The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Scientific Explanations of Religion and the Justification of Religious Belief
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?
In the citing paper
“HADD's reliability depends largely on the context:”
From DEBUNKING ARGUMENTS GAIN LITTLE FROM COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION (2021) · cites this paper as Murray 2009
In the citing paper
“Second, we are not slaves to our HADDs.”
From DEBUNKING ARGUMENTS GAIN LITTLE FROM COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION (2021) · cites this paper as Murray 2009
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
DEBUNKING ARGUMENTS GAIN LITTLE FROM COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION
Launonen, L. (2021) · Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science · doi:10.1111/zygo.12683 · Cited by 12
“(Murray 2009, 171) Hence, it is hard to pass judgment on just how reliable HADD is and what is the exact frequency of false and true positives.”
BackgroundMethodGoodnick, L. (2016) · Open Theology · doi:10.1515/opth-2016-0003 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Murray, M. J.
- Corresponding author
- Murray, Michael J.
- ORCID
- Murray, Michael J.
- Venue
- The Believing Primate
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2009-03-12
- Pages
- 168-178
- OpenAlex
- W2476611226
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 17.31
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
- Keywords
- justification of religious belief, religious beliefs, science and religion, philosophy of religion, naturalism
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
