On Naturalness, Innateness, and God-beliefs: A Reply to Shook
Shook (2017) argues that if god-beliefs are “innate,” one is obligated to be skeptical about them by virtue of their mutually incompatible plurality and nativist origin. Second, Shook suggests that even if god-beliefs are not innate, it is still epistemically vicious to believe in gods. Shook also r...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
2017
|
| In: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
Year: 2017, Volume: 29, Issue: 4/5, Pages: 374-386 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
God
/ Faith
/ Innate ideas
/ Natural religion
/ Kognitive Religionswissenschaft
|
| IxTheo Classification: | AA Study of religion AB Philosophy of religion; criticism of religion; atheism AE Psychology of religion |
| Further subjects: | B
cognitive science of religion
epistemology
god-beliefs
innate
religion
|
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Verlag) |
| Summary: | Shook (2017) argues that if god-beliefs are “innate,” one is obligated to be skeptical about them by virtue of their mutually incompatible plurality and nativist origin. Second, Shook suggests that even if god-beliefs are not innate, it is still epistemically vicious to believe in gods. Shook also raises concerns about using theology to motivate or interpret scientific inquiry. This response essay clarifies the character of the theories offered in the cognitive science of religion (csr), including rejecting that innateness of god-beliefs is a common view. Shook’s primary claims are then evaluated with the conclusion that they are not adequately argued or substantiated. |
|---|---|
| Physical Description: | Online-Ressource |
| ISSN: | 1570-0682 |
| Reference: | Kommentar zu "Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed? (2017)"
Kommentar in "God Belief as an Innate Aspect of Human Nature: A Response to John Shook and Questions for Justin Barrett (2017)" Kommentar in "Reply to Commentaries on “Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed?” (2017)" |
| Contains: | In: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-12341399 |