Advertisement

Sophia

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 521–533 | Cite as

Explaining Religion (Away?)

Theism and the Cognitive Science of Religion
  • Jonathan JongEmail author
Article

Abstract

In light of the advancements in cognitive science and the evolutionary psychology of religion in the past two decades, scientists and philosophers have begun to reflect on the theological and atheological implications of naturalistic—and in particular, evolutionary—explanations of religious belief and behaviour. However, philosophical naiveté is often evinced by scientists and scientific naiveté by philosophers. The aim of this article is to draw from these recent contributions, point out some common pitfalls and important insights, and suggest a way forward. This proposal avoids the genetic fallacy as well as misunderstandings of the cognitive mechanisms that give rise to religious belief. In the end, it may well be that the cognitive science of religion is atheologically and theologically ambiguous; traditional philosophers of religion on both sides of the debate still have work to do.

Keywords

Cognitive science of religion Evolutionary psychology Naturalism Divine action 

References

  1. Atran, S. (2002). In gods we trust: The evolutionary landscape of religion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baron-Cohen, S. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of autism. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 75, 945–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett, J. L. (2004). Why would anyone believe in God? Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, J. L., & Lanman, J. A. (2008). The science of religious beliefs. Religion, 38, 109–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benfey, O. T. (1958). August Kekulé and the birth of the structural theory of organic chemistry in 1858. Journal of Chemical Education, 35, 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bering, J. M. (2002). Intuitive conceptions of dead agents’ minds: the natural foundations of afterlife beliefs as phenomenological boundary. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2, 263–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bering, J. (2010). Atheism is only skin deep: Geertz and Markússon rely mistakenly on sociodemographic data as meaningful indicators of underlying cognition. Religion, 40, 166–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bering, J. (2011). The God instinct: the psychology of souls, destiny, and the meaning of life. London, UK: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Bering, J. M., & Bjorklund, D. F. (2004). The natural emergence of reasoning about the afterlife is a developmental regularity. Developmental Psychology, 40, 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bloom, P. (2004). Descartes’ baby: how the science of child development explains what makes us human. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, K. J., & Barrett, J. L. (2011). Reidian religious epistemology and the cognitive science of religion. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 79, 639–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craig, W. L. (1979). The kalām cosmological argument. London, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. New York, NY: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  16. Dennett, D. C. (2006). Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  17. Edwards, D. (2010). How God acts: creation, redemption, and special divine action. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fazio, R. H. (2001). On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: an overview. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 115–141.Google Scholar
  19. Guthrie, S. E. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Howard-Snyder, D., & Moser, P. K. (2001). Divine hiddenness: New essays. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hume, D. (2008). Dialogues and Natural history of religion. J. C. A. Gaskin, (Ed.), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1757).Google Scholar
  22. Kelemen, D. (2004). Are children ‘intuitive theists’?: reasoning about purpose and design in nature. Psychological Science, 15, 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirkham, R. L. (1992). Theories of truth: A critical introduction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Leech, D., & Visala, A. (2011a). The cognitive science of religion: a modified theist response. Religious Studies, 47, 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leech, D., & Visala, A. (2011b). The cognitive science of religion: implications for theism? Zygon, 46, 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCauley, R. N. (2011). Why religion is natural and science is not. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. McCauley, R. N., & Lawson, E. T. (2002). Bringing ritual to mind: Psychological foundations of cultural forms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Midgley, M. (2001). Science and poetry. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Murray, M. J., & Goldberg, A. (2009). Evolutionary accounts of religion: Explaining and explaining away. In J. Schloss & M. J. Murray (Eds.), The believing primate: Scientific, philosophical, and theological reflections on the origin of religion (pp. 179–199). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Norenzayan, A., & Hansen, I. G. (2006). Belief in supernatural agents in the face of death. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 174–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Norenzayan, A., & Shariff, A. (2008). The origin and evolution of religious prosociality. Science, 322, 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oppy, G. (2006). Arguing about gods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peterson, M., Hasker, W., Reichenbach, B., & Basinger, D. (2003). Reason & religious belief: an introduction to the philosophy of religion (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pyysiäinen, I. (2009). Supernatural agents: Why we believe in souls, gods, and Buddhas. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reichenbach, H. (1938). On probability and induction. Philosophy of Science, 5, 21–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Swinburne, R. (1995). God. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford companion to philosophy (pp. 314-315). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Swinburne, R. (2004). The existence of God (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower, J. E., & Gruenewald, T. L. (2000). Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. American Psychologist, 55, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tremlin, T. (2006). Minds and gods: the cognitive foundations of religion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Vail, K. E., III, Rothschild, Z. K., Weise, D. R., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2010). A terror management analysis of the psychological functions of religion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Inwagen, P. (2009). Explaining belief in the supernatural: Some thoughts on Paul Bloom’s ‘Religious Belief as an Evolutionary Accident’. In J. Schloss & M. J. Murray (Eds.), The believing primate: Scientific, philosophical, and theological reflections on the origin of religion (pp. 128–138). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wilkins, J., & Griffiths, P. (in press). Evolutionary debunking arguments in three domains: fact, value, and religion. In G. Dawes & J. Maclaurin (Eds.), A New Science of Religion. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Wilson, D. S. (2002). Darwin’s cathedral: Evolution, religion, and the nature of society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson, D. S., Dietrich, E., & Clark, A. B. (2003). On the inappropriate use of the naturalistic fallacy in evolutionary psychology. Biology and Philosophy, 18, 669–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Anthropology and MindUniversity of OxfordOxfordUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations