What’s Belief Got to Do With It?
-
Sebastian Gäb
Abstract
This paper argues that even Crane’s modified account of belief doesn’t do justice to all varieties of religious belief. Particularly beliefs associated with ritual behavior don’t seem to match the criteria of Crane’s alternative account. So, the question remains whether these beliefs should still be called beliefs, or whether the standard model of belief is even more false than Crane suspects.
Zusammenfassung
Es wird die These vertreten, dass selbst Cranes modifizierter Glaubensbegriff nicht allen Formen religiösen Glaubens gerecht wird. Insbesondere scheinen Überzeugungen, die mit rituellem Verhalten in Verbindung stehen, nicht den Kriterien von Cranes alternativem Begriff zu genügen. Daher bleibt die Frage bestehen, ob diese Überzeugungen immer noch als Glauben bezeichnet werden sollten oder ob das herkömmliche Modell des Glaubens sogar noch problematischer ist als Crane vermutet.
References
Bell, Catherine. “‘The Chinese believe in spirits.’ Belief and believing in religious studies.” In Radical Interpretation in Religion, edited by Nancy Frankenberry, 100–116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.10.1017/CBO9780511613906.008Suche in Google Scholar
Bell, Catherine. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.Suche in Google Scholar
Braithwaite, Richard. An empiricist’s view on the nature of religious belief. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955.Suche in Google Scholar
Burkert, Walter. Homo necans: An Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth. Transl. by Peter Bing. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.Suche in Google Scholar
Crane, Tim. “Is Religious Belief a Kind of Belief?” NZSTh 65/4 (2023): 414–429.10.1515/nzsth-2023-0060Suche in Google Scholar
Lucian. Works IV. Transl. by. A. M. Harmon. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925.Suche in Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Neil. “Religious Credence is not factual belief.” Cognition 133 (2014): 698–715. [Van Leeuwen 2014]10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.015Suche in Google Scholar
Veyne, Paul. L’Empire Gréco-Romaine. Paris: Edition du Seuil, 1995.Suche in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Occasions 1912–1951. Edited by James Klagge and Alfred Nordmann. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1993. [Wittgenstein 1993]Suche in Google Scholar
Beida Zhexuexi (ed.) Xunzi Xinzhu. Beijing: Beijing University, 1979.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Munich Lecture in the Philosophy of Religion
- Is Religious Belief a Kind of Belief?
- What’s Belief Got to Do With It?
- Religious Belief, Occurrent Thought, and Reasonable Disagreement
- Why Belief? Varieties of Religious Commitment
- Replies to Gäb, Schmidt and Scott
- Other Research Articles
- Why we do not need demonstrative proof for God’s existence to know that God exists
- An Appraisal of Christoph Schwöbel’s Trinitarian Theology of Creation in Dialogue with Natural Sciences
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Munich Lecture in the Philosophy of Religion
- Is Religious Belief a Kind of Belief?
- What’s Belief Got to Do With It?
- Religious Belief, Occurrent Thought, and Reasonable Disagreement
- Why Belief? Varieties of Religious Commitment
- Replies to Gäb, Schmidt and Scott
- Other Research Articles
- Why we do not need demonstrative proof for God’s existence to know that God exists
- An Appraisal of Christoph Schwöbel’s Trinitarian Theology of Creation in Dialogue with Natural Sciences
