This study investigates the theme of the reasonableness of religious belief in Anglo-
American philosophical theology from the mid-17th to the early 20th centuries. Through
the analysis of key texts by William Chillingworth, John Tillotson, John Locke, David
Hume, William Paley, Richard Whately, John Henry Newman, William Clifford, and
William James, it provides a systematic account of reason and reasonability, of the
criteria for argument and proof, and of the meaning and truth of religious belief, and
their role in understanding what ‘the reasonableness of religious belief’ meant in the
theology of this period in Britain and North America .
The first, or ‘formative’ phase of this discussion begins with 17th century theologians,
such as Chillingworth and Tillotson. This study examines their understandings of faith
and religious belief, their criteria for proof and reasonableness, and the role of reason
and evidence within theology for belief. It then turns to Locke and Hume, who refined
these understandings of religious belief, and their novel criteria according to which
belief can be reasonable, and by which one can be reasonable in believing.
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries there is a second phase in this discussion, where
theologians seek to defend the reasonableness of religious belief against a range of
critics. This study focuses, first, on Paley who, in a number of works, provides ‘evidences’
of Christian religious belief – hence, his identification as an early ‘evidentialist’ – and,
second, on Whately, who presents a more developed account of the forms of argument
and, thereby, of proof and the reasonability of religious belief. Their respective
conceptions of ‘proof’ and religious belief, though sometimes misunderstood, show a
marked shift from those of earlier figures.
Finally, this study investigates a third phase in the discussion of this theme – responses
to the evidentialism of Paley and Whately in Newman, who qualifies and ‘contains’
evidentialism, by making important distinctions concerning faith, reason, and
reasonability; in Clifford, who extends evidentialism and uses it to challenge religious
belief; and in James who, by introducing the notions of ‘overbelief’ and a ‘right to
believe,’ endorses but also limits evidentialism.
This study, then, provides new understanding of the origins of the discussion of reasonableness in Anglo-American philosophical theology; into the relation of reason to
belief and, particularly, to religious believing; into the nature of religious belief; and into
the place of proofs and arguments in determining reasonability in believing and belief.
Esi sifundo siphanda umxholo wokufaneleka kwenkolo yezonqulo kwimfundiso yefilisofi
yamaNgesi namaMelika ukusuka embindini wenkulungwane ye-17 kuya ekuqaleni
kwenkulungwane yama-20. Ngokuhlalutya izicatshulwa eziphambili zikaWilliam
Chillingworth, John Tillotson, John Locke, David Hume, William Paley, Richard Whately,
John Henry Newman, William Clifford, noWilliam James, sifumana inkcazelo
ecwangcisiweyo yokuqiqa kunye nengqiqo, yeenqobo zokuphikisana nobungqina, kunye
nentsingiselo, nenyaniso yenkolelo yezonqulo, kunye nendima yazo ekuqondeni ukuba
“ukuba sengqiqweni kweenkolelo zonqulo” kwakuthetha ntoni kwezakwaLizwi ngeli
xesha eBritani nakuMntla Melika.
Isigaba sokuqala, okanye “esakhayo” sale ngxoxo siqala ngabafundi bezakwaLizwi,
ngenkulungwane ye-17, abanjengoChillingworth noTillotson. Olu phononongo luvavanya
ukuqonda nenkolelo yabo, iindlela zabo zobungqina kunye nokuqiqa, kunye nendima
yesizathu nobungqina phakathi kwethiyoloji yenkolelo, kunye neenqobo zokuziphatha
zabo zokuba yeyiphi inkolelo enokuba sengqiqweni, kwaye iyeyiphi eqiqileyo umntu
anokuyikholelwa.
Ekupheleni kwenkulungwane ye-18 nasekuqaleni kweye-19, kukho isigaba sesibini sale
ngxoxo, apho abafundi bezakwaLizwi befuna ukukhusela ukuba sengqiqweni
kweenkolelo zonqulo bezikhusela kubagxeki abaninzi. Olu phononongo lujolise, kuqala,
kuPaley, othi kwimisebenzi eliqela, aveze “ubungqina” benkolo yobuKrestu – yiyo loo
nto watsho waziwa njenge “ngqina” lokuqala. Okwesibini, uphononongo lujolise Ekupheleni kwenkulungwane ye-18 nasekuqaleni kweye-19, kukho isigaba sesibini sale
ngxoxo, apho abafundi bezakwaLizwi befuna ukukhusela ukuba sengqiqweni
kweenkolelo zonqulo bezikhusela kubagxeki abaninzi. Olu phononongo lujolise, kuqala,
kuPaley, othi kwimisebenzi eliqela, aveze “ubungqina” benkolo yobuKrestu – yiyo loo
nto watsho waziwa njenge “ngqina” lokuqala. Okwesibini, uphononongo lujolise kuWhately, onika ingxelo ethe vetshe ngeengxoxo ezazikho, kwaye, ngaloo ndlela enika
ubungqina kunye nengqiqo yokholo. Uluvo lwabo “lobungqina” kunye nenkolelo
yezenkolo, nangona ngamanye amaxesha ingaqondwa kakuhle, zibonisa ukutshintsha
okuphawulekayo ukusuka koko kwakunjalo ngaphambili.
