God and the Brain
The Rationality of Belief
-
- $28.99
-
- $28.99
Publisher Description
Does cognitive science show that religious belief is irrational?
Kelly James Clark brings together science and philosophy to examine some of humanity’s more pressing questions. Is belief in God, as Richard Dawkins claims, a delusion? Are atheists smarter or more rational than religious believers? Do our genes determine who we are and what we believe? Can our very creaturely cognitive equipment help us discover truth and meaning in life? Are atheists any different from Mother Teresa? Clark’s surprising answers both defend the rationality of religious belief and contribute to the study of cognitive science.
God and the Brain explores complicated questions about the nature of belief and the human mind.
Scientifically minded, philosophically astute, and reader-friendly, God and the Brain provides an accessible overview of some new cognitive scientific approaches to the study of religion and evaluates their implications for both theistic and atheistic belief.
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
In this underdeveloped work, Clark (The Story of Ethics), interfaith research fellow at Grand Valley State University, uses philosophy and cognitive science to dispute claims that belief in God is inherently irrational. He begins with a convincing assertion that the human mind's natural disposition to religious belief is no more irrational than perceptual or moral belief all of which are based on one's unique (and untranslatable) perspective. Dismissing the idea that atheism is the "smarter" choice, he argues that the unbelief held by many academics and scientists is not rational, but rather the result of social and psychological pressures. However, this same emphasis on social pressures is notably absent from the rest of his analysis while it exists for those in secular fields, social pressure isn't addressed in relationship to religious devotion. Also, Clark doesn't do himself any favors by making dubious claims, such as that autism could make religious belief more difficult ("autistic individuals have difficulties cognizing a personal relationship with God"), that only serve to undermine his shaky assertion that belief is more rational than disbelief. While Clark's prose is clear and engaging, his unconvincing thesis lacks precision and will disappoint readers looking for a more grounded diagnosis of the origins of belief in the divine.
