2012
DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1189
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Religious thought and behavior

Abstract: While earlier approaches to religious thought and practice searched for 'magic bullet' approaches to explain religious thought and behavior, seeing it as an example of irrationality, illusion, integrative force, symbolism, or false explanations of origins, cognitive scientific approaches have suggested that we see it rather as an aggregate of the products of various cognitive mechanisms. Studies in the cognitive science of religion, informed by experimental work, have converged on a standard model of explainin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The last decade has seen a renewed interest in understanding the cognitive and psychological basis of religious thought and behavior. The so-called cognitive science of religion (CSR) starts from an evolutionary account and describes religion as a byproduct of the functioning of our ordinary cognitive faculties (Atran & Norenzayan, 2004;Barrett & Burdett, 2011;Boyer & Lienard, 2006;Lawson, 2012;Pyysiainen, 2012). According to this account, religious beliefs, experiences, and rituals recruit similar cognitive resources as used in everyday practices (judgment, reasoning, action, and social interaction) that originally evolved because they directly conferred an adaptive advantage.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The last decade has seen a renewed interest in understanding the cognitive and psychological basis of religious thought and behavior. The so-called cognitive science of religion (CSR) starts from an evolutionary account and describes religion as a byproduct of the functioning of our ordinary cognitive faculties (Atran & Norenzayan, 2004;Barrett & Burdett, 2011;Boyer & Lienard, 2006;Lawson, 2012;Pyysiainen, 2012). According to this account, religious beliefs, experiences, and rituals recruit similar cognitive resources as used in everyday practices (judgment, reasoning, action, and social interaction) that originally evolved because they directly conferred an adaptive advantage.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, it contributed to the general but fallacious belief that sand is destined to improve its "maturity" through time (Folk, 1951;Pettijohn, 1954; ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Hubert, 1962). We may speculate, as cognitive neuroscience suggests (Boyer, 2008;McCauley, 2011), that even such a sedimentological version of the purity myth (Garzanti, 2017) may be nurtured by security networks in our brain, that lead us to repel sources of impurity and contamination (Douglas, 2003;Mann, 2005;Lawson, 2012) and to indulge in the teleologic illusion that things are ultimately destined to attain perfection (Popper, 1994).…”
Section: How Is Pure Quartzose Sand Generated?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior research has shown that agents violating a minimal number of intuitive expectations (“minimally counterintuitive,” or MCI, agents) are typically remembered better than agents that adhere to expectations, dramatically violate intuitive expectations, or only violate culturally acquired expectations [1, 510]. As it could be argued that gods and goddesses are MCI agents, some authors have implicated this memory bias in the development and pervasiveness of religion [1113]. Indeed, counterintuitive statements are rated more ‘religious’ than intuitive statements [14] and a minimal amount of such content may be an ideal condition for belief [1517].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%