Advertisement

An Evidential Argument for Theism from the Cognitive Science of Religion

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

Abstract

What are the epistemological implications of the cognitive science of religion (CSR)? The lion’s share of discussion fixates on whether CSR undermines (or debunks or explains away) theistic belief. But could the field offer positive support for theism? If so, how? That is our question. Our answer takes the form of an evidential argument for theism from standard models and research in the field. According to CSR, we are naturally disposed to believe in supernatural agents and these beliefs are constrained in certain ways. The three main theories of this supernatural disposition are byproduct theories, adaptationist theories, and hybrid theories. We argue that our supernatural disposition—as understood by any of the main theories—is more surprising and improbable given naturalism than theism and thus serves as evidence for theism over naturalism.

Keywords

Cognitive science of religion Theism Naturalism Evolution of religion Evidential argument 

References

  1. Andrews, Paul W., Steven W. Gangestad, and Dan Matthews. 2002. Adaptationism – How to carry out an exaptationist program. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25: 489–504.Google Scholar
  2. Baker-Hytch, Max. 2016. Mutual epistemic dependence and the demographic divine hiddenness problem. Religious Studies 52: 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett, Justin L., and Frank C. Keil. 1996. Conceptualizing a nonnatural entity: Anthropomorphism in god concepts. Cognitive Psychology 31: 219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, Justin L. 1998. Cognitive constraints on Hindu concepts of the divine. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37: 608–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ———. 1999. Theological correctness: Cognitive constraint and the study of religion. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 11: 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 2004. Why would anyone believe in god? Altamira Press: Walnut Creek.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2008. Why Santa Claus is not a god. Journal of Cognition and Culture 8: 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2009. Cognitive science, religion, and theology. In The believing primate: Scientific, philosophical, and theological reflections on the origin of religion, ed. Jeffrey Schloss and Michael Murray, 76–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2011. Cognitive science, religion and theology: From human minds to divine minds. West Conshohocken: Templeton Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2012a. Born believers: The science of children’s religious belief. Free Press: New York.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2012b. Towards a cognitive science of Christianity. In The Blackwell companion to science and Christianity, ed. J.B. Stump and Alan G. Padgett. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. Barrett, Justin L., and Rebekah A. Richert. 2003. Anthropomorphism or preparedness? Exploring children’s god concepts. Review of Religious Research 44: 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barrett, Justin L., and Aku Visala. unpublished. In what sense might religion be natural? Google Scholar
  14. Bering, Jesse. 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
  15. ———. 2006. The folk psychology of souls. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 453–462.Google Scholar
  16. Bering, Jesse, and Dominic D.P. Johnson. 2005. “O Lord…you perceive my thoughts from afar”: Recursiveness and the evolution of supernatural agency. Journal of Cognition and Culture 5: 118–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bering, Jesse, and Becky D. Parker. 2006. Children’s attributions of intentions to an invisible agent. Developmental Psychology 42: 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bering, Jesse. 2012. The belief instinct: The psychology of souls, destiny, and the meaning of life. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London.Google Scholar
  19. Bloom, Paul. 2004. Descartes’ baby: How the science of child development explains what makes us human. Basic Books: New York.Google Scholar
  20. Boyer, Pascal. 2001. Religion explained: The human instincts that fashion gods, spirits and ancestors. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2003. Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Braddock, Matthew. 2016. Debunking arguments and the cognitive science of religion. Theology and Science 14: 268–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. unpublished. Theism, naturalism, and the problem of natural non-belief.Google Scholar
  24. Bulbulia, Joseph. 2004. Religious costs as adaptations that signal altruistic intention. Evolution and Cognition 10: 19–38.Google Scholar
  25. Clark, Kelly James, and Justin L. Barrett. 2011. Reidian religious epistemology and the cognitive science of religion. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Crisp, Tom. 2016. On naturalistic metaphysics. In Blackwell companion to naturalism, ed. Kelly James Clark, 61–74. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cuneo, Terence. 2013. Another look at divine hiddenness. Religious Studies 49: 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dawes, Gregory W., and James Maclaurin. 2013. A new science of religion. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  29. Dougherty, Trent. 2014. The problem of animal pain. A theodicy for all creatures great and small. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Draper, Paul. 2007. Natural selection and the problem of evil. 06/10/2017. https://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_draper/evil.html
