Religious Belief is Not Natural : Why Cognitive Science of Religion Does Not Show That Religious Belief is Trustworthy

• Autorzy: Hans Van Eyghen
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

It is widely acknowledged that the new emerging discipline cognitive science of religion has a bearing on how to think about the epistemic status of religious beliefs. Both defenders and opponents of the rationality of religious belief have used cognitive theories of religion to argue for their point. This paper will look at the defender-side of the debate. I will discuss an often used argument in favor of the trustworthiness of religious beliefs, stating that cognitive science of religion shows that religious beliefs are natural and natural beliefs ought to be trusted in the absence of counterevidence. This argument received its most influential defense from Justin Barrett in a number of papers, some in collaboration with Kelly James Clark. I will discuss their version of the argument and argue that it fails because the natural beliefs discovered by cognitive scientists of religion are not the religious beliefs of the major world religions. A survey of the evidence from cognitive science of religion will show that cognitive science does show that other beliefs come natural and that these can thus be deemed trustworthy in the absence of counterevidence. These beliefs are teleological beliefs, afterlife beliefs and animistic theistic beliefs. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Religion; Religious policy; Credibility; Cognitive processes

PL

Religia; Polityka wyznaniowa; Wiarygodność; Procesy poznawcze

• Czasopismo: Studia Humana
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 5(4)
• Strony: 34--44

Twórcy

autor

Hans Van Eyghen

• VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Bibliografia

• 1. Alston, William P. Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience. Cornell University Press: Ithaca (N.Y.), 1991.
• 2. Barrett, Justin L. Why Would Anyone Believe in God? Altamira Press: Walnut Creek, 2004.
• 3. Barrett, Justin L. Is the Spell Really Broken? Biopsychological Explanations of Religion and Theistic Belief. Theology and Science, 5, 2007, pp. 57-72.
• 4. Barrett, Justin L. Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief. Free Press: New York, 2012.
• 5. Barrett, Justin L., Church, Ian M. Should CSR Give Atheists Epistemic Assurance? On Beer-goggles, BFFs, and Skepticism Regarding Religious Belief. The Monist, 96, 2013, pp. 311-324.
• 6. Bary, P. de. Thomas Reid and Scepticism. His Reliabilist Response. Routledge: London, 2002.
• 7. Bering, J. The Existential Theory of Mind. Review of General Psychology, 6, 2002, pp. 3-24.
• 8. Bering, J. The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London, 2012.
• 9. Bering, J., Bjorklund, D. F. The Natural Emergence of Reasoning About the Afterlife as a Developmental Regularity. Developmental Psychology, 40, 2004, pp. 217-234.
• 10. Bering, J., Blasi, C. H., Bjorklund, D. F. The Development of 'Afterlife' Beliefs in Religiously and Secularly Schooled Children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 2005, pp. 587607.
• 11. Bloom, P. Religion is Natural. Developmental Science, 10, 2007, pp. 147-151.
• 12. Boyer, P. Religion Explained: The Human Instincts That Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors. Vintage: London, 2002.
• 13. Casler, K., Kelemen, D. Developmental Continuity in Teleo-Functional Explanation: Reasoning About Nature Among Romanian Romani Adults. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9, 2008, pp. 340-362.
• 14. Clark, K.J., Barrett, J.L. Reformed Epistemology and the Cognitive Science of Religion. Faith and Philosophy, 27, 2010.
• 15. Clark, K.J., Barrett, J.L. Reidian Religious Epistemology and the Cognitive Science of Religion. Journal of the American academy of religion, 2011, pp. 1-37.
• 16. Dawes, G.W., Jong, J. Defeating the Christian's Claim to Warrant. Philo, 15, 2013, pp. 127-44.
• 17. Dawes, G.W., Maclaurin, J. A New Science of Religion, Routledge: London, 2012.
• 18. De Cruz, H., De Smedt, J. A Natural History of Natural Theology. The Cognitive Science of Theology and Philosophy of Religion. MIT Press: Cambridge (MA) London, 2015.
• 19. Foster, J. A. The Immaterial Self: A Defense of the Cartesian Dualist Conception of Mind. Routledge: London, 1991.
• 20. Granqvist, P., Kirkpatrick, L. A. Attachment and religious representations and behavior. In. I. J. Cassidy, P. R. Shaver (eds.). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. Guilford: New York, 2008, pp. 906-933.
• 21. Granqvist, P., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R. Religion as Attachment: Normative Processes and Individual Differences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 2010, pp. 49-59.
• 22. Gray, K., Waytz, A., Young, L. The Moral Dyad: A Fundamental Template Unifying Moral Judgment. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 2012, pp. 206-215.
• 23. Gray, K., Wegner, D. M. Blaming God for Our Pain: Human Suffering and the Divine Mind. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 2010, pp. 7-16.
• 24. Horst, S. Notions of Intuition in Cognitive Science of Religion. The Monist, (3) 96, 2013, pp. 377-398.
• 25. Hume, D. The Natural History of Religion. Clarendon: Oxford, 1976.
• 26. Jong, J. How Not to Criticize the (Evolutionary) Cognitive Science of Religion. 2014. http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/criticize-evolutionary-cognitive-sciencereligion/ [09/07/2015].
• 27. Jong, J., Kavanagh, Ch., Visala, A. Born idolaters: The limits of the philosophical implications of the cognitivescience of religion. Neue Zeitschrift fur Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie, 57, 2015, pp. 244-66.
• 28. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin: London, 2012.
• 29. Kelemen, D. The Scope of Teleological Thinking in Preschool Children. Cognition, 70, 1999, pp. 241-272.
• 30. Kelemen, D. Are Children "Intuitive Theists"?: Reasoning About Purpose and Design in Nature. Psychological Science, 15, 2004, pp. 295-301.
• 31. Kirkpatrick, L. A. Attachment, Evolution, and the Psychology of Religion. Guilford Press: New York, London, 2005.
• 32. Marsh, J. Darwin and the Problem of Natural Nonbelief. The Monist, 96, 2013, pp. 349-376.
• 33. McCauley, R. N. Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not. Oxford University Press, 2011.
• 34. Murray, M., Goldberg, A. Evolutionary Accounts of Religion: Explaining and Explaining Away. In. J. Schloss, M. Murray (eds.). The Believing Primate. Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion. Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 179-199.
• 35. Nola, R. Do Naturalistic Explanations of Religious Beliefs Debunk Religion? In. G. W. Dawes, J. Maclaurin (eds.). A New Science of Religion. Routledge: New York London, 2013.
• 36. Norenzayan, A. Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict. Princeton University Press: Princeton New Jersey, 2013.
• 37. Plantinga, A. Is Belief in God Properly Basic? Nous, 15, 1981, pp. 41-51.
• 38. Plantinga, A. Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford University Press: New York, 1993.
• 39. Plantinga, A. Warranted Christian belief. Oxford University Press: New York, 2000.
• 40. Schloss, J., Murray, M. J. The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion. Oxford University Press: New York, 2009.
• 41. Shariff, A. F., Norenzayan, A. God Is Watching You: Priming God Concepts Increases Prosocial Behavior In an Anonymous Economic Game. Psychological Science, 18, 2007, pp. 803809.
• 42. Swinburne, R. Substance Dualism. Faith and Philosophy, 26, 2009, pp. 501-513.
• 43. Van Woudenberg, R. Perceptual Relativism, Scepticism, and Thomas Reid. Reid Studies, 3, 2000, pp. 65-90.
• 44. Wilkins, J. S., Griffiths, P. E. Evolutionary Debunking Arguments in Three Domains. In. G. W. Dawes, J. Maclaurin (eds.). A New Science of Religion. Routledge: London, 2012.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/sh-2016-0022