Advertisement

Adaptationist Accounts Can Tell Us More About Religion Than Cognitive Accounts Can

  • Konrad Szocik
Chapter
Part of the New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion book series (NASR, volume 4)

Abstract

Religious beliefs can be explained in two different ways, cognitive and adaptationist. Each of them is another kind of explanation, one is proximate and the other ultimate. Each of them provides the other with a specific status for religious beliefs, such as by-product or adaptation. However, there is no clarity of how cognition itself could be religiously biased and how the religious/theistic approach could work as a default cognitive mode, as Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) suggests. I would like to criticize cognitive assumptions in the study of religion and show how adaptationist accounts are preferable. I specifically focus on the functional context of religious components, the social and psychological applications. I suggest how discussing about a cognitive basis does not matter in these fields and the cognitive account cannot explain the ubiquity of religious components that lie in their function, rather than the alleged connection with cognition.

Keywords

Cognitive science of religion Adaptationist account Evolution Natural selection Proximate explanation Ultimate explanation 

Notes

Acknowledgement

Many thanks to Adam Pokusa for his useful comments.

References

  1. Arnqvist, G., and L. Rowe. 2005. Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press: Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett, Justin L. 2004. Why would anyone believe in god? Altamira Press: Walnut Creek.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 2010. The relative unnaturalness of atheism: On why Geertz and Markusson are both right and wrong. Religion 40: 169–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benson, John E. 2007. The “new cognitive science of religion” and religious pluralism. Dialog 46: 382–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blume, Michael. 2009. The reproductive benefits of religious affiliation. In The biological evolution of religious mind and behavior, ed. E. Voland and W. Schiefenhovel. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Boyer, Pascal. 2002. Religion explained: The human instincts that fashion gods, spirits and ancestors. Vintage: London.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2003. Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2010. The fracture of an illusion: Science and the dissolution of religion. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, Kelly James. 2016. Atheism, inference, and intuition. In Advances in religion, cognitive science, and experimental philosophy, 103. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  10. Cummins, Robert, and Martin Roth. 2010. Traits have not evolved to function the way they do because of a past advantage. In Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology, ed. F. Ayala and Robert Arp. Wiley Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  11. Darwin, Charles. 1990. The origin of species by means of natural selection, the descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Encyclopaedia Brittanica: Chicago/London.Google Scholar
  12. De Waal Frans, B.M. 2008. Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology 59: 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feierman, Jay R. 2009. How some major components of religion could have evolved by natural selection? In The biological evolution of religious mind and behavior, ed. E. Voland and W. Schiefenhövel. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Greene, Joshua. 2003. From neural ‘Is’ to moral ‘Ought’: What are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4: 846–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haidt, Jonathan. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108: 814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Irons, William. 2008. Why people believe (what other people see as) crazy ideas. In The evolution of religion. Studies, theories & ctitiques. Santa Margarita: Collins Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jones, James W. 2016. Can science explain religion? The cognitive science debate. Oxford University Press: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kundt, Radek. 2015. Contemporary evolutionary theories of culture and the study of religion. Bloomsbury Academic: New York.Google Scholar
  19. Lawson, E. Thomas. 2000. Towards a cognitive science of religion. Numen 47: 338–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCauley, Robert N. 2011. Why religion is natural and science is not. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mikhail, John. 2007. Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence, and the future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (4): 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Norenzayan, Ara. 2013. Big gods: How religion transformed cooperation and conflict. Princeton University Press: Princeton.Google Scholar
  23. Norenzayan, Ara, Azim F. Shariff, Will M. Gervais, Aiyana K. Willard, Rita A. McNamara, Edward Slingerland, and Joseph Henrich. 2016. The cultural evolution of prosocial religions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nowak, Martin A. 2006. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. In Evolution, games, and God. The principle of cooperation, ed. Martin A. Nowak and Sarah Coakley, vol. 314, 1560. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Okasha, Samir. 2006. Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford University Press: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oviedo, Lluis. 2016. Religious attitudes and prosocial behavior: A systematic review of publishes research. Religion, Brain & Behavior 6: 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pazhoohi, Farid, Martin Lang, Dimitris Xygalatas, and Karl Grammer. 2016. Religious veiling as a mate-guarding strategy: Effects of environmental pressures on cultural practices. Evolutionary Psychological Science 3: 1–7.Google Scholar
  28. Peoples, Hervey C., Pavel Duda, and Frank W. Marlowe. 2016. Hunter-gatherers and the origins of religion. Human Nature 27: 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Perlman, Mark. 2010. Traits have evolved to function the way they do because of a past advantage. In Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology, ed. F. Ayala and Robert Arp. Wiley Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  30. Rappaport, Margaret Boone, and Christopher Corbally. 2015. Matrix thinking: An adaptation at the foundation of human science, religion, and art. Zygon 50: 84–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Richert, R.A., and E.I. Smith. 2009. Cognitive foundations in the development of a religious mind. In The biological evolution of religious mind and behavior, ed. E. Voland and W. Schiefenhövel. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Rossano, Matt. 2010. Supernatural selection. How religion evolved. Oxford University Press: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sacco, Donald F., Mitch Brown, Christopher J.N. Lustgraaf, and Kurt Hugenberg. 2017. The adaptive utility of deontology: Deontological moral decision-making fosters perceptions of trust and likeability. Evolutionary Psychological Science 3: 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shackelford, Todd K. 2015. Launching evolutionary psychological science. Evolutionary Psychological Science 1: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shenhav, Amitai, David G. Rand, and Joshua D. Greene. 2012. Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in god. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141: 423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Slone, D. Jason, and James A. Van Slyke. 2015. The attraction of religion: A new evolutionary psychology of religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  37. Szocik, Konrad. 2014. Ateizm filozoficzny: zarys historii i krytyka neotomistyczna. Zakład Wydawniczy „Nomos”. Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2015. Czy uzasadnione jest wiązanie wojny z religią? Studia Polityczne 3: 39.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 2017. Religion and religious beliefs as evolutionary adaptations. Zygon 52: 24–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Szocik, Konrad, and Philip L. Walden. 2015. Why atheism is more natural than religion. Studia Religiologica 2015: 313–326.Google Scholar
  41. Trivers, Robert L. 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams, George. 1966. Adaptation and natural selection: A critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wilkins, John S. 2016. Is religion or science debunked by the evolution of cognitive faculties? In Advances in religion, cognitive science, and experimental philosophy, ed. Helen De Cruz and Ryan Nichols. London/New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  44. Wilson, David Sloan. 2002. Darwin’s Cathedral : Evolution, religion, and the nature of society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wunn, Ina. 2016. Comment on Radek Kundt’s “contemporary evolutionary theories of culture and the study of religion”. Religio xxiv: 53–64.Google Scholar
  46. Wunn, Ina, and Davina Grojnowski. 2016. Ancestors, territoriality, and Gods. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wynne-Edwards, Vero Copner. 1962. Animal dispersion in relation to social behavior. London: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Information Technology and Management in RzeszowRzeszowPoland

Personalised recommendations