Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:08:28.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The cognitive science of religion and theism again: a reply to Leo Näreaho

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2013

DAVID LEECH  and
AKU VISALA
DAVID LEECH
Affiliation:
Department of Religion and Theology, University of Bristol, 11 Woodland Road, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 1TB, UK e-mail: [email protected]
AKU VISALA
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Notre Dame, 611 Flanner Hall, Notre Dame, Indiana, 46556, USA e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article we respond to Leo Näreaho's critique of our position on the relationship of the cognitive science of religion (CSR) and theism, arguing that he misrepresents our position and assimilates our views to ones we do not in fact hold. The central issue we address has to do with how Näreaho construes what he takes to be our commitment to a ‘world-view neutrality’ thesis regarding the ‘assumptions and results’ of the new bio-psychological theories of religion (in the case at hand, CSR). We suggest that Näreaho has misconstrued us on what the neutrality thesis actually is and what follows from it. We conclude that his own proposal for compatibility is not an alternative to ours but rather one permissible metaphysical reading of CSR among others.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 67 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atran, S. (2002) In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Barrett, J. (2007) ‘Is the spell really broken? Bio-psychological explanations of religion and theistic belief’, Theology and Science, 5, 57–72.Google Scholar
Barrett, J., Leech, D., & Visala, A. (2010) ‘Can religious belief be explained away? Reasons and causes of religious belief’, in Frey, Ulrich (ed.) The Nature of God: Evolution and Religion, I (Marburg: Tectum Verlag), 75–92.Google Scholar
Boyer, P. (2001) Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought (New York: Basic Books).Google Scholar
Clark, K. J. & Barrett, J. (2010) ‘Reformed epistemology and the cognitive science of religion’, Faith and Philosophy, 27, 174–189.Google Scholar
Craver, C. (2007) Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, M. (2007) ‘Let's be realistic: evolutionary complexity, epistemic probabilism, and the cognitive science of religion’, Harvard Theological Review, 100, 47–64.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion (London: Bantam Press).Google Scholar
Dennett, D. (2006) Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Viking).Google Scholar
Horst, S. (2007) Beyond Reduction: Philosophy of Mind and Post-Reductionistic Philosophy of Science (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Horst, S. (2011) Laws, Mind and Free Will (Cambridge MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Knight, N., Cohen, E., & Barrett, J. (forthcoming) ‘An assessment of the development of cognitive science of religion and outline of evidential needs’.Google Scholar
Laidlaw, J. (2007) ‘Well-disposed social anthropologist's problem with the “cognitive science of religion” ’, in Whitehouse, H. & Laidlaw, J. (eds) Religion, Anthropology and Cognitive Science (Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press), 211–46.Google Scholar
Leech, D. & Visala, A. (2011a) ‘The cognitive science of religion: a modified theist response’, Religious Studies, 47, 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, D. & Visala, A. (2011b) ‘The cognitive science of religion: implications for theism?’, Zygon, 46, 47–64.Google Scholar
Leech, D. & Visala, A. (2012) ‘How the cognitive science of religion might be relevant for philosophy of religion?’, in Nagasawa, Yujin (ed.) Scientific Approaches to Philosophy of Religion (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 165–183.Google Scholar
Murray, M. (2007) ‘Four arguments that the cognitive psychology of religion undermines the justification of religious belief’, in Bulbulia, J. et al. (eds) The Evolution of Religion: Studies, Theories, and Critiques (Santa Margarita: Collins Foundation Press), 365–70.Google Scholar
Murray, M. (2009) ‘Scientific explanations of religion and the justification of religious belief’, in Murray, M. & Schloss, J. (eds) The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press), 168–77.Google Scholar
Murray, M. & Goldberg, A. (2009) ‘Evolutionary accounts of religion: explaining and explaining away’, in Murray, M. & Schloss, J. (eds) The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press), 179–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Näreaho, L. (2013) ‘Cognitive science of religion and theism: how can they be compatible?’, Religious Studies, Published online 16 April 2013, doi:10.1017/S0034412513000152.Google Scholar
Visala, A. (2011) Theism, Naturalism and the Cognitive Study of Religion: Religion Explained? (Aldershot: Ashgate).Google Scholar
Visala, A. (2013) ‘Explaining religion in different levels: from fundamentalism to pluralism’, in Trigg, Roger & Barrett, Justin (eds) Roots of Religion (Farnham: Ashgate, in press).Google Scholar