ABSTRACT Reformed epistemology (RE) involves a view of knowledge of God which Kelly James Clark and Justin Barrett have brought cognitive science to bear on. They argue that the cognitive science of religion (CSR) indicates that we have a ‘god-faculty’, a notion employed by Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga contends that if there is a God, then we have a specialized god-faculty. Clark and Barrett, by contrast, focus on the empirical evidence and point to a different, less specialized faculty. This difference is significant for how RE and CSR relate. The paper argues that a dilemma arises for those who bring RE and CSR together. A choice must be made between two interpretations of the god-faculty. ‘God-faculty 1ʹ is a specialized system for forming theistic beliefs. Findings in CSR indicate that there is no such system. ‘God-faculty 2ʹ is an unrefined tendency to form beliefs in superhuman agents. This thesis has empirical support in CSR. However, this faculty is unable to deliver the epistemic goods needed for the immediate, non-inferential knowledge of God RE describes. This shows that those who combine central contentions in RE with current research in CSR face a dilemma from which it is hard to escape.

中文翻译：

---

神职两难的困境：从认知科学的角度对改革认识论的挑战

摘要改良的认识论（RE）涉及一种关于上帝知识的观点，凯利·詹姆斯·克拉克（Kelly James Clark）和贾斯汀·巴雷特（Justin Barrett）带来了认知科学。他们认为宗教的认知科学（CSR）表明我们拥有“神职人员”，这是Alvin Plantinga所采用的概念。普兰丁加认为，如果有神，那么我们就有专门的神职人员。相比之下，克拉克（Clark）和巴雷特（Barrett）则侧重于经验证据，并指出了另一种不那么专业的教师。这种差异对于RE和CSR之间的关系非常重要。本文认为，那些将可再生能源和企业社会责任结合在一起的人会陷入困境。必须在对神职人员的两种解释之间做出选择。“神学院1ʹ”是形成神学信仰的专门系统。CSR的发现表明没有这样的系统。“神学院2ʹ”是一种对超人特工形成信念的未完善的倾向。本文在企业社会责任方面具有实证依据。但是，该教职人员无法提供对RE所描述的直接，非推断性知识所需的认知知识。这表明，那些将可再生能源的核心争论与当前的企业社会责任研究结合起来的人面临着一个难题，即很难摆脱。