Reidian Religious Epistemology and the Cognitive Science of Religion

Abstract

Some contemporary philosophers defend the claim that it is rational to believe that God exists even if that belief is not based on evidence. Many such defenses are developed from a religious epistemology inspired by the work of Thomas Reid's "common sense" epistemology that posits the existence of numerous cognitive faculties that nonreflectively deliver beliefs. Reid argued that one is justified in believing the automatic deliverances of these faculties unless evidence mounts to contradict them. Reformed Epistemologists have suggested that, likewise, one should give the benefit of the doubt to beliefs that are produced by a god-faculty or sensus divinitatis. Recent research in the cognitive science of religion provides new reasons to believe that humans are naturally endowed with cognitive faculties that stimulate belief in the divine. We discuss these scientific findings in relation to the arguments of Reformed Epistemologists and also with regard to arguments against the rational justification of religious beliefs.

Unnatural comparisons: commentary on Robert McCauley'sWhy Religion is Natural and Science is Not

“…6. In doing so, I follow language used by Clark & Barrett (2011 Sperber (1996) and Pascal to the effect that it does not matter how agency beliefs arise and that they could just be the result of ''random variation' ' (p. 159). An appeal to unsubstantiated random variation, however, is hardly an explanation.…”

Should CSR Give Atheists Epistemic Assurance? On Beer-Goggles, BFFs, and Skepticism Regarding Religious Beliefs

“…7 A similar argument is developed by Clark and Barrett (2011). natural selection, it suggests that some false belief systems and subsequent behaviors are actually encouraged by natural selection. Some false beliefs lead to better fitness.…”

Cognitive Science of Religion and Folk Theistic Belief

“…In what follows I will use Clark and Barrett's () response to this type of debunking argument as a foil for my discussion. Not only is their exposition clear, I take their response to be representative of the way a number of others have responded to the putative threat posed by the standard model in particular and the cognitive science of religion in general.…”

“…If God is the first and originating cause of the universe (including all natural laws) and if God were to guide or direct the natural evolutionary processes so that they produced a god‐faculty so that people could and would come to form true beliefs about God, then God would be the ultimate cause of our God beliefs. (Clark and Barrett , 660)…”