Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:53:55.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disagreement, design, and Thomas Reid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

René van Woudenberg
René van Woudenberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, VU University, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
*Email: R.van.Woudenberg@vu.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that Reid's first principle of design can be more widely accepted then one might suppose, due to the fact that it specifies no marks of design. Also it is explicated that the relation of the principle, on the one hand, and properly basic design beliefs on the other, is a relation of presupposition. It is furthermore suggested that Reid's discussion of what can be done in case of disagreement about first principles points to a position that is relevant to the current debates in the Epistemology of Disagreement literature and that merits further elaboration.

Keywords

Thomas Reiddisagreementdesignfirst principlesepistemology
Type
Mind, Language, Metaphysics
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 41 , Issue S1: New Essays on Reid , July 2011 , pp. 224 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrett, Justin 2009. “Cognitive Science, Religion, and Theology.” In The Believing Primate. Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origins of Religion, edited by Schloss, Jeffrey and Murray, Michael 76–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, Daniel and Plantinga, Alvin 2011. Science and Religion. Are they Compatible? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard and Warfield, Ted A. eds. 2010. Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Thomas 2011. “Consensus Gentium: Reflections on the ‘common consent’ argument for the existence of God.” In Evidence and religious belief, edited by Clark, Kelly James and Vanarragon, Ray J. 135–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratzsch, Del 2001. Nature, Science, Design. The Status of Design in Natural Science. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Ratzsch, Del 2003. “Perceiving Design.” In God and Design. The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, edited by Manson, Neil A. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas 1763 [2002]. Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. Edited by Brookes, Derek Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
van Woudenberg, René 2013. “Thomas Reid Between Externalism and Internalism.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 51: 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas 2001. Thomas Reid and the Story of Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar