Abstract

This thesis seeks to show William James's and Miguel de Unamuno's views on the justification of religious faith. It traces James's influence on Unamuno by providing an account of the development of Unamuno's thought on religion and the concept of truth. The thesis documents the autochthonous pragmatic tenency of Unamuno which emerges after 1897. At that time his works begin to show a concern with the relationship between belief and action, and with the role of practical considerations in the justification of faith. The thesis seeks to show how the pragmatic tendency becomes stronger after 1902 when Unamuno read and studied James's philosophical works. ;It provides an account of how James and Unamuno sought to find a place for religious faith without giving up the growing legacy of scientific practice and scientific knowledge. According to them, religious faith belongs within the state of mind of belief, which is a phenomenon of wider scope. Belief is fundamental to the moral quality and value of human life. The thesis documents how each attempted to justify faith as part of this wider phenomenon and their criticism of the dominant philosophical tradition for not paying sufficient attention to it. ;In addition to showing these similarities between James and Unamuno, it focuses on their differences on the doctrine of religious faith. James wanted to show that certain religious beliefs are rationally justifiable though fallible. Unamuno maintained that certain religious beliefs are inconsistent with reason, fallible, and yet justifiable. ;The thesis emphasizes their differences with respect to whether faith ought to be consistent with reason or not. It gives an account of Unamuno's critique of rationalism and of his critique of James's rational advocacy. Unamuno maintained that to offer a solution to the religious question, as James did, can only obscure the basic contradiction he finds in human experience. The thesis provides an interpretation of Unamuno's analysis of human experience and a comparison with James's rational approach