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

Barrett, Justin L.; Church, Ian M.

doi:10.5840/monist201396314

Cited by 25 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An argument in the debate over the philosophical implications of the cognitive science of religion states that cognitive theories of religion increase the epistemic status of religious beliefs because they show that religious beliefs are natural. The argument was most prominently defended in several articles by Justin Barrett; both in papers of his hand alone and in collaboration with Kelly James Clark [3], [4], [5], [8], but has its roots in work by Alvin Plantinga [39]. They claim that it is rational 1 to trust natural outputs of human cognitive mechanisms as long as there are no good reasons to doubt them.…”

Section: Naturalness Of Religious Beliefs As Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They do not refer to a design plan and adopt a more general strategy. Especially Justin Barrett stresses how our cognitive make-up naturally produces religious beliefs [3], [5]. He uses the term 'natural', not as opposed to supernatural, but roughly as the opposite of cultural or learned.…”

Section: Naturalness Of Religious Beliefs As Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result the innocent status of natural beliefs is always preliminary since we cannot know what future defeaters will be found. Plantinga argues that there are no convincing defeaters for religious beliefs 5 . Barrett and Clark seem to hold similar views.…”

Section: Naturalness Of Religious Beliefs As Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Religious Belief is Not Natural. Why Cognitive Science of Religion Does Not Show That Religious Belief is Trustworthy

Eyghen

2016

Studia Humana

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely acknowledged that the new emerging discipline cognitive science of religion has a bearing on how to think about the epistemic status of religious beliefs. Both defenders and opponents of the rationality of religious belief have used cognitive theories of religion to argue for their point. This paper will look at the defender-side of the debate. I will discuss an often used argument in favor of the trustworthiness of religious beliefs, stating that cognitive science of religion shows that religious beliefs are natural and natural beliefs ought to be trusted in the absence of counterevidence. This argument received its most influential defense from Justin Barrett in a number of papers, some in collaboration with Kelly James Clark. I will discuss their version of the argument and argue that it fails because the natural beliefs discovered by cognitive scientists of religion are not the religious beliefs of the major world religions. A survey of the evidence from cognitive science of religion will show that cognitive science does show that other beliefs come natural and that these can thus be deemed trustworthy in the absence of counterevidence. These beliefs are teleological beliefs, afterlife beliefs and animistic theistic beliefs.

show abstract

Section: Naturalness Of Religious Beliefs As Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Naturalness Of Religious Beliefs As Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Religious Belief is Not Natural. Why Cognitive Science of Religion Does Not Show That Religious Belief is Trustworthy

Eyghen

2016

Studia Humana

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Like Reformed Epistemologists, they add that immediately and non-reflectively formed beliefs merit an innocentuntil-proven-guilty status and are thus prima facie justified. Justin Barrett made a similar argument in collaboration with Ian Church (Barrett and Church 2013).…”

Section: Csr and Religious Epistemologymentioning

confidence: 89%

The Cognitive Science of Religion, Philosophy and Theology: A Survey of the Issues

Eyghen

Peels

Brink

2018

New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) is still a rather young discipline. Depending on what one deems to be the first paper or book in the field, the discipline is now almost forty or almost thirty years old. Philosophical and theological discussion on CSR started in the late 2000s. From its onset, the main focus has been the (potential) epistemic consequences of CSR, and this focus is dominant even today. Some of those involved in the debate discussed the relevance of CSR for further issues in philosophy of religion, and other have examined how CSR weighs in on various theological questions. Finally, a small number of philosophers offered criticisms or support for various CSR-theories. In this chapter, we give an overview of the debates so far and provide an outline of the book.

show abstract

“…CSR outputs produced through methodological naturalism can be augmented or amplified by specific religious communities. Some scholars, for example, have opted to interpret CSR perspectives on the naturalness of human religiosity through the work of the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Thomas Reid, arguing that cognitive dispositions towards religious expression may constitute a 'common grace' bestowed by God (Barrett and Church 2013). ... No scientific explanation is ever complete.…”

Section: Do Mystical Experiences Enhance Social Cooperation?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mysticism and Mind: Using Cognitive Science to Explore Religious Experience

Hornbeck¹,

Sears²

2015

EJPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article derives from a paper presented at the Philosophy of Religion and Mysticism Conference hosted by the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, May 22-24, 2014. That paper introduced theories and methods drawn from the ‘cognitive science of religion’ (CSR) and suggested future avenues of research connecting CSR and scholarship on mysticism. Towards these same ends, the present article proceeds in three parts. Part I outlines the origins, aims, and basic tenets of CSR research. Part II discusses one specific causal perspective that informs a wide range of CSR research, Sperber’s ‘epidemiological’ approach to cultural expression, and connects this perspective to the example of creator deities. Part III discusses some possible future directions for CSR research concerning mysticism and mystical experience. Finally, a coda addresses two common misunderstandings concerning the ‘reductionist’ nature of CSR research.

show abstract

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

Abstract: Recent work in cognitive science of religion (CSR) is beginning to converge on a very interesting thesis -that, given the ordinary features of human minds operating in typical human environments, we are naturally disposed to believe in the existence of gods, among other religious ideas

Cited by 25 publications

References 3 publications

Religious Belief is Not Natural. Why Cognitive Science of Religion Does Not Show That Religious Belief is Trustworthy

Religious Belief is Not Natural. Why Cognitive Science of Religion Does Not Show That Religious Belief is Trustworthy

The Cognitive Science of Religion, Philosophy and Theology: A Survey of the Issues

Mysticism and Mind: Using Cognitive Science to Explore Religious Experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About