The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The cognitive science of religion: a modified theist response
Abstract
Critics of religion have recently claimed that the natural explanation of religious-belief formation offered by the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) is incompatible with theism. Defenders of theism have in turn responded to these claims by arguing for the compatibility of the CSR account with theism. In this paper we propose a modified defence of the compatibility of the CSR account with theism which supplements extant theistic arguments by drawing out the implications of certain points about the nature of CSR explanation which have so far been left relatively unexploited. In developing this defence, we argue that extant atheistic and theistic readings of the CSR can be understood as accepting certain presuppositions, especially about the relative centrality of the CSR account in explaining religious belief, which, we argue, would be detrimental to the theist case were they actually intended, and which should be clearly rejected. We suggest that the theist should argue explicitly from the nature of CSR explanation to its compatibility with theism.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
CSR mechanisms do not work in isolation but always work in a cultural context.
“A number of CSR-theorists acknowledge that the mechanisms they discuss do not work in isolation but always work in a cultural context.”
From Is supernatural belief unreliably formed? (2019) · cites this paper as Leech and Visala (2011)
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Is supernatural belief unreliably formed?
Van Eyghen, H. (2019) · International Journal for Philosophy of Religion · doi:10.1007/s11153-018-9671-4 · Cited by 16
“2 Examples are Wilkins and Griffiths (2013), Murray (2008), Jones (2016), Leech and Visala (2011) and Nola (2013).”
BackgroundGoodnick, L. (2016) · Open Theology · doi:10.1515/opth-2016-0003 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- LEECH, D., & VISALA, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- LEECH, DAVID
- VISALA, AKU
- ORCID
- VISALA, AKU
- Venue
- Religious Studies
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010-07-12
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 301-316
- ISSN
- 0034-4125 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-901X
- OpenAlex
- W2165242636
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 16.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Religious Studies (publishedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
- Keywords
- cognitive science of religion, theism, religious belief formation, atheism, epistemology of religion, theistic arguments
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review