An Atheistic Argument from Naturalistic Explanations of Religious Belief: A Preliminary Reply to Robert Nola

Abstract

Robert Nola has recently defended an argument against the existence of God on the basis of naturalistic explanations of religious belief. I will critically evaluate his argument in this paper. Nola’s argument takes the form of an inference to the best explanation: since the naturalistic stance offers a better explanation of religious belief relative to the theistic explanation, the ontology of God(s) is eliminated. I rebut Nola’s major assumption that naturalistic explanations and theistic explanations of religion are incompatible. I go on to criticize Nola’s proposed naturalistic explanations: Freudianism, a Hypersensitive Agency Detection Device, and a Moralising Mind-Policing God. I find these inadequate as actual explanations of religious belief. Even if they are correct, they will not show that theism is false. So Nola’s argument fails to convince.