Unbelievable Preambles: Natural Knowledge and Social Cooperation in Accepting Some Revelation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v10i3.2610Abstract
There is a claim that the natural capacity for knowledge of God (but not its completeexercise) is presupposed by the acceptance of any revelation. We inquire into whether this restriction is satisfactory. There is a stronger claim that natural knowledge has to be exercised for someone to welcome revelation. There is an additional claim that natural knowledge of the preambles to the articles of faith may not obtain. We try to make sense of this doctrine of impeached preambles to faith, by considering its phrasing not only in the first person singular (where it generates a Moore’s paradox), nor in the third person (where the role of the preambles still remains problematic), but in the first plural person, where it may suggest a kind of social division of tasks among believers.
References
Audi, Robert. 2008. “Belief, Faith, and Acceptance”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 63, no. 1-3: 87–102. doi:10.1007/s11153-007-9137-6.
Burrell, David B. 1995. “Philosophy and Religion: Attention to Language and the Role of Reason”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 38, no. 1-3: 109–25. doi:10.1007/BF01322952.
Clavier, Paul. 2013. “No creation, no Revelation”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 73, no. 3: 255–68. doi:10.1007/s11153-012-9377-y.
Descartes, René. 2015. The Meditations: And selections from the Principles of René Descartes (1596-1650). Edited by John Veitch and Lucien Lévy-Bruhl. New York: Scholar’s Choice.
Locke, John. 1997. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Roger S. Woolhouse. London: Penguin Books.
McInerny, Ralph. 1986. Being and Predication: Thomistic Interpretations. Washington, DC: Catholic Univ. of America Press.
—. 2006. Praeambula fidei: Thomism and the God of the Philosophers. Washington, DC: Catholic Univ. of America Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt284v10.
Pascal, Blaise. 1966. Pensées (Thoughts). Edited by A. J. Krailsheimer. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Williams, John N. 2010. “Moore’s Paradox, Defective Interpretation, Justified Belief and Conscious Belief”. Theoria 76, no. 3: 221–48. doi:10.1111/j.1755-2567.2010.01073.x.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 2010. Practices of Belief: Volume 2, Selected Essays. Edited by Terence Cuneo. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
