Kognitīvā Reliģijas Zinātne Un Reliģisko Ticību Pamatotības Debates: Cognitive Science of Religion and Debates regarding Justification of Religious Beliefs.
Since the last decades of the 20th century we have been witnessing the emergence of a new 'paradigm' or a new 'standard model' of understanding religion as explained by the new multidisciplinary cognitive sciences and a branch known as the cognitive science of religion (CSR). The...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | Latvian |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
LU Akadēmiskais apgāds
2018
|
| In: |
Cel̜š
Year: 2018, Issue: 69, Pages: 173-197 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | Since the last decades of the 20th century we have been witnessing the emergence of a new 'paradigm' or a new 'standard model' of understanding religion as explained by the new multidisciplinary cognitive sciences and a branch known as the cognitive science of religion (CSR). The findings of CSR have extensively been used for debunking religious beliefs. Theologians and philosophers of religion in turn have responded to these debunking attempts. The debates still go on. This paper (1) outlines some typical CSR conceptions of cognitive mechanisms involved in the formation of religious beliefs (such cognitive mechanisms as epidemiology of ideas, memes, hypersensitive agency detection device, theory of mind mechanism, common-sense dualism, minimally counterintuitive ideas, and others, and such prosocial mechanisms as costly signalling, protection against cheaters, and others), (2) lists some typical formalised religion-debunking arguments derived from cognitive theories of religion, (3) gives examples of religion-/theism-friendly counterarguments and (4) in conclusion shows the impasse of logical refutative argumentation between the involved parties and suggests transposing this communication to a different level, instead engaging in a constructive dialogue. |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Cel̜š
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.22364/cl.69.10 |