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 principleReligion Magic

Cause

Effect

Natural Practice

Natural Supernatural

Supernatural Intervention

Explanation

Natural Practice

Supernatural Intervention

Pyysiäinen’s new principleReligion 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

Thank youKonrad Talmont-Kaminskikonrad@talmont.com

lublin.academia.edu/KonradTalmontKaminski