Do you want to stay informed about this journal? Click the buttons to subscribe to our alerts.
How Should Theists Respond to Debunking Arguments? A Critique of Hans Van Eyghen’s Arguing from Cognitive Science of Religion
In: Philosophia ReformataAbstract
Cognitive science of religion has inspired several debunking arguments against theistic belief. Hans Van Eyghen’s book Arguing from Cognitive Science of Religion is the first monograph devoted to answering such arguments. This article focuses on Van Eyghen’s responses to two widely discussed debunking arguments, one by Matthew Braddock and another by John Wilkins and Paul Griffiths. Both responses have potential but also face problems. Even if Van Eyghen manages to show that these authors have not fully excluded the possibility of noninferential theistic belief being underpinned by reliable belief-forming processes, he fails to offer convincing reasons to think the processes are in fact reliable. A positive argument for their reliability might ultimately have to be based on evidence for God’s existence, namely, theistic arguments. The question of the rationality of religious belief (de jure) thus cannot be isolated from the question of God’s existence (de facto).
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Alston, W.P. (1995). Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience. London: Cornell University Press.
-
Baker-Hytch, M. (2014a). Reformed Epistemology and Naturalistic Explanations of Religious Belief. PhD dissertation, University of Oxford.
-
Baker-Hytch, M. (2014b). Religious Diversity and Epistemic Luck. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 76 (2), pp. 171–191.
-
Barrett, J.L., and Church, I.M. (2013). Should csr Give Atheists Epistemic Assurance? On Beer-Goggles, bff s, and Skepticism regarding Religious Beliefs. Monist 96 (3), pp. 311–324.
-
Batson, C.D. (2013). Individual Religion, Tolerance, and Universal Compassion. In: S. Clarke, R. Powell, and J. Savulescu, eds., Religion, Intolerance, and Conflict: A Scientific and Conceptual Investigation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 88–116.
-
Braddock, M. (2016). Debunking Arguments and the Cognitive Science of Religion. Theology and Science 14 (3), pp. 268–287.
-
Clark, K.J. (2019). God and the Brain: The Rationality of Belief. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
-
Clark, K.J., and Barrett, J.L. (2011). Reidian Religious Epistemology and the Cognitive Science of Religion. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79 (3), pp. 639–675.
-
Edelman, B. (2009). Markets: Red Light States; Who Buys Online Adult Entertainment? Journal of Economic Perspectives 23 (1), pp. 209–220.
-
Jong, J., and Visala, A. (2014). Evolutionary Debunking Arguments against Theism, Reconsidered. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 76 (3), pp. 243–258.
-
Korman, D.Z. (2019). Debunking Arguments. Philosophy Compass 14 (12). https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12638.
-
Lanman, J.A., and Buhrmester, M.D. (2017). Religious Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Exposure to Credibility-Enhancing Displays Predicts Theism. Religion, Brain & Behavior 7 (1), pp. 3–16.
-
Launonen, L. (2021). Debunking Arguments Gain Little from Cognitive Science of Religion. Zygon 56 (2), pp. 416–433.
-
Leech, D., and Visala, A. (2011). The Cognitive Science of Religion: A Modified Theist Response. Religious Studies 47 (3), pp. 301–316.
-
Levy, N. (2021). Bad Beliefs: Why They Happen to Good People. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Marsh, J. (2013). Darwin and the Problem of Natural Nonbelief. Monist 96 (3), pp. 349–376.
-
Miller, C.B. (2018). The Character Gap: How Good Are We? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Murray, M. (2009). Scientific Explanations of Religion and the Justification of Religious Belief. In: J. Schloss and M. Murray, eds., The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 168–178.
-
Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Perry, S.L. (2018). Not Practicing What You Preach: Religion and Incongruence between Pornography Beliefs and Usage. The Journal of Sex Research 55 (3), pp. 369–380.
-
Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Thurow, J.C. (2013). Does Cognitive Science Show Belief in God to Be Irrational? The Epistemic Consequences of the Cognitive Science of Religion. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (1), pp. 77–98.
-
Van Eyghen, H. (2020). Arguing from Cognitive Science of Religion: Is Religious Belief Debunked? London: Bloomsbury Academic.
-
Van Eyghen, H., and Bennett, C.T. (2022). Did Natural Selection Select for True Religious Beliefs? Religious Studies 58 (1), pp. 113–137.
-
Wahlberg, M. (2014). Revelation as Testimony: A Philosophical-Theological Study. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
-
Wahlberg, M. (2020). Divine Revelation. In: E.N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/divine-revelation/.
-
Wilkins, J.S., and Griffiths, P.E. (2013). Evolutionary Debunking Arguments in Three Domains: Fact, Value, and Religion. In: G.W. Dawes and J. Maclaurin, eds., A New Science of Religion, New York: Routledge, pp. 132–146.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 212 | 137 | 16 |
| Full Text Views | 6 | 6 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 14 | 13 | 5 |
How Should Theists Respond to Debunking Arguments? A Critique of Hans Van Eyghen’s Arguing from Cognitive Science of Religion
In: Philosophia ReformataAbstract
Cognitive science of religion has inspired several debunking arguments against theistic belief. Hans Van Eyghen’s book Arguing from Cognitive Science of Religion is the first monograph devoted to answering such arguments. This article focuses on Van Eyghen’s responses to two widely discussed debunking arguments, one by Matthew Braddock and another by John Wilkins and Paul Griffiths. Both responses have potential but also face problems. Even if Van Eyghen manages to show that these authors have not fully excluded the possibility of noninferential theistic belief being underpinned by reliable belief-forming processes, he fails to offer convincing reasons to think the processes are in fact reliable. A positive argument for their reliability might ultimately have to be based on evidence for God’s existence, namely, theistic arguments. The question of the rationality of religious belief (de jure) thus cannot be isolated from the question of God’s existence (de facto).
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 212 | 137 | 16 |
| Full Text Views | 6 | 6 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 14 | 13 | 5 |