes probabilistically supported (or fallibly evidenced) beliefs.

The role of certitude in our mental lives is, to put it mildly, controversial. Many current epistemologists (including epistemologists of religion) eschew certitude altogether. Given his emphasis on certitude, some have maintained that John Henry Newman was an infallibilist about knowledge. In this paper, we argue that a careful examination of his thought (especially as seen in the Grammar of Assent) reveals that he was an epistemic fallibilist. We first clarify what we mean by fallibilism and infallibilism. Second, we explain why some have read Newman as an infallibilist. Third, we offer two arguments that Newman is at least a fallibilist in a weak sense. In particular, the paradox he seeks to resolve in the Grammar and his dispute with John Locke both indicate that he is at least a weak fallibilist. We close with a consideration of whether Newman is a fallibilist in a much stronger sense as well.

In this article, we argue that John Henry Newman was right to think that our passional nature can play a legitimate epistemic role. First, we unpack the standard objection to Newman’s understanding of the relationship between our passional nature and the evidential basis of faith. Second, we argue that the standard objection to Newman operates with a narrow definition of evidence. After challenging this notion, we then offer a broader and more humane understanding of evidence. Third, we survey recent scholarship arguing that emotions, a key aspect of our passional nature, are cognitive. In this light, they plausibly have a proper epistemic role. Fourth, we defend Newman’s reliance on the passional nature in epistemic matters by showing how reasonable it is in light of this recent work on evidence and the nature of emotions. Newman’s insistence that the formation of a right state of heart and mind is crucial for epistemic success is far from untenable.

John Henry Newman’s philosophical reflection on the nature of faith and its relation to evidence is fascinating, complex, and slightly misleading; yet it shows constructive promise. In particular, I argue that his broader construal of reason should concomitantly play out in a broader construal of evidence. Accordingly, I show how Newman’s distinction between different modes of reasoning informs his understanding of the relationship between faith and evidence. I conclude with three areas that deserve further epistemological attention and development: namely, a more expansive construal of evidence in light of Newman’s broader account of reason, a more constructive understanding of the relationship between his cumulative, though informal, approach and natural theology, and whether his account of faith and evidence operates with a kind of phenomenal conservatism.

Searching for better ways to inspire people to pursue wisdom, Frederick D. Aquino argues that teachers and researchers should focus less on state-of-the-art techniques and learning outcomes and instead pay more attention to the intellectual formation of their students. We should, Aquino contends, encourage the development of an integrative habit of mind, which entails cultivating the capacity to grasp how various pieces of data and areas of inquiry fit together and to understand how to apply this information to new situations. To fully explore this notion, _An Integrative Habit of Mind_ brings the work of the great religious figure and educator John Henry Newman into fruitful conversation with recent philosophical developments in epistemology, cognition, and education. Aquino unearths some crucial but neglected themes from Newman’s writings and carries them forward into the contemporary context, revealing how his ideas can help us broaden our horizons, render apt judgments, and better understand our world and how we think about it.

In this essay, I show how the virtues, for Maximus the Confessor, contribute to the formation of a positive orientation toward (a deep and abiding desire for) the relevant epistemic goods (e.g., contemplation of God in and through nature, illumination of divine truths, wisdom, and experiential knowledge of God). The first section offers a brief overview of how three character-based virtue epistemologies envision the role of the intellectual virtues in the cognitive life. The second section draws attention to Maximus’s understanding of the relationship between the virtues and the relevant epistemic goods. The third section argues that a relationship of this sort entails a seamless connection (though without confusion) between the practical and contemplative aspects of deiform existence. The fourth section clarifies how select virtues foster within the self a praiseworthy desire for the relevant epistemic goods.