Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

New Developments in the Cognitive Science of Religion pp 1–14Cite as

The Cognitive Science of Religion, Philosophy and Theology: A Survey of the Issues

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion ((NASR,volume 4))

Abstract

Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) is still a rather young discipline. Depending on what one deems to be the first paper or book in the field, the discipline is now almost forty or almost thirty years old. Philosophical and theological discussion on CSR started in the late 2000s. From its onset, the main focus has been the (potential) epistemic consequences of CSR, and this focus is dominant even today. Some of those involved in the debate discussed the relevance of CSR for further issues in philosophy of religion, and other have examined how CSR weighs in on various theological questions. Finally, a small number of philosophers offered criticisms or support for various CSR-theories. In this chapter, we give an overview of the debates so far and provide an outline of the book.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Reformed Epistemology is an influential line of thought in current religious epistemology. It was first advanced in a collection of papers edited by Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff (Plantinga and Wolterstorff 1983). Its central claim is that religious belief can be rational without even if it is not based on arguments.

  2. 2.

    The term ‘epistemic luck’ refers to accidental or coincidental factors that lead a subject to hold true beliefs. The term became wide-spread in virtue of Duncan Pritchard’s use of the phrase (Pritchard 2005). Most epistemologists agree that true beliefs that are the result of epistemic luck do not amount to knowledge.

  3. 3.

    Defenders of religious non-cognitivism claim that religious claims do not have truth-value. Instead they are concerned with the sphere of human conduct and experience. Among the more influential defenders of religious non-cognitivism are D.Z. Philips and Don Cupitt.

  4. 4.

    The Death-of-God Theology was a movement in Christian theology in the 1950s and 1960s. It claimed that either God had ceased to exist or God’s existence could no longer be experienced. Its adherents tried to formulate radically non-transcendent ways of reading the gospel in what came to be called ‘Christian atheism’; for a brief critical introduction, see e.g. (Miller and Grenz 1998: 79–86).

  5. 5.

    The quote is from the handout of a paper given at our university (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) by the American historian and psychologist of religion Robert C. Fuller entitled “Religion is Nonsense. Cognitive Science and the Biological Substrates of Religion” (March 19, 2018).

  6. 6.

    This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Templeton World Charity Foundation.

