Logan Paul Gage

David Hume argues that theistic accounts of sense perception face two great hurdles. First, it seems unlikely that God had anything to do with our senses, since, if he had, they would be infallible. Second, the appeal to God is entirely circular: we know that God exists and benevolently ensures the reliability of sense perceptions because, using our reliable sense perceptions, we have proven a benevolent God’s existence. I argue that Thomas Reid’s theory of sense perception possesses the conceptual resources to reply effectively to both of these charges. Specifically, Reid can reply to the first charge given his distinction between original and acquired perceptions; and Reid can reply to the second with what I call his Principle of Continued Belief. Most importantly, however, getting clear on Reid’s responses to these twin charges elucidates the role God might play in common sense epistemology.

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.

In a time when conservatives believe that the traditional family is under increasing fire, some think an appeal to Darwinian science may be the answer. I argue that these conservatives are wrong to maintain that Darwinian theory can serve as the intellectual foundation for the traditional conception of the family. Contra Larry Arnhart and James Q. Wilson, a Darwinian philosophy of nature simply lacks the stability the traditional family requires; it cannot support the traditional conception of human nature and the normativity it was thought to contain. If conservatives are to maintain these traditional ideas, the theoretical foundation must lie elsewhere.

Recently, the Intelligent Design movement has challenged the claim of many in the scientific establishment that nature gives no empirical signs of having been deliberately designed. In particular, ID arguments in biology dispute the notion that neo-Darwinian evolution is the only viable scientific explanation of the origin of biological novelty, arguing that there are telltale signs of the activity of intelligence which can be recognized and studied empirically. In recent years, a number of Catholic philosophers, theologians, and scientists have expressed opposition to ID. Some of these critics claim that there is a conflict between the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and that of the ID movement, and even an affinity between Aquinas’s ideas and theistic Darwinism. We consider six such criticisms and find each wanting.

For centuries, people looked at the natural world and saw evidence of intelligent design not only in its complex structures but in its sheer beauty. With the rise of Darwinian theory, however, and the moral horrors of the last two centuries, it has been exceedingly difficult for intellectuals to see this world as beautiful. Any beauty we might perceive must be a kind of illusion. In this chapter, I lay out some reasons for thinking that beauty in nature is real and that it is yet another indication that our world is the product of intelligent design rather than chance and necessity.

Catholics face many challenges when it comes to thinking about evolution and intelligent design. This chapter aims to help us think more carefully and critically about these ideas. Without worrying yet about whether design arguments are sound, we must first figure out what these arguments claim—and, just as importantly, what they do not claim. To this end, I provide some background, attempt to define terms, discuss the form of such arguments, and consider common Catholic misconceptions. The hope is that we will then be in a better place to evaluate the success of such arguments.

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.

For some years now, Michael Bergmann has urged a dilemma against internalist theories of epistemic justification. For reasons I explain below, some epistemologists have thought that Michael Huemer’s principle of Phenomenal Conservatism can split the horns of Bergmann’s dilemma. Bergmann has recently argued, however, that PC must inevitably, like all other internalist views, fall prey to his dilemma. In this paper, I explain the nature of Bergmann’s dilemma and his reasons for thinking that PC cannot escape it before arguing that he is mistaken: PC can indeed split its horns

Recent authors, emphasizing Newman’s distaste for natural theology—especially William Paley’s design argument—have urged us to follow Newman’s lead and reject design arguments. But I argue that Newman’s own argument for God’s existence (his argument from conscience) fails without a supplementary design argument or similar reason to think our faculties are truth-oriented. In other words, Newman appears to need the kind of argument he explicitly rejects. Finding Newman’s rejection of natural theology to stem primarily from factors other than worries about cogency, however, I further argue that there is little reason not to pursue design arguments in order to save the argument from conscience.

In this chapter, Logan Paul Gage examines the only real attempt to disprove God’s existence by a New Atheist: Richard Dawkins’s “Ultimate 747 Gambit.” Central to Dawkins’s argument is the claim that God is more complex than what he is invoked to explain. Gage evaluates this claim using the main extant notions of simplicity in the literature. Gage concludes that on no reading does this claim survive scrutiny. Along the way, Dawkins claims that there are no good positive arguments for God’s existence. Gage attempts to show that Dawkins’s argument depends upon distinctively philosophical assumptions that do not appear to withstand scrutiny.

It is still a live question in epistemology and philosophy of science as to what exactly evidence is. In my view, evidence consists in experiences called “seemings.” This view is a version of the phenomenal conception of evidence, the position that evidence consists in nonfactive mental states with propositional content. This conception is opposed by sense-data theorists, disjunctivists, and those who think evidence consists in physical objects or publicly observable states of affairs—call it the courtroom conception of evidence. Thomas Kelly has recently argued that the phenomenal conception cannot play all the roles evidence plays and is thus inadequate. Having first explained the nature of seemings, in this essay I utilize Kelly’s own understanding of the four major roles of evidence and argue that the phenomenal conception can play each one. Experience is a good candidate for evidence.