God Belief as an Innate Aspect of Human Nature: A Response to John Shook and Questions for Justin Barrett
John Shook’s article “Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed?” (this volume) critiques research findings and writings by Justin Barrett suggesting that god beliefs may be innate among human beings. In response to points raised by Shook, we first discuss several complication...
| Publié dans: | Method & theory in the study of religion |
|---|---|
| Auteurs: | ; ; |
| Collaborateurs: | |
| 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: 387-399 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Dieu
/ Foi
/ Idées innées
/ Science des religions
/ Objectivité
|
| RelBib Classification: | AA Sciences des religions AB Philosophie de la religion AE Psychologie de la religion |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
God
beliefs
religion
spirituality
innateness human nature
evolutionary psychology
|
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
| Résumé: | John Shook’s article “Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed?” (this volume) critiques research findings and writings by Justin Barrett suggesting that god beliefs may be innate among human beings. In response to points raised by Shook, we first discuss several complications that need to be balanced when defining and assessing the innateness hypothesis. Second, we address the question of how both god believers and nonbelievers might have both favorable and unfavorable responses to claims of god beliefs being innate. Third, we consider whether certain additional features, besides (vague) god beliefs themselves, might be part of a human predisposition toward religious belief. We agree with Shook’s claims that researchers’ own beliefs may impact their research questions, methods, and interpretations of findings. Given the pervasive risk of blind spots and biases, we conclude by emphasizing the need for accountability, transparency, skepticism, open-mindedness, and collegiality among scholars. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1570-0682 |
| Référence: | Kommentar zu "Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed? (2017)"
Kommentar zu "On Naturalness, Innateness, and God-beliefs: A Reply to Shook (2017)" Kommentar in "Reply to Commentaries on “Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed?” (2017)" |
| Contient: | In: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-12341400 |