Micah Phua is a writer and editor, passionate about stories that inform as much as they entertain.
Academic
↓
Capstone Paper - Philosophy
The Role of Innate Dispositions in Forming Religious Belief:
A Brief Reconciliation of Thomas Reid and Immanuel Kant
Introduction
In this paper, I will attempt to highlight a conversation between Thomas Reid and Immanuel Kant not immediately apparent in their seeming epistemological differences regarding their usage of “concepts,” by reconciling the ways in which their approach to religious belief connect with one another and inform each other. To begin, I will explicate what Reid and Kant take to mean by “concepts,” in order to establish a cursory understanding of their epistemologies in general—for the former, this results in direct realism, and for the latter, transcendental idealism. Following that explanation, I will describe Reid and Kant’s epistemology of religious belief, detailing the ways in which they resonate with each other. Despite their fundamental epistemological differences, their intuitions about the formation of religious belief point in the same direction, even if their response to the skeptic differs. To do so, I will discuss how their views on religious belief stem from an understanding of human nature which comes pre-built with a certain innate disposition for generating and justifying religious belief. This will include an explanation of how Kant’s ostensible rejection of common sense philosophy fails to be as wholesale as many credit it to be. Finally, I will conclude by offering an explanation of how these similarities create a positive underlying conversation between Reid and Kant not normally seen between their respective philosophical camps—the two difficult aspects, of generation and justification, of religious belief formation are more effectively dealt with by reading them together, rather than reading them apart and on their own.
...
(Read more)
A Brief Reconciliation of Thomas Reid and Immanuel Kant
Introduction
In this paper, I will attempt to highlight a conversation between Thomas Reid and Immanuel Kant not immediately apparent in their seeming epistemological differences regarding their usage of “concepts,” by reconciling the ways in which their approach to religious belief connect with one another and inform each other. To begin, I will explicate what Reid and Kant take to mean by “concepts,” in order to establish a cursory understanding of their epistemologies in general—for the former, this results in direct realism, and for the latter, transcendental idealism. Following that explanation, I will describe Reid and Kant’s epistemology of religious belief, detailing the ways in which they resonate with each other. Despite their fundamental epistemological differences, their intuitions about the formation of religious belief point in the same direction, even if their response to the skeptic differs. To do so, I will discuss how their views on religious belief stem from an understanding of human nature which comes pre-built with a certain innate disposition for generating and justifying religious belief. This will include an explanation of how Kant’s ostensible rejection of common sense philosophy fails to be as wholesale as many credit it to be. Finally, I will conclude by offering an explanation of how these similarities create a positive underlying conversation between Reid and Kant not normally seen between their respective philosophical camps—the two difficult aspects, of generation and justification, of religious belief formation are more effectively dealt with by reading them together, rather than reading them apart and on their own.
...
(Read more)