{"title":"宗教、可靠性和感知上帝的认知科学","authors":"Jeffrey Tolly","doi":"10.1080/14746700.2023.2230436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n Matthew Braddock’s argument from false god beliefs (AFG) is one of the most significant debunking arguments to emerge from the growing literature on Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR). This argument aims to produce a defeater for any basic theistic belief. In this essay, I reply to AFG by defending a counter-example to AFG’s crucial premise. In particular, I argue that the cognitive mechanisms posited by CSR do not “significantly contribute” to perceptually based theistic belief formation in the way that AFG claims. As a result, a large class of basic theistic beliefs remains undefeated in the face of AFG.","PeriodicalId":56045,"journal":{"name":"Theology and Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive Science of Religion, Reliability, and Perceiving God\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey Tolly\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14746700.2023.2230436\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT\\n Matthew Braddock’s argument from false god beliefs (AFG) is one of the most significant debunking arguments to emerge from the growing literature on Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR). This argument aims to produce a defeater for any basic theistic belief. In this essay, I reply to AFG by defending a counter-example to AFG’s crucial premise. In particular, I argue that the cognitive mechanisms posited by CSR do not “significantly contribute” to perceptually based theistic belief formation in the way that AFG claims. As a result, a large class of basic theistic beliefs remains undefeated in the face of AFG.\",\"PeriodicalId\":56045,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theology and Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theology and Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2023.2230436\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theology and Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2023.2230436","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cognitive Science of Religion, Reliability, and Perceiving God
ABSTRACT
Matthew Braddock’s argument from false god beliefs (AFG) is one of the most significant debunking arguments to emerge from the growing literature on Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR). This argument aims to produce a defeater for any basic theistic belief. In this essay, I reply to AFG by defending a counter-example to AFG’s crucial premise. In particular, I argue that the cognitive mechanisms posited by CSR do not “significantly contribute” to perceptually based theistic belief formation in the way that AFG claims. As a result, a large class of basic theistic beliefs remains undefeated in the face of AFG.
期刊介绍：
Membership of The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS) includes a subscription to Theology and Science . To become a member, please click here to view the current options.
The primary editorial goal of Theology and Science is to publish critically reviewed articles that promote the creative mutual interaction between the natural sciences and theology. While the journal assumes the integrity of each domain, its primary aim is to explore this interaction in terms of the implications of the natural sciences for constructive research in philosophical and systematic theology, the philosophical and theological elements within and underlying theoretical research in the natural sciences, and the relations and interactions between theological and scientific methodologies.
The secondary editorial goal is to monitor and critically assess debates and controversies arising in the broader field of science and religion. Thus, Theology and Science will investigate, analyze, and report on issues as they arise with the intention of prompting further academic discussion of them.This editorial policy is formulated with the guiding confidence that a serious dialogue between science and theology will lead to a variety of new and progressive research programs, and that these in turn will yield new insights, deeper understanding, and new knowledge at the frontiers of science and religion.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
