Toward an Alternative Evolutionary Theory of Religion: Looking Past Computational Evolutionary Psychology to a Wider Field of Possibilities

Abstract

Cognitive science of the last half-century has been dominated by the computational theory of mind and its picture of thought as information processing. Taking this picture for granted, the most prominent evolutionary theories of religion of the last fifteen years have sought to understand human religiosity as the product or by-product of universal information processing mechanisms that were adaptive in our ancestral environment. The rigidity of such explanations is at odds with the highly context-sensitive nature of historical studies of religion, and thus contributes to the apparent tug-of-war between scientific and humanistic perspectives. This essay argues that this antagonism stems in part from a deep flaw of computational theory, namely its notion of information as pre-given and context-free. In contrast, non-computational theories that picture mind as an adaptive, interactive process in which information is jointly constructed by organism and environment offer an alternative approach to an evolutionary understanding of human religiosity, one that is compatible with historical studies and amenable to a wide range of inquiries, including some limited kinds of theological inquiry.

Religious Cognition as a Dual-Process: Developing the Model

“…Indeed some authors have noted that the standard 'cognitive science of religion' appears som ewhat outdated (Day 2007; N. Barrett 2010), since it was built on cognitive models from the nineties but now discarded in great measure, like the ideas of massive modularity or the connectionist model of the mind. A nother problem is the excess of reductionism sometimes perceived, preventing a better under standing of the complexity of religious cognition and behavior.…”

Religion as a Language: Exploring Alternative Paths in Conversation With Postreductionist Anthropologies

“…Besides this, recent scholarly contributions in the field have tried to summarize and classify the main outcomes of the ongoing research (Smith ; Turner ). At the same time, many critical voices have been raised in recent years, revealing flaws and limits at different levels in that scientific program: concerning its epistemic basis, its theoretical framework, its methodology, and even its empirical and experimental evidence (Day ; Laidlaw ; N. Barrett ; Van Slyke ; Visala ; Schüler ; Turk ; Smith ; Watts and Turner ).…”

“…A recent collective essay has gathered many names in the cognitive study of religion trying to integrate culture into the basket of variables to be taken into account (Bulbulia et al 2013). Other scholars are exploring the fields of symbols and meaning (A. Geertz 2008;Doner 2013); or the demanding field of meaning and values (N. Barrett 2010). Furthermore Harvey Whitehouse, echoing Jablonka and Lamb (2005) and other studies, proposes a multi-level approach to religious evolution: epigenetic, cognitive-developmental and socio-historical (Whitehouse 2013).…”

On the Relationship Between Method and the Object of Study When Studying Religion

“…A recent debate in the Joumal of the American Academy of Religion, for example, included reference to the effect that defining religion has on the experimental design of CE projects (Barrett 2010;Schloss, Barrett, and Murray 2010). As many, including Taves, have shown, the study of religion and anthropology once split over how religion was defined vis-à-vis magic.…”

“…For an example of CE scholars working from a priori definitions, such as defining religion as belief in supernatural beings, seeBarrett 2010 andSchloss, Barrett, andMurray 2010. NUMEN 61 (2014) 131-144…”