Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Explaining the magic/religion distinction using a dual inheritance
model
Konrad Talmont-Kaminski Marie Curie-Sklodowska U., Poland
Plan Dual inheritance
model of religion Pyysiainen’s new
principle Supernatural,
counterintuitive, etc. Explaining the
difference Religious
superstitions
Dual inheritance model Evolutionary explanations of religion
Two main approaches Cognitive by-product approach
Pascal Boyer Justin Barrett
Pro-social adaptation approach Richard Sosis David Sloan Wilson
Appear to be contradictory It ain’t necessarily so!
Dual inheritance model Combines by-product and pro-social accounts
Supernatural beliefs are... cognitive by-products...
Result of genetic evolution co-opted for pro-social function
Through cultural evolution
Requires complex model of relationship between genetic and cultural evolution Evolutionary psychology not adequate
Atran & Henrich The Evolution of Religion Biological Theory (forthcoming)
Dual inheritance model Potential explanation of magic/religion
distinction Religious beliefs
Supernatural beliefs co-opted for pro-social function Magical beliefs
Supernatural beliefs not co-opted for pro-social function (Some may have been co-opted for other functions)
How can we test this theory?1. Choose independent means of identifying
magical/religious beliefs2. Check if theory explains differences observed
between identified beliefs
Pyysiäinen’s new principle Magic, Miracles, and Religion p. 96-7
“Religion and magic are distinguished by the direction the people in question believe causality to operate. In magic, supernatural agents and forces bring about specified effects in the known reality, while in religion natural actions have effects in a supernatural reality”
Pyysiäinen’s examples Magic
Attempts to ensure growth of crops by manipulating ancestral spirits
Religion Baptising children to remove the original sin
Mismatch?
Pyysiäinen’s new principle Pyysiäinen considers magic/religion distinction
purely analytical Always dealing with magico-religious complexes in real
world True but... Dual inheritance model suggests deeper significance Magic and religion most clearly divided in modern
societies Potentially due to value placed on rationality
Useful to compare Superstitions Christian beliefs
Still dealing with magico-religious complexes! Intercessory prayer
Pyysiäinen’s new principle Supernatural/natural
distinction problematic Not fundamentally an
ontological distinction Not just a cognitive
distinction, either A cognitive distinction
with an epistemic basis Focussing on
functionality of supernatural beliefs Functional due to
practices they motivate Need to look at practices
Pyysiäinen’s new principle
Religion Magic Cause
Effect
Natural Practice
Natural Supernatural
Supernatural Intervention
Explanation
Natural Practice
Supernatural Intervention
Pyysiäinen’s new principle
Religion Magic Cause
Effect
Natural Baptism
Natural Crop successful
Supernatural Sin removed
Natural Spell
Explanation Supernatural Ancestral spirits
Supernatural Jesus’
intervention
Supernatural, counterinuitive, etc. Main question
Why should belief in supernatural effects of certain practices be connected to pro-social function?
First need to consider what is meant to be identified by ‘supernatural’
Durkheim suggest sacred There is something right about this but... Non-religious sacred entities, etc.
Boyer suggests minimally counterintuitive There is something right about this but...
Supernatural, counterintuitive, etc. Some minimally counterintuitive concepts
Table that is normal but over 99% vacuum Human that is a direct descendant of a bacterium Light that acts like a particle or a wave depending
on what we will do with it in the future Minimal counterintuitiveness may explain why
supernatural concepts spread It does not identify them
Supernatural, counterintuitive, etc. Cause of counterintuiveness of religious &
scientific beliefs different With scientific beliefs – forced by empirical
evidence With religious beliefs – due to human cognitive
idiosyncrasies unconstrained by empirical evidence
Superempirical beliefs Beliefs people form, due to the idiosyncrasies of
our cognitive system, when unconstrained by empirical evidence Cognitive element retained Epistemic element also essential
Supernatural, counterintuitive, etc. How can beliefs be
freed of empirical constraints? Content – Making claims
that are hard to investigate
Social context – Discouraging their investigation by deeming them sacred
Methodological context – Limiting access to means necessary to investigate them
Function of the superempirical Untestability has profound significance for
function Function of most beliefs dependent upon their truth However, not in the case of religious beliefs
Non-cognitive function
At the same time... Stability of most beliefs dependent upon their truth However, not in the case of religious beliefs
Thesis Non-cognitive function of beliefs maintains stability of
beliefs whose truth-value is effectively untestable
Explaining the difference In other words
Why should belief in supernatural effects of certain practices be connected to pro-social function?
Religious beliefs have a pro-social (non-cognitive) function because supernatural effects are untestable
Content of religious beliefs determined by function not by truth-value
Baptism example People seek to remove original sin Children made members of church Continuity of church does not require conscious
decision upon adulthood
Religious superstitions What about magical
beliefs? Different epistemic
situation Belief in the face of
counterevidence not belief without evidence
‘Evidence’ Goes back to Skinner’s
pigeon Best dealt with by
Haselton’s error management theory
Hyperactive Agent Detection Device a special case
Religious superstitions Supernatural explanations
Needed because natural explanations unavailable Minimally counterintuitive concepts a part of the
story Explanations often post hoc Substantive notion of luck a minimalist supernatural
explanation Magical beliefs provide ‘evidence’ for existence
of the supernatural Needed to help motivate religious beliefs Religion with religious superstitions weaker Results in ambiguous religious attitude toward
religious superstitions
Final Point If dual inheritance
model of religion correct Religious belief not
necessarily an adaptive trait here and now
Modern western democracies Low religious belief High social stability and
cohesion Religion an ancestral
trait here, at best
