Skip to main content

Pro-Science Rhetoric or a Research Program? – Naturalism(s) in the Cognitive-Evolutionary Study of Religion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Developments in the Cognitive Science of Religion

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

Abstract

Aku Visala takes a closer look at the role of naturalism in CSR. The cognitive-evolutionary study of religion takes itself as “naturalizing” not only the study of religion, but the humanities as a whole. Apart from the obvious denial of non-supernatural causal factors, it is sometimes difficult to see whether this naturalization involves anything more than a general rhetorical strategy meant to play up the “science” part (and downplay other, “non-scientific” approaches). In his paper, Visala seeks to identify the basic philosophical assumptions of the naturalization project, present some critical points about them, and suggest what he considers to be more plausible assumptions instead. The basic assumptions of the naturalization project include a commitment to a specific kind of unity of science, a commitment to a certain kind of inter-level reduction and explanatory fundamentalism and a deep suspicion towards causal factors above the cognitive/psychological level. He suggests that these commitments suffer from a number of problems and the goals of the cognitive-evolutionary study can be achieved just as well, or even better, by adopting weaker and more plausible commitments. Here he briefly discusses some new accounts of mechanistic explanation, Robert McCauley’s model of inter- and intra-level relationships and the idea of explanatory pluralism. He conjectures that loosening the “naturalistic” constraints of the cognitive-evolutionary study of religion might result in a more pluralistic (but nevertheless strict) approach to religion.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The argument I am making here is developed more comprehensively in (Visala 2011).

  2. 2.

    For a useful overview, see (Kitcher 1992). See also (Flanagan 2006) and (Rosenberg 1996).

  3. 3.

    Some philosophers disagree with this and suggest that scientists should not make a priori distinctions between what is natural and non-natural. For discussion, see (Clarke 2009: 127–42).

  4. 4.

    128. Clarke’s reference to Leiter is his ‘Naturalism and naturalized jurisprudence’ in (Leiter 1998)) and the reference to Rea is to (Rea 2002).

  5. 5.

    (Slingerland 2008b). See also his (Slingerland 2008a).

  6. 6.

    Slingerland also criticizes traditional approaches to the study of religion for (1) positing ontologically vague entities (beliefs, religions, cultures, etc.), (2) their inadequate explanations and (3) their plurality of incompatible methodological assumptions. Such problems, Slingerland suggests, could be remedied, if a more naturalistic attitude were adopted.

  7. 7.

    For an overview of physicalism, see (Stoljar 2010).

  8. 8.

    For a vigorous defence of emergentism, see (Clayton 2004).

  9. 9.

    See, e.g., (Kim 2007).

  10. 10.

    I want to thank the anonymous reviewer for this point.

  11. 11.

    Again, I thank the anonymous reviewer for raising this point.

  12. 12.

    For more, see (Visala 2011).

  13. 13.

    See, e.g., (Raatikainen 2010).

  14. 14.

    For McCauley’s philosophical work, see, e.g., his (McCauley 2007).

  15. 15.

    See (Pyysiäinen 2011)

  16. 16.

    I would like to thank the participants of the Explaining Religion: Cognitive Science of Religion and Naturalism workshop (Amsterdam 2015) for their feedback and discussions. In addition, special thanks go to Steven Clarke, Rik Peels and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and substantial criticisms and suggestions.

References

  • Atran, Scott. 2002. In gods we trust: The evolutionary landscape of religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, Pascal. 1993. Cognitive aspects of religious symbolism. In Cognitive aspects of religious symbolism, ed. Pascal Boyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, Steve. 2009. Naturalism, science and the supernatural. Sophia 48: 127–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, Philip. 2004. Mind and emergence: From quantum to consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craver, Carl F. 2007. Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Craver, Carl F., and Lindley Darden. 2013. In search of mechanisms: Discoveries across the life sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Draper, Paul. 2005. God, science, and naturalism. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy of religion, ed. William J. Wainwright. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, Owen. 2006. Varieties of naturalism. In The Oxford handbook of religion and science, ed. P. Clayton and Z. Simpson, 2006. New York: Oxford University Press on Demand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, Alan. 1981. Forms of explanation: Rethinking questions in social theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, Stewart, and Charles Taliaferro. 2008. Naturalism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Jaegwon. 2007. Physicalism, or something near enough. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, Philip. 1992. The naturalists return. The Philosophical Review 101: 53–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiter, Brian. 1998. Naturalism and naturalized jurisprudence. In Analysing law: New essays in legal theory, ed. B. Bix. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, Robert N. 2007. Reduction: Models of cross-scientific relations and their implications for the psychology-neuroscience interface. In Philosophy of psychology and cognitive science, ed. Paul Thagard. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, Robert, and William Bechtel. 2001. Explanatory pluralism and heuristic identity theory. Theory & Psychology 11: 736–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyysiäinen, Ilkka. 2011. Reduction and explanatory pluralism in the cognitive science of religion. In Changing minds: Religion and cognition through the ages, ed. Istvan Czachesz and Tamas Biro. Leuven: Peeters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raatikainen, Panu. 2010. Causation, exclusion, and the special sciences. Erkenntnis: An International Journal of Analytic Philosophy 73: 349–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rea, Michael Cannon. 2002. World without design: The ontological consequences of naturalism. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, Alex. 1996. A field guide to recent species of naturalism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47: 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slingerland, Edward. 2008a. What science offers the humanities: Integrating body and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008b. Who is afraid of reductionism? The study of religion in the age of cognitive science. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 76: 375–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, Dan, and Hiram Caton. 1996. Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoljar, Daniel. 2010. Physicalism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiebe, Donald. 2005. Beyond thick descriptions and interpretive sciences: Explaining religious meaning. In How to do comparative religion: Three ways, many goals, ed. Rene Gothoni. De Gruyter: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, James. 2005. Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. New York: Oxford university press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aku Visala .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

Visala, A. (2018). Pro-Science Rhetoric or a Research Program? – Naturalism(s) in the Cognitive-Evolutionary Study of Religion. 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_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics