Reply to Commentaries on “Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed?”

The four commentaries on my article “Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed?” only indirectly address my main argument that god-belief is not an innate (natural, normal, and so on) capacity of all humanity. Although scientific disciplines dispute criteria for innate biologi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:  
Bibliographische Detailangaben
1. VerfasserIn: Shook, John R. 1966- (VerfasserIn)
Medienart: Elektronisch Aufsatz
Sprache:Englisch
Verfügbarkeit prüfen: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Lade...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Veröffentlicht: Brill 2017
In: Method & theory in the study of religion
Jahr: 2017, Band: 29, Heft: 4/5, Seiten: 422-428
normierte Schlagwort(-folgen):B Religion / Angeborene Ideen / Kognitive Religionswissenschaft / Anthropologie / Theologie
RelBib Classification:AA Religionswissenschaft
AE Religionspsychologie
FA Theologie
NBE Anthropologie
weitere Schlagwörter:B Religion science of religion anthropology cognitive science theology popular religion
Online Zugang: Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang
Volltext (Verlag)
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The four commentaries on my article “Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed?” only indirectly address my main argument that god-belief is not an innate (natural, normal, and so on) capacity of all humanity. Although scientific disciplines dispute criteria for innate biological functions, there remains little scien-tific evidence of an inherent capacity to our species for getting acquainted with any deity. Theologies looking to science may hope that the right sort of god best fits the right sort of brain. Methodologies for scientifically studying religion should not be in-fluenced by such normative presumptions.
ISSN:1570-0682
Bezug:Kommentar zu "On Naturalness, Innateness, and God-beliefs: A Reply to Shook (2017)"
Kommentar zu "God Belief as an Innate Aspect of Human Nature: A Response to John Shook and Questions for Justin Barrett (2017)"
Kommentar zu "Studying Religion and Trying Theological Applications (2017)"
Kommentar zu "Some Comments on the Alleged Innateness of Religion (2017)"
Enthält:In: Method & theory in the study of religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1163/15700682-12341392