Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed?
Proposals that god-belief is an innate capacity of all humanity have not been confirmed by empirical studies. Scientific disciplines presently lean against god-belief’s innateness. Perhaps religion should be relieved that belief in gods is not innate. Intuitive cognitive functions supporting god-bel...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Brill
2017
|
| Dans: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
Année: 2017, Volume: 29, Numéro: 4/5, Pages: 353-373 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Dieu
/ Foi
/ Idées innées
/ Kognitive Religionswissenschaft
/ Anthropologie
/ Théologie
|
| RelBib Classification: | AA Sciences des religions AB Philosophie de la religion AE Psychologie de la religion FA Théologie NBE Anthropologie |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Religion
science of religion
anthropology
cognitive science
theology
popular religion
|
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
| Résumé: | Proposals that god-belief is an innate capacity of all humanity have not been confirmed by empirical studies. Scientific disciplines presently lean against god-belief’s innateness. Perhaps religion should be relieved that belief in gods is not innate. Intuitive cognitive functions supporting god-belief offer little convergence upon any god. Religious pluralism back to the Stone Age displays no consensus either. Any cognition for god-belief can only be deemed as mostly or entirely misleading. Theology has tried to forestall that skeptical judgment, by dictating what counts as authentic religiosity and who enjoys a valid idea of god. Justin Barrett exemplifies this theological interference with scientific inquiry. Contorting the anthropology and cognitive science of religion too far, his quest for a primal natural religion won’t match up with his search for intuitive conceptions of god. His quest for god-belief’s innateness devolves into theological dogmatism, deepening doubts that scientific theories of religion will validate god-belief. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1570-0682 |
| Référence: | Kommentar in "On Naturalness, Innateness, and God-beliefs: A Reply to Shook (2017)"
Kommentar in "God Belief as an Innate Aspect of Human Nature: A Response to John Shook and Questions for Justin Barrett (2017)" Kommentar in "Studying Religion and Trying Theological Applications (2017)" Kommentar in "Some Comments on the Alleged Innateness of Religion (2017)" |
| Contient: | In: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-12341389 |