Some Comments on the Alleged Innateness of Religion
This response assesses the claim that Barrett views religious beliefs as non-cultural entities that stem from “innate” cognitive systems “meant for” a “singular idea of God.” By briefly reviewing the literature and Barrett’s actual position—that people are especially sensitive to learning religious...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Recurso Electrónico Artigo |
| Idioma: | Inglês |
| Verificar disponibilidade: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Publicado em: |
2017
|
| Em: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
Ano: 2017, Volume: 29, Número: 4/5, Páginas: 411-421 |
| (Cadeias de) Palavra- chave padrão: | B
Fé
/ Ideias inatas
/ Religião natural
/ Kognitive Religionswissenschaft
|
| Classificações IxTheo: | AA Ciências da religião AE Psicologia da religião |
| Outras palavras-chave: | B
Cognition
naturalness of religion
cognitive science of religion
|
| Acesso em linha: |
Volltext (Publisher) |
| Resumo: | This response assesses the claim that Barrett views religious beliefs as non-cultural entities that stem from “innate” cognitive systems “meant for” a “singular idea of God.” By briefly reviewing the literature and Barrett’s actual position—that people are especially sensitive to learning religious beliefs by virtue of cognitive systems that function in domains more mundane than religion—I conclude that the target article misrepresents Barrett’s views about the naturalness of religion. |
|---|---|
| Descrição Física: | Online-Ressource |
| ISSN: | 1570-0682 |
| Reference: | Kommentar zu "Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed? (2017)"
Kommentar in "Reply to Commentaries on “Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed?” (2017)" |
| Obras secundárias: | In: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-12341403 |
