The god-faculty dilemma:challenges for reformed epistemology in the light of cognitive science

Bibliography

• Atran, S. In Gods We Trust. The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Banerjee, K., O. S. Haque, and E. S. Spelke. “Melting Lizards and Crying Mailboxes: Children’s Preferential Recall of Minimally Counterintuitive Concepts.” Cognitive Science 37 (2013): 1251–1289. doi:10.1111/cogs.12037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett, H. C. “Adaptations to Predators and Prey.” In The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, edited by D. Buss, 200–223, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, J. “Dumb Gods, Petitionary Prayer and the Cognitive Science of Religion.” In Current Approaches in the Cognitive Science of Religion, edited by I. Pyysiäinen and V. Anttonen, 93–109, London: Continuum, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, J. Why Would Anyone Believe in God? . Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, J. “Is the Spell Really Broken? Bio-psychological Explanations of Religion and Theistic Beliefs.” Theology and Science 5, no. 1 (2007): 57–72. doi:10.1080/14746700601159564.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, J., and F. Keil. “Conceptualizing a Nonnatural Entity: Anthropomorphism in God Concepts.” Cognitive Psychology 31 (1996): 219–247. doi:10.1006/cogp.1996.0017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett, J., and J. Lanman. “The Science of Religious Beliefs.” Religion 38, no. 2 (2008): 109–124. doi:10.1016/j.religion.2008.01.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett, J., and M. Nyhof. “Spreading Non-natural Concepts: The Role of Intuitive Conceptual Structures in Memory and Transmission of Cultural Materials.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 1, no. 1 (2001): 69–100. doi:10.1163/156853701300063589.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, P. Descartes’ Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human. New York: Basic Books, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Boyer, P. The Naturalness of Religious Ideas. A Cognitive Theory of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Boyer, P., and C. Ramble. “Cognitive Templates for Religious Concepts: Cross-cultural Evidence for Recall of Counter-intuitive Representations.” Cognitive Science 25 (2001): 535–564. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2504_2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, K. J., and J. Barrett. “Reformed Epistemology and the Cognitive Science of Religion.” Faith and Philosophy 27, no. 2 (2010): 174–189. doi:10.5840/faithphil201027216.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, K. J., and J. Barrett. “Reidian Religious Epistemology and the Cognitive Science of Religion.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79, no. 3 (September 2011): 642–648. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfr008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conee, E., and R. Feldman. Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• De Cruz, H., and J. De Smedt. A Natural History of Natural Theology. The Cognitive Science of Theology and Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Elster, J. Explaining Social Behavior. More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, A., and M. McGrath. Epistemology. A Contemporary Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Hirschfeld, L. A., and S. A. Gelman. Toward a Topography of Mind: An Introduction to Domain Specificity. In Mapping the Mind. Domain-Specificity in Cognition and Culture, edited by L. A. Hirschfeld and S. A. Gelman, 3–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick, L. A. Attachment, Evolution, and the Psychology of Religion. New York: The Guilford Press, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Kvandal, H. “Prone to Believe in God. The Cognitive Science of Religion and its Normative Implications for Theist Religion.” PhD thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, E. T., and R. McCauley. Rethinking Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Leech, D., and A. Visala. “The Cognitive Science of Religion: A Modified Theist Response.” Religious Studies 47 (2011): 301–316. doi:10.1017/S0034412510000302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luhrmann, T. M. When God Talks Back. Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God. New York: Vintage Books, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. Perception and Basic Beliefs. Zombies, Modules, and the Problem of the External World. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• McCauley, R. Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, M. Scientific Explanations of Religion and the Justification of Religious Belief. In The Believing Primate. Scientific, Philosophical and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion, edited by J. Schloss and M. Murray, 168–178. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Norenzayan, A., W. M. Gervais, A. K. Willard, R. A. McNamara, E. Slingerland, and J. Henrich. “The Cultural Evolution of Prosocial Religions.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39 (2016): 1–65. doi:10.1017/S0140525X14001356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plantinga, A. Warranted Christian Beliefs. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Plantinga, A., and N. Wolterstorff. Faith and Rationality. Reason and Belief in God. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, R., and S. Clark. “Religion as an Evolutionary Byproduct: A Critique of the Standard Model.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (2012): 457–468. doi:10.1093/bjps/axr035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyysiäinen, I., and M. Hauser. “The Origins of Religion: Evolved Adaptation or By-product.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14, no. 3 (2009): 104–109. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, J., and L. Campbell. “Methods of Evolutionary Sciences.” In The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, edited by D. Buss, 119–144, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Sudduth, M. The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen, N., and M. Van Elk. “Seeking the Supernatural: The Interactive Religious Experience Model.” Religion, Brain & Behaviour (June 2018). doi:10.1080/2153599X.2018.1453529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehouse, H. Modes of Religiosity: A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission: A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2004.
   Google Scholar