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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
We do not need to take a stance on the so-called Euthyphro-dilemma here, which asks whether a sinful act is morally wrong because it goes against God’s will or whether it goes against God’s will because it is morally wrong.
- 3.
For an overview of CSR, see e.g. Claire White’s paper in this volume.
- 4.
Following an older line of theological research, De Cruz and De Smedt view Irenaeus of Lyon as the main exemplar of this alternative view (cf. Hick 1966, part III).
- 5.
De Cruz and De Smedt use the concept of warrant (in ‘unwarranted’) because they consider their argument as a challenge to (part of) Plantinga’s warrant epistemology.
- 6.
In fact, there are two theories that explain religious beliefs by pointing to their effects on cooperation. One finds their adaptive use in biological evolution and argues that belief in most or all supernatural beings fosters cooperation. Another, called the Big Gods Theory, places their use in cultural evolution. Here, not all supernatural beings foster cooperation but only a subclass does, viz. ‘big gods’ which transcend the scope of particular tribes. During the neolithical revolution societies with such big gods outcompeted societies with smaller gods because believing in big gods allowed for living in larger communities.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
For a more complete overview, see (White, Chap. 3, this volume).
- 10.
They note that Guthrie’s theory rarely incorporates good empirical evidence and claim that Barrett’s theory lacks a detailed story about how agency detection experiences are connected to supernatural beliefs (Van Leeuwen and Van Elk, forthcoming).
- 11.
Brunner 1952, 131.
- 12.
Brunner 1952, 131.
- 13.
Bavinck 2006, 181, 182. So according to Bavinck, natural evil (or what we, not he, would call the evolutionary process) was allowed or ordained by God because of his foreknowledge of the Fall, whereas the situation became worse after the Fall.
- 14.
As a matter of fact, De Cruz and De Smedt come close to this second solution, but they deny that the sensus divinitatis is corrupted from the outset as a result of sin; instead, they argue that the sensus divinitatis is underspecified, potentially leading to both false and correct religious beliefs depending on the input (De Cruz and De Smedt 2012, 62). Thus, they seem to reject CCS.
- 15.
See from the Protestant and the Catholic side respectively: Smith 2017 and Van den Brink forthcoming; Levering 2017.
- 16.
For their helpful comments on earlier versions of the paper, we would like to thank Helen de Cruz, Justin McBrayer, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Tyler Taber, and René van Woudenberg. 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 author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Templeton World Charity Foundation.
References
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.
Bavinck, Herman. 2006. Reformed Dogmatics III: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Baker Academic: Grand Rapids.
Ben-Yami, Hanoch. 2007. The impossibility of backwards causation. The Philosophical Quarterly 57: 439–455.
Bering, Jesse. 2012. The belief instinct: The psychology of souls, destiny, and the meaning of life. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London.
Brunner, Emil. 1952. The Christian doctrine of creation and redemption, Dogmatics II. Westminster Press: Philadelphia.
Clark, Kelly James, and Justin L. Barrett. 2010. Reformed epistemology and the cognitive science of religion. Faith and Philosophy 27: 174–198.
———. 2011. Reidian religious epistemology and the cognitive science of religion. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79: 639–675.
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.
Dembski, William. 2009. The end of Christianity: Finding a good God in an evil world. Nashville: Paternoster.
Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Guthrie, Stewart Elliott. 1993. Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Headey, Bruce, and Alex Wearing. 1988. The sense of relative superiority—central to well-being. Social Indicators Research 20: 497–516.
Heppe, Heinrich. 1978. Reformed Dogmatics set out and illustrated from the sources. Baker Book: Grand Rapids.
Hick, John. 1966. Evil and the God of love. Basingstoke: MacMillan.
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.
Kuyper, Abraham. 1898. Encyclopedia of sacred theology: Its principles. New York: C Scribner’s Sons.
Levering, Matthew. 2017. Engaging the doctrine of creation. cosmos, creatures, and the wise and good creator. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
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.
Medina, José. 2013. Epistemologies of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and resistant imaginations. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Nottelmann, Nikolaj. 2007. Blameworthy belief: A study in epistemic Deontologism. Springer: Dordrecht.
Peels, Rik. 2010. The effects of sin upon human moral cognition. Journal of Reformed Theology 4: 42–69.
———. 2011. Sin and human cognition of god. Scottish Journal of Theology 64: 390–409.
———. 2017. Responsible belief: A theory in ethics and epistemology. Oxford University Press: New York.
Plantinga, Alvin. 2000. Warranted Christian belief. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
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.
———. Forthcoming. Reformed theology and evolutionary theory. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Van Inwagen, Peter. 1997. Against middle knowledge. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 21: 225–236.
Van Leeuwen, Neil, and Michiel Van Elk. forthcoming. Seeking the supernatural: The interactive religious experience model. Religion, Brain & Behavior.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Peels, R., van Eyghen, H., van den Brink, G. (2018). Cognitive Science of Religion and the Cognitive Consequences of Sin. 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_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90239-5_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90238-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90239-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)