The god-faculty dilemma: challenges for reformed epistemology in the light of cognitive science
Reformed epistemology (RE) involves a view of knowledge of God which Kelly James Clark and Justin Barrett have brought cognitive science to bear on. They argue that the cognitive science of religion (CSR) indicates that we have a ‘god-faculty’, a notion employed by Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga contend...
| Главный автор: | |
|---|---|
| Формат: | Электронный ресурс Статья |
| Язык: | Английский |
| Проверить наличие: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Загрузка...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Опубликовано: |
Taylor & Francis
2020
|
| В: |
International journal of philosophy and theology
Год: 2020, Том: 81, Выпуск: 4, Страницы: 404-422 |
| Нормированные ключевые слова (последовательности): | B
Когнитивистика
/ Религия (мотив)
/ Рациональность
/ Бог (мотив)
|
| Индексация IxTheo: | AE Психология религии CF Христианство и наука NBC Бог |
| Другие ключевые слова: | B
Cognitive Science
B HADD B God B Reformed Epistemology B Debunking B Эволюция |
| Online-ссылка: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Итог: | Reformed epistemology (RE) involves a view of knowledge of God which Kelly James Clark and Justin Barrett have brought cognitive science to bear on. They argue that the cognitive science of religion (CSR) indicates that we have a ‘god-faculty’, a notion employed by Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga contends that if there is a God, then we have a specialized god-faculty. Clark and Barrett, by contrast, focus on the empirical evidence and point to a different, less specialized faculty. This difference is significant for how RE and CSR relate. The paper argues that a dilemma arises for those who bring RE and CSR together. A choice must be made between two interpretations of the god-faculty. ‘God-faculty 1ʹ is a specialized system for forming theistic beliefs. Findings in CSR indicate that there is no such system. ‘God-faculty 2ʹ is an unrefined tendency to form beliefs in superhuman agents. This thesis has empirical support in CSR. However, this faculty is unable to deliver the epistemic goods needed for the immediate, non-inferential knowledge of God RE describes. This shows that those who combine central contentions in RE with current research in CSR face a dilemma from which it is hard to escape. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2169-2335 |
| Второстепенные работы: | Enthalten in: International journal of philosophy and theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/21692327.2020.1753095 |