An Atheistic Argument from Naturalistic Explanations of Religious Belief: A Preliminary Reply to Robert Nola
Robert Nola has recently defended an argument against the existence of God on the basis of naturalistic explanations of religious belief. I will critically evaluate his argument in this paper. Nola’s argument takes the form of an inference to the best explanation: since the naturalistic stance offer...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
MDPI
2022
|
In: |
Religions
Year: 2022, Volume: 13, Issue: 11 |
Further subjects: | B
hypersensitive agency detection device
B Robert Nola B cognitive science of religion B naturalistic explanation of religious belief |
Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
Summary: | Robert Nola has recently defended an argument against the existence of God on the basis of naturalistic explanations of religious belief. I will critically evaluate his argument in this paper. Nola’s argument takes the form of an inference to the best explanation: since the naturalistic stance offers a better explanation of religious belief relative to the theistic explanation, the ontology of God(s) is eliminated. I rebut Nola’s major assumption that naturalistic explanations and theistic explanations of religion are incompatible. I go on to criticize Nola’s proposed naturalistic explanations: Freudianism, a Hypersensitive Agency Detection Device, and a Moralising Mind-Policing God. I find these inadequate as actual explanations of religious belief. Even if they are correct, they will not show that theism is false. So Nola’s argument fails to convince. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2077-1444 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Religions
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.3390/rel13111084 |