  31. ———. 2010. God and evil: A philosophical inquiry. 9th Annual Plantinga Fellow Lecture. University of Notre Dame. 06/10/2017. https://philreligion.nd.edu/assets/44795/1011lecture.pdf
  32. Fitelson, Branden. 2007. Likelihoodism, Bayesianism, and relational confirmation. Synthese 156: 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gensler, Harry. 2016. Ethics and religion. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gregersen, Niels Henrik. 2006. What theology might learn (and not learn) from evolutionary psychology: A postliberal theologian in conversation with Pascal Boyer. In Evolution of rationality: Interdisciplinary essays in honor of J. Wentzel Van Huyssteen, ed. F. Leron Shults, 306–326. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  35. Guthrie, Stewart Elliott. 1993. Faces in the clouds: A New theory of religion. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hackett, Conrad, and Brian J. Grim. 2012. The global religious landscape. A report on the size and distribution of the world’s major religious groups as of 2010. The Pew Research Center. 28/11/2016.Google Scholar
  37. Hafer, Carolyn L., and Laurent Bègue. 2005. Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin 131: 128–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Haub, Carl. 1995. How many people have ever lived on earth? Population Today 23: 4–5.Google Scholar
  39. Jason, Marsh, and Jon Marsh. 2016. The explanatory challenge of religious diversity. In Advances in religion, cognitive science, and experimental philosophy, ed. Helen De Cruz and Ryan Nichols, 61–83. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  40. Johnson, Dominic D.P. 2005. God’s punishment and public goods: A test of the supernatural punishment hypothesis in 186 world cultures. Human Nature 16: 410–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson, Dominic, and Jesse Bering. 2006. Hand of god, mind of man: Punishment and cognition in the evolution of cooperation. Evolutionary Psychology 4: 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jose, Paul E. 1990. Just-world reasoning in children’s immanent justice judgments. Child Development 61: 1024–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kelemen, Deborah. 2004. Are children “intuitive theists”?: Reasoning about purpose and design in nature. Psychological Science 15: 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kelemen, Deborah, and C. DiYanni. 2005. Intuitions about origins: Purpose and intelligent design in children’s reasoning about nature. Journal of Cognition and Development 6: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leech, David, and Aku Visala. 2011. The cognitive science of religion: A modified theist response. Religious Studies 47: 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maitzen, Stephen. 2006. Divine hiddenness and the demographics of theism. Religious Studies 42: 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marsh, Jason. 2013. Darwin and the problem of natural nonbelief. The Monist 96: 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mawson, T.J. 2012. On the rationality of classical theism and its demographics. In Scientific approaches to the philosophy of religion, ed. Yujin Nagasawa, 184–201. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McCauley, Robert N. 2011. Why religion is natural and science is not. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
  50. Murray, Michael, and Andrew Goldberg. 2009. Evolutionary accounts of religion: Explaining and explaining away. In The believing primate: Scientific, philosophical,and theological reflections on the origin of religion, ed. Jeffrey Schloss and Michael Murray, 179–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Norenzayan, Ara. 2013. Big gods: How religion transformed cooperation and conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Powell, Russell, and Steve Clarke. 2012. Religion as an evolutionary byproduct: A critique of the standard model. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63: 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pyysiäinen, Ilkka, and Marc Hauser. 2010. The origins of religion: Evolved adaptation or by-product? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14: 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rodney, Stark. 2007. Discovering god: The origins of the great religions and the evolution of belief. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  55. Sanders, John. 1992. No other name: An investigation into the destiny of the unevangelized. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  56. ———. 2016. Christian approaches to the salvation of non-Christians. In Religious perspectives on religious diversity, ed. Robert McKim. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  57. Schloss, Jeffrey P., and Michael J. Murray. 2009. The believing primate: Scientific, philosophical, and theological reflections on the origin of religion. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Sharma, Arvind. 1993. In Hinduism. In our religions, ed. Avind Sharma. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  59. Sober, Elliott. 2004. The design argument. In The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of religion, ed. William Mann, 117–147. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  60. SwInburne, Richard. 2004. The existence of god. Clarendon: Oxford.Google Scholar
  61. Thurow, Joshua 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilson, David Sloan. 2002. Darwin’s cathedral: Evolution, religion, and the nature of society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  63. Wright, Robert. 2009. The evolution of God. New York: Little Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  64. Zuckerman, Phil. 2007. Atheism: Contemporary numbers and patterns. In The Cambridge companion to atheism, ed. Michael Martin, 47–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TennesseeMartinUSA

Personalised recommendations