Is supernatural belief unreliably formed?

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
I criticize 5 arguments for the conclusion that religious belief is unreliably formed and hence epistemically tainted. The arguments draw on scientific evidence from Cognitive Science of Religion. They differ considerably as to why the evidence points to unreliability. Two arguments conclude to unreliability because religious belief is shaped by evolutionary pressures; another argument states that the mechanism responsible for religious belief produces many false god-beliefs; a similar argument claims that the mechanism produces incompatible god-beliefs; and a final argument states that the mechanism is offtrack. I argue that the arguments fail to make the case for unreliability or that the unreliability can be overcome.
Reprint years
2018, 2019
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
VANISB-2
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-05-17
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2018-04-30

Total views
168 ( #18,839 of 42,375 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
25 ( #23,935 of 42,375 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.