RT Article
T1 Is supernatural belief unreliably formed?
JF International journal for philosophy of religion
VO 85
IS 2
SP 125
OP 148
A1 Eyghen, Hans van ca. 21. Jh.
LA English
PB Springer Science + Business Media B. V
YR 2019
UL https://ixtheo.de/Record/1663422419
AB I criticize 5 arguments for the conclusion that religious belief is unreliably formed and hence epistemically tainted. The arguments draw on scientific evidence from Cognitive Science of Religion. They differ considerably as to why the evidence points to unreliability. Two arguments conclude to unreliability because religious belief is shaped by evolutionary pressures; another argument states that the mechanism responsible for religious belief produces many false god-beliefs; a similar argument claims that the mechanism produces incompatible god-beliefs; and a final argument states that the mechanism is offtrack. I argue that the arguments fail to make the case for unreliability or that the unreliability can be overcome.
K1 cognitive science of religion
K1 debunking arguments
K1 Rationality of religious belief
K1 Reliabilism
K1 Religious Epistemology
DO 10.1007/s11153-018-9671-4