References

  • Baker-Hytch, Max. 2014. Religious diversity and epistemic luck. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 76: 171–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, Justin L. 2007. Is the spell really broken? Biopsychological explanations of religion and theistic belief. Theology and Science 5: 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Towards a cognitive science of Christianity. In The Blackwell companion to science and Christianity, ed. J.B. Stump and Alan G. Padgett. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, Justin L., and Ian M. Church. 2013. Should CSR give Atheists epistemic assurance? On Beer-goggles, BFFs, and skepticism regarding religious belief. The Monist 96: 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braddock, Matthew. 2016. Debunking arguments and the cognitive science of religion. Theology and Science 14: 268–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Kelly James, and Justin L. Barrett. 2010. Reformed epistemology and the cognitive science of religion. Faith and Philosophy 27: 174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Reidian religious epistemology and the cognitive science of religion. Journal of the American academy of religion.: 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Kelly James, and Dani Rabinowitz. 2011. Knowledge and the objection to religious belief from cognitive science. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 3: 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Kelly James, and Justin T. Winslett. 2011. The evolutionary psychology of Chinese religion: Pre-Qin high gods as punishers and rewarders. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79: 928–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, Richard. 2007. The God delusion. London: Black Swan.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cruz, Helen. 2014. Cognitive science of religion and the study of theological concepts. Topoi 33: 487–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cruz, Helen, and Johan De Smedt. 2012. Reformed and evolutionary epistemology and the noetic effects of sin. International Journal Philosophy Religion 74: 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. A natural history of natural theology. In The cognitive science of theology and philosophy of religion. Cambridge/London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, Daniel Clement. 2006. Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper, Paul, and Ryan Nichols. 2013. Diagnosing bias in philosophy of religion. The Monist 96: 420–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Adam. 2013. Cognitive science and the natural knowledge of God. The Monist 96: 399–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodnick, Liz. 2016. A De Jure criticism of theism. Open Theology 2(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, Stewart. 1980. A cognitive theory of religion. Current Anthropology 21: 181–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horst, Steven. 2013. Notions of intuition in cognitive science of religion. The Monist 96(3): 377–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, James W. 2016. Can science explain religion? The cognitive science debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jong, Jonathan, Christopher Kavanagh, and Aku Visala. 2015. Born idolaters: The limits of the philosophical implications of the cognitive science of religion. Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 57: 244–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, E. Thomas, and Robert N. McCauley. 1990. Rethinking religion: Connecting cognition and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech, David, and Aku Visala. 2011a. The cognitive science of religion: A modified theist response. Religious Studies 47: 301–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011b. The cognitive science of religion: Implications for theism? Zygon 46: 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. The cognitive science of religion and theism again: A reply to Leo Näreaho. Religious Studies 50: 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, Daniel. 2016. Cognitive science of religion and folk theistic belief. Zygon 51: 949–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, Robert N. 2011. Why religion is natural and science is not. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Ed LeRoy, and Stanley James Grenz. 1998. Fortress introduction to contemporary theologies. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, Michael J. 2008. Four arguments that the cognitive psychology of religion undermines the justification of religious belief. In The evolution of religion: Studies, theories, and critiques, ed. J. Bulbulia et al. Santa Margarita: Collins Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Scientific explanations of religion and the justification of religious belief. In The believing primate, ed. J. Schloss and M.J. Murray. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, Michael J., and Lyn Moore. 2009. Costly signaling and the origin of religion. Journal of Cognition and Culture 9: 225–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Näreaho, Leo. 2008. The cognitive science of religion: Philosophical observations. Religious Studies 44: 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Cognitive science of religion and theism: How can they be compatible? Religious Studies 50: 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikkel, David H. 2015. The Daulistic, discarnate picture that haunts the cognitive science of religion. Zygon 50: 621–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nola, Robert. 2013. Do naturalistic explanations of religious beliefs debunk religion? In A new science of religion, ed. Gregory W. Dawes and James Maclaurin. New York/London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oviedo, Lluis. 2008. Is a complete biocognitive account of religion feasible? Zygon 43: 103–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Michael, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger. 2013. Reason & religious belief. An introduction to the philosophy of religion. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Pres.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantinga, Alvin. 2011. Where the conflict really lies: Science, religion, and naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Plantinga, Alvin, and Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, eds. 1983. Faith and rationality: Reason and belief in God. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, Duncan. 2005. Epistemic luck. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sagar, Richard Jonathan. 2011. The cognitive science of religion/atheism and its impact on Plantinga’s reformed epistemology. (Mphil thesis University of Birmingham).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schloss, Jeffrey P., and Michael J. Murray. 2011. Evolutionary accounts of belief in supernatural punishment: A critical review. Religion, Brain & Behavior 1: 46–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shults, F. Leron. 2014. Theology after the birth of god: Atheist conceptions in cognition and culture. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smedes, Taede. 2014. Emil Brunner revisited: On the cognitive science of religion, the Imago Dei, and revelation. Zygon 49: 190–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teehan, John. 2010. In the name of God: The evolutionary origins of religious ethics and violence. Wiley Online Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurow, J.C. 2013. Does cognitive science show belief in god to be irrational? The epistemic consequences of the cognitive science of religion. International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion 74: 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vainio, Olli-Pekka. 2016. What does theology have to do with religion? Dual-process accounts, cognitive science of religion and a curious blind spot in contemporary theorizing. Open Theology 2: 106–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brink, Gijsbert. Forthcoming. Reformed theology and evolutionary theory. Grand Rapids Michigan: Eerdmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eyghen, Hans. Forthcoming. Is supernatural belief unreliably formed? International Journal for Philosophy of Religion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, Neil. 2017. Two paradigms for religious representation: The physicist and the playground (A reply to Levy). Cognition 164: 206–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Slyke, James A. 2011. The cognitive science of religion. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visala, Aku. 2011. Naturalism, theism and the cognitive study of religion: Religion explained? Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, Ruth. 2006. Rescuing religious non-realism from Cupitt. The Heythrop Journal 47: 426–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, John S., and Paul E. Griffiths. 2013. Evolutionary debunking arguments in three domains. In A new science of religion, ed. Gregory W. Dawes and James Maclaurin. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Hans van Eyghen, Rik Peels & Gijsbert van den Brink

Authors
  1. Hans van Eyghen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rik Peels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gijsbert van den Brink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, VU Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Hans van Eyghen

  2. Department of Philosophy, VU Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Rik Peels

  3. Faculty of Religion and Theology, VU Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Gijsbert van den Brink

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

van Eyghen, H., Peels, R., van den Brink, G. (2018). The Cognitive Science of Religion, Philosophy and Theology: A Survey of the Issues. In: van Eyghen, H., Peels, R., van den Brink, G. (eds) New Developments in the Cognitive Science of Religion. New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion , vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90239-5_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation