Religious Studies 41 (2):217-224 (2005)

Abstract
This paper evaluates Brian Zamulinski's argument from considerations of relative likelihood for preferring a ‘religion-as-fiction’ hypothesis to metaphysical realism. The paper finds that the argument fails to consider numerous variant hypotheses, and that the ‘religion-as-fiction’ hypothesis is poorly formulated. It is concluded that an argument from likelihood about the status of religious belief will not, in the way Zamulinski constructs it, give support to a hypothesis unless supplemented by an estimate of its probability. Moreover, once probability is taken into account, the ‘religion-as-fiction’ hypothesis looks very weak.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0034412505007626
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,091
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Epistemic Significance of Consensus.Aviezer Tucker - 2003 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 46 (4):501 – 521.
Religion and the Pursuit of Truth.Brian Zamulinski - 2003 - Religious Studies 39 (1):43-60.
What Do We Aim At When We Believe?Conor Mchugh - 2011 - Dialectica 65 (3):369-392.
Rejoinder to Scott.Brian Zamulinski - 2005 - Religious Studies 41 (2):225-229.
Does Belief Have an Aim?David John Owens - 2003 - Philosophical Studies 115 (3):283-305.
Rejoinder to Mawson.Brian Zamulinski - 2004 - Religious Studies 40 (3):365-366.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
46 ( #246,029 of 2,506,286 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,984 of 2,506,286 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes