Religious Belief and the Problems of Cognitivity and Commitment: A Reappraisal Based on Contemporary Philosophy of Science
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1991)
Chapter One surveys two prominent perspectives, each held by representative philosophers and theologians: a neo-positivist perspective that religious belief is not rational and a neo-Wittgensteinian perspective that RB may be rational but only as determined by criteria internal to RB. Both perspective sharply differentiate religion from science, maintaining that religious beliefs are either not cognitive or cognitively different and that religious commitment must be absolute. I suggest that both perspectives utilize inadequate and unnecessary perceptions of science as well as religion. ;Chapter Two exposes some prominent problems with the views of science utilized by the neo-positivists and neo-Wittgensteinians. It examines Thomas Kuhn's ideas on objectivity, commitment, incommensurability, and theory preference and Karl Popper's thoughts on falsifiability, rationality, justification, and theory choice. It offers some preliminary possibilities regarding how the changing picture of science might affect the issues of cognitivity, criticizability, and justification within the philosophy of religion. ;Chapter Three focuses on the cognitive content of RB. It advocates the idea that some core beliefs, in some religious traditions, are "comparably cognitive" to scientific theories. It discusses the cognitivity of metaphors, models, and paradigms; and it explores the cognitive similarities between "God" and scientific theoretical entities. It maintains that some religious traditions include empirically testable core beliefs due to their "semantic entailment" and due to the heuristic nature of theological doctrines . ;Chapter Four analyzes the character of RC. A theological objection developed by Karl Barth against viewing RB as rationally criticizable or defensible is presented, and the view that ligitimate RC may be strong but not unconditional is defended. It rejects the ideas that RB is not supposed to be falsifiable and that neither science nor religion has empirically testable first-order principles . W. W. Bartley's theory of rationality as criticizability is adapted and directed toward RB/RC. Some specific lessons learned from the philosophy of science are applied to RB/RC in an effort to avoid both foundationalism and fideism. It concludes that the "leap" to RB/RC need not be irrational or blind
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Richard Jonathan Sagar, The Cognitive Science of Religion/Atheism and its Impact on Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology.
Ilkka Pyysiäinen (2003). True Fiction: Philosophy and Psychology of Religious Belief. Philosophical Psychology 16 (1):109 – 125.
Ilkka Pyysia¨Inen (2003). True Fiction: Philosophy and Psychology of Religious Belief. Philosophical Psychology 16 (1):109-125.
Gregory R. Peterson (2010). Are Evolutionary/Cognitive Theories of Religion Relevant for Philosophy of Religion? Zygon 45 (3):545-557.
Nikolay Ivanov (2007). Grounding Scientific Knowledge and Religious Belief in the Context of Charle Peirce's Metaphysics. In Monica Merutiu, Bogdan Dicher & Adrian Ludusan (eds.), Philosophy of Pragmatism. Religious Premises, Moral Issues and Historical Impact. Efes
Andrew Collier (2003). On Christian Belief: A Defence of a Cognitive Conception of Religious Belief in a Christian Context. Routledge.
Joshua C. Thurow (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):77-98.
Gemma Cornelissen (2012). Belief-Based Exemptions: Are Religious Beliefs Special? Ratio Juris 25 (1):85-109.
Michael L. Peterson & Raymond J. VanArragon (eds.) (2004). Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell Pub..
Michael C. Banner (1990). The Justification of Science and the Rationality of Religious Belief. Oxford University Press.
Anthony J. Godzieba (1997). III. God and Self in Terrence Tilley's, The Wisdom of Religious Commitment. Philosophy and Theology 10 (1):79-91.
Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach & David Basinger (2008). Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. OUP USA.
Michael L. Peterson (ed.) (2009). Reason & Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford University Press.
Michael Scott (2010). Religious Language. Philosophy Compass 5 (6):505-515.
Added to index2011-09-15
Total downloads3 ( #483,044 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?