Okokugqibela olu phononongo luvavanya isigaba sesithathu kwingxoxo yalo mxholo
ngenkulungwane ye-19 – oko kukuthi, iimpendulo kubungqina bukaPaley noWhately
kuNewman, ofanelekileyo kwaye “oqulethe” ubungqina, ngokwenza umahluko
obalulekileyo malunga nokholo, kunye nengqiqo; kuClifford, owandisa ubungqina kwaye
abusebenzise ukuphikisa inkolelo yezokholo; nakuJames owathi, ngokwazisa iingcinga
“zokubaxa kokukholelwa” kunye “nelungelo lokukholelwa” waxhasa kodwa wanciphisa
ubungqina.
Olu phononongo, ke, lubonelela ngokuqonda okutsha ngemvelaphi yengxoxo yokuqiqa kwizifundo zeLizwi zefilosofi yamaNgesi namaMelika: ngokunxulumene nokunxibelelana
kwesizathu nenkolelo kwaye, ngakumbi, kwinkolo; ngokubhekisele kuhlobo lwenkolo;
nangokunxulumene nendawo yobungqina kunye nempikiswano ekumiseleni ukuba
nokuqiqa ekukholweni
Hierdie studie ondersoek die tema van redelikheid van geloofsoortuiging in Engels-
Amerikaanse filosofiese teologie van die middel-17de tot vroeë-20ste eeu. Die ontleding
van kerntekste deur William Chillingworth, John Tillotson, John Locke, David Hume,
William Paley, Richard Whately, John Henry Newman, William Clifford en William James
bied 'n sistematiese weergawe van rede en redelikheid, van die kriteria vir argumente
en bewys, en van die betekenis van waarheid van geloofsoortuigings en die rol daarvan
om te verstaan wat "die redelikheid van godsdienstige geloof " in die teologie van
hierdie tydperk in Brittanje en Noord-Amerika beteken.
Die eerste, of "formatiewe" fase van hierdie bespreking begin met 17de-eeuse teoloë
soos Chillingworth en Tillotson. Hierdie studie bestudeer hul begrip van geloof en
geloofsoortuigings, hul kriteria vir bewys en redelikheid en die rol van rede en bewys in
hul teologie van geloof. Dit draai dan na Locke en Hume wat hierdie begrip van
geloofsoortuigings verfyn het en hul nuwe kriteria waarvolgens geloof redelik kan wees
en waardeur 'n mens redelik kan glo.
In die laat-18de en vroeë-19de eeue is daar 'n tweede fase in hierdie bespreking waar
teoloë die redelikheid van geloofsoortuigings teen 'n aantal kritici wil beskerm. Hierdie
studie fokus eerstens op Paley wat in 'n aantal werke "bewys" van die Christelike
geloofsoortuiging bied – dus word hy as 'n vroeë "bewysregtelike" geïdentifiseer – en
tweedens, op Whately, wat 'n meer ontwikkelde weergawe van die vorme van
argumente, en daarby, bewys van die redelikheid van geloofsoortuiging voorlê. Hulle
onderskeie begrippe van "bewys" en geloofsoortuiging, alhoewel soms misverstaan,
toon 'n duidelike verskuiwing van die vroeëre figure.
Laastens bestudeer hierdie studie 'n derde fase in die bespreking van hierdie tema in die
19de eeu – dit is reaksie op die bewysregtelikheid van Paley en Whately in Newman, wat
bewysregtelikheid kwalifiseer en "insluit" deur belangrike onderskeidings te maak oor
geloof, rede en redelikheid; in Clifford, wat bewysregtelikheid en gebruik uitbrei om
geloofsoortuigings te bevraagteken; en in James, wat bewysregtelikheid deur die idees
van "oorgeloof" en "'n reg om te glo" goedkeur maar ook beperk.
Hierdie studie bied dan 'n nuwe begrip van die oorsprong van die bespreking van
redelikheid in Engels-Amerikaanse filosofiese teologie: rakende die verhouding tussen
rede om te glo en, spesifiek, geloofsoortuiging; die aard van geloofsoortuiging; en die
plek van bewyse en argumente om redelikheid in geloof en oortuiging te bepaal
