Mansel’s contemporaries saw him either as a critic of rational theology or as a rather unusual apologist for the Christian faith. These two aspects of his thought are connected, for as we shall see in later chapters, his apology grows out of his criticism. Almost totally ignored was his constructive effort to build a foundation for religious belief upon a religious empiricism. This neglect is unfortunate, for it is this aspect of Mansel’s thought which has the greatest relevance for expansion in the current discussion of philosophy of religion. This is seen by a comparison with the work of Mr. Crombie.
KeywordsEmpirical Approach Moral Obligation Moral Intuition Christian Faith Moral Experience
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.I. M. Crombie, “Theology and Falsification,” New Essays in Philosophical Theology, Flew & Macintyre, eds. (London: SCM Press, 1955), pp. 109–130.Google Scholar
- 4.Edwin A. Burtt, Types of Religious Philosophy (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951), pp. 284–289.Google Scholar
- 18a.Mansel’s position is close to that which appears in Kant’s Opus Postumum. In this work, one sees Kant rejecting his moral proof for God’s existence and suggesting that the moral experience itself may be regarded as an experience of the divine. Kant, in this work writes, “The categorical imperative leads directly to God;...” or again, “in morally-practical reason... God reveals himself.” (T. M. Greene and H. H. Hudson, “Introduction,” Kant; Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone Chicago: Open Court, 1934, p. lxvi). However, the Opus Postumum was not edited until 1920, and it is unlikely that Mansel knew of this development in Kant’s thought.Google Scholar