Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:04:39.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive science of religion and theism: how can they be compatible?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2013

LEO NÄREAHO
LEO NÄREAHO*
Affiliation:
Department of Systematic Theology, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Theology, P. O. Box 4, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I examine the compatibility thesis, according to which the assumptions and results of cognitive (and other bio-psychological) theories of religion are compatible with the theistic world-view. In particular, I analyse the conception of world-view neutrality concerning scientific theories of religion. I also investigate the nature of pro-theistic argumentation; one aspect of this is the role that various forms of naturalism have in theistic compatibility claims. I point out that the version of theism guiding the argumentation of the proponents of the compatibility thesis is seldom explicated. A commitment to classical theism is problematic because of the ultimate metaphysical separation of God and the world. Instead, I support the compatibility view with a notion of God construed as the structuring cause of the world.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 51 - 66
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

Barrett, J. L. (2007) ‘Is the spell really broken? Bio-psychological explanations of religion and theistic belief’, Theology & Science, 5, 57–72.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. L. (2009) ‘Cognitive science, religion, and theology’, in Schloss, Jeffrey & Murray, M. J. (eds) Believing Primate (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press), 76–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J. L., Leech, David, & Visala, Aku (2010) ‘Can religious belief be explained away? Reasons and causes of religious belief’, in Frey, Ulrich (ed.) Nature of God: Evolution and Religion (Marburg: Tectum Verlag), 75–92.Google Scholar
Clark, K. J. & Barrett, J. L. (2011) ‘Reidian religious epistemology and the cognitive science of religion’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 79, 639–675.Google Scholar
Clayton, Philip & Peacocke, Arthur (eds.) (2004) In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans).Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard (2006) The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co).Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (2006) Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Viking).Google Scholar
Dretske, Fred (2004) ‘Psychological vs. biological explanations of behavior’, Behavior and Philosophy, 32, 167–177.Google Scholar
Dretske, Fred (2010) ‘Triggering causes and structuring causes’, in O'Connor, Timothy & Sandis, Constantine (eds) A Companion to the Philosophy of Action (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell), 139–144.Google Scholar
Granqvist, Pehr, Fredrikson, Mats, Unge, Patrik, Hagenfeldt, Andrea, Valind, Sven, Larhammar, Dan, & Larsson, Marcus (2005) ‘Sensed presence and mystical experiences are predicted by suggestibility, not by the application of transcranial weak complex magnetic fields’, Neuroscience Letters, 379, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, Alister (1980) The Spiritual Nature of Man: A Study of Contemporary Religious Experience (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Leech, David & Visala, Aku (2011a) ‘The cognitive science of religion: implications for theism?’, Zygon, 46, 47–64.Google Scholar
Leech, David & Visala, Aku (2011b) ‘The cognitive science of religion: a modified theist response’, Religious Studies, 47, 310–316.Google Scholar
Murray, M. J. (2007) ‘Four arguments that the cognitive psychology of religion undermines the justification of religious belief’, in Bulbulia, J. A. (ed.) The Evolution of Religion: Studies, Theories & Critiques (Santa Margarita CA: Collins Foundation Press), 365–370.Google Scholar
Paper, Jordan (2004) The Mystic Experience: A Descriptive and Comparative Analysis (Albany: State University of New York Press).Google Scholar
Persinger, Michael A. & Healey, Faye H. B. A. (2002) ‘Experimental of facilitation of the sensed presence: possible intercalation between the hemispheres induced by complex magnetic fields’, The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 190, 533–541.Google Scholar
Smith, Huston (1964) ‘Do drugs have religious import?’, The Journal of Philosophy, 61, 517–530.Google Scholar
Studstill, Randall (2005) The Unity of Mystical Traditions: The Transformation of Consciousness in Tibetan and German Mysticism (Leiden: Brill).Google Scholar
Wainwright, William (1981) Mysticism: A Study of its Nature, Cognitive Value and Moral Implications (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press).Google Scholar
Van Till, H. J. (2008) ‘How firm a foundation? A response to Justin L. Barrett's “Is the spell really broken?”’, Theology & Science, 6, 341–349.Google Scholar
Visala, Aku (2011) Naturalism, Theism, and the Cognitive Study of Religion: Religion Explained? (Farnham: Ashgate).Google Scholar