Advertisement

Cognitive Science of Religion and the Cognitive Consequences of Sin

  • Rik Peels
  • Hans van Eyghen
  • Gijsbert van den Brink
Chapter
Part of the New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion book series (NASR, volume 4)

Abstract

This paper explores the relation between evolutionary explanations of religious belief and a core idea in both classical Christian theology and (among other philosophical streams of thought) Reformed Epistemology, namely that humans have fallen into sin. In particular, it challenges the claim made by De Cruz and De Smedt (2012) that ‘(..) in the light of current evolutionary and cognitive theories, the Reformed epistemological view of NES [the noetic effects of sin] is in need of revision.’ Three possible solutions to this conundrum are examined, two of which are shown to be plausible.

References

  1. Barrett, Justin L. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bavinck, Herman. 2006. Reformed Dogmatics III: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Baker Academic: Grand Rapids.Google Scholar
  3. Ben-Yami, Hanoch. 2007. The impossibility of backwards causation. The Philosophical Quarterly 57: 439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bering, Jesse. 2012. The belief instinct: The psychology of souls, destiny, and the meaning of life. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London.Google Scholar
  5. Brunner, Emil. 1952. The Christian doctrine of creation and redemption, Dogmatics II. Westminster Press: Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, Kelly James, and Justin L. Barrett. 2010. Reformed epistemology and the cognitive science of religion. Faith and Philosophy 27: 174–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 2011. Reidian religious epistemology and the cognitive science of religion. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79: 639–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dembski, William. 2009. The end of Christianity: Finding a good God in an evil world. Nashville: Paternoster.Google Scholar
  10. Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guthrie, Stewart Elliott. 1993. Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Headey, Bruce, and Alex Wearing. 1988. The sense of relative superiority—central to well-being. Social Indicators Research 20: 497–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heppe, Heinrich. 1978. Reformed Dogmatics set out and illustrated from the sources. Baker Book: Grand Rapids.Google Scholar
  14. Hick, John. 1966. Evil and the God of love. Basingstoke: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuyper, Abraham. 1898. Encyclopedia of sacred theology: Its principles. New York: C Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Levering, Matthew. 2017. Engaging the doctrine of creation. cosmos, creatures, and the wise and good creator. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.Google Scholar
  18. McCall, Grant S., and Nancy Shields. 2008. Examining the evidence from small-scale societies and early prehistory and implications for modern theories of aggression and violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior 13: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Medina, José. 2013. Epistemologies of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and resistant imaginations. Oxford University Press: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nottelmann, Nikolaj. 2007. Blameworthy belief: A study in epistemic Deontologism. Springer: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  21. Peels, Rik. 2010. The effects of sin upon human moral cognition. Journal of Reformed Theology 4: 42–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ———. 2011. Sin and human cognition of god. Scottish Journal of Theology 64: 390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2017. Responsible belief: A theory in ethics and epistemology. Oxford University Press: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Plantinga, Alvin. 2000. Warranted Christian belief. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, James K.A. 2017. What stands on the fall? A philosophical exploration. In Evolution and the fall, ed. William T. Cavanaugh and James K.A. Smith. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  26. Sosis, Richard, and Candace Alcorta. 2003. Signaling, solidarity, and the sacred: The evolution of religious behavior. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 12: 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van den Brink, Gijsbert. 2018. Questions, challenges, and concerns for original sin. In Finding ourselves after Darwin, ed. Stanley P. Rosenberg, 117–129. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.Google Scholar
  28. ———. Forthcoming. Reformed theology and evolutionary theory. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  29. Van Inwagen, Peter. 1997. Against middle knowledge. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 21: 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Leeuwen, Neil, and Michiel Van Elk. forthcoming. Seeking the supernatural: The interactive religious experience model. Religion, Brain & Behavior.Google Scholar
  31. Wilkins, John S., and Paul E. Griffiths. 2013. Evolutionary debunking arguments in three domains: Fact, value, and religion. In A new science of religion, ed. Gregory Dawes and James Maclaurin, 133–146. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rik Peels
    • 1
  • Hans van Eyghen
    • 1
  • Gijsbert van den Brink
    • 1
  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations