Some Comments on the Alleged Innateness of Religion
This response assesses the claim that Barrett views religious beliefs as non-cultural entities that stem from “innate” cognitive systems “meant for” a “singular idea of God.” By briefly reviewing the literature and Barrett’s actual position—that people are especially sensitive to learning religious...
| Publié dans: | Method & theory in the study of religion |
|---|---|
| Auteur principal: | |
| 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: 411-421 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Foi
/ Idées innées
/ Religion naturelle
/ Kognitive Religionswissenschaft
|
| RelBib Classification: | AA Sciences des religions AE Psychologie de la religion |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Cognition
naturalness of religion
cognitive science of religion
|
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
| Résumé: | This response assesses the claim that Barrett views religious beliefs as non-cultural entities that stem from “innate” cognitive systems “meant for” a “singular idea of God.” By briefly reviewing the literature and Barrett’s actual position—that people are especially sensitive to learning religious beliefs by virtue of cognitive systems that function in domains more mundane than religion—I conclude that the target article misrepresents Barrett’s views about the naturalness of religion. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1570-0682 |
| Référence: | Kommentar zu "Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed? (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: 10.1163/15700682-12341403 |