What do you think?
Rate this book
WHY RELIGION IS NATURAL AND SCIENCE IS NOT
The battle between religion and science, competing methods of knowing ourselves and our world, has been raging for many centuries. Now scientists themselves are looking at cognitive foundations of religion--and arriving at some surprising conclusions.
Over the course of the past two decades, scholars have employed insights gleaned from cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and related disciplines to illuminate the study of religion. In Why Religion is Natural and Science Is Not, Robert N. McCauley, one of the founding fathers of the cognitive science of religion, argues that our minds are better suited to religious belief than to scientific inquiry. Drawing on the latest research and illustrating his argument with commonsense examples, McCauley argues that religion has existed for many thousands of years in every society because the kinds of explanations it provides are precisely the kinds that come naturally to human minds. Science, on the other hand, is a much more recent and rare development because it reaches radical conclusions and requires a kind of abstract thinking that only arises consistently under very specific social conditions. Religion makes intuitive sense to us, while science requires a lot of work. McCauley then draws out the larger implications of these findings. The naturalness of religion, he suggests, means that science poses no real threat to it, while the unnaturalness of science puts it in a surprisingly precarious position.
Rigorously argued and elegantly written, this provocative book will appeal to anyone interested in the ongoing debate between religion and science, and in the nature and workings of the human mind.
Over the course of the past two decades, scholars have employed insights gleaned from cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and related disciplines to illuminate the study of religion. In Why Religion is Natural and Science Is Not, Robert N. McCauley, one of the founding fathers of the cognitive science of religion, argues that our minds are better suited to religious belief than to scientific inquiry. Drawing on the latest research and illustrating his argument with commonsense examples, McCauley argues that religion has existed for many thousands of years in every society because the kinds of explanations it provides are precisely the kinds that come naturally to human minds. Science, on the other hand, is a much more recent and rare development because it reaches radical conclusions and requires a kind of abstract thinking that only arises consistently under very specific social conditions. Religion makes intuitive sense to us, while science requires a lot of work. McCauley then draws out the larger implications of these findings. The naturalness of religion, he suggests, means that science poses no real threat to it, while the unnaturalness of science puts it in a surprisingly precarious position.
Rigorously argued and elegantly written, this provocative book will appeal to anyone interested in the ongoing debate between religion and science, and in the nature and workings of the human mind.
356 pages, Paperback
First published September 28, 2011
9 people are currently reading
302 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
October 20, 2019
“Religions variously activate cognitive inclinations that enjoy neither logical nor functional unity. Cognitively speaking they are like Rube Goldberg devices…”
There are so many basic conceptual problems throughout this book. That is, ideas and statements that are unsupported, undeveloped, confused, contradictory, and outmoded in terms of science and philosophy of mind. In general it fails to engage science or religion with a grasp of contemporary study in philosophy of mind, cognition, religion, or science. The claims in the bulk of the book vaguely rely upon outdated theories of modularity of mind (Fodor retracted the plausibility of his models years ago), computational theory of mind, Neo-Darwinism, and pop-evolutionary psychology, without addressing any of the most pressing problems these outdated models entail—such as the homunculus fallacy inherent in ‘domain specificity’ and the problem of mental causation in computational theory of mind. There is a tediously long pronouncement of what Religion consists in, cognitively speaking, but with no accompanying scholarship or persuasive argument. (Steven Pinker is not a scholar of Religion or rationality. Neither is Stephen Mithen. And cargo cults aren’t an apt representation of any mainstream religion I’ve studied).
The author makes reference to the level of cognition that non-scientific cultures posses (including ancient cultures) and likens them to infants and young children. “Infants, young children, and those people who have lived in cultures in which science never flowered understand that evidence matters, but that capacity is just the beginning. First, it does not guarantee that they will be able to discern (relevant) evidence. …Without knowing the theories at stake, people will fail to recognize evidence when it is right before their eyes.” Are these people in non-scientific cultures like children and infants in that they fail to recognize evidence right before their eyes? These comments are condescending, culture-centric, and paternalistic, as well as unstudied.
A take away from the book might be that there is both unconscious thought and rational cognition at play in human mentality. I don’t think anyone doubts this. What is of paramount interest to thinkers is what the intelligible relationship between these two vastly different modes of existence could be. Religion is the realm that first and originally took up this most human of all questions—what is the mental and material nature of the uniting principle between these two phenomenal domains? What is its real status in the face of the propensity for illusion? It is a very complex and logically rigorous investigation (maybe the author hasn’t studied Indian or Buddhist philosophy) to which religion and theology committed itself. We could say that science is not a sophisticated enough tool to interrogate and grasp the ground of the concept of matter, whereas this is precisely Religion’s cognitive aim. Quite unlike a Rube Goldberg device.
There are so many basic conceptual problems throughout this book. That is, ideas and statements that are unsupported, undeveloped, confused, contradictory, and outmoded in terms of science and philosophy of mind. In general it fails to engage science or religion with a grasp of contemporary study in philosophy of mind, cognition, religion, or science. The claims in the bulk of the book vaguely rely upon outdated theories of modularity of mind (Fodor retracted the plausibility of his models years ago), computational theory of mind, Neo-Darwinism, and pop-evolutionary psychology, without addressing any of the most pressing problems these outdated models entail—such as the homunculus fallacy inherent in ‘domain specificity’ and the problem of mental causation in computational theory of mind. There is a tediously long pronouncement of what Religion consists in, cognitively speaking, but with no accompanying scholarship or persuasive argument. (Steven Pinker is not a scholar of Religion or rationality. Neither is Stephen Mithen. And cargo cults aren’t an apt representation of any mainstream religion I’ve studied).
The author makes reference to the level of cognition that non-scientific cultures posses (including ancient cultures) and likens them to infants and young children. “Infants, young children, and those people who have lived in cultures in which science never flowered understand that evidence matters, but that capacity is just the beginning. First, it does not guarantee that they will be able to discern (relevant) evidence. …Without knowing the theories at stake, people will fail to recognize evidence when it is right before their eyes.” Are these people in non-scientific cultures like children and infants in that they fail to recognize evidence right before their eyes? These comments are condescending, culture-centric, and paternalistic, as well as unstudied.
A take away from the book might be that there is both unconscious thought and rational cognition at play in human mentality. I don’t think anyone doubts this. What is of paramount interest to thinkers is what the intelligible relationship between these two vastly different modes of existence could be. Religion is the realm that first and originally took up this most human of all questions—what is the mental and material nature of the uniting principle between these two phenomenal domains? What is its real status in the face of the propensity for illusion? It is a very complex and logically rigorous investigation (maybe the author hasn’t studied Indian or Buddhist philosophy) to which religion and theology committed itself. We could say that science is not a sophisticated enough tool to interrogate and grasp the ground of the concept of matter, whereas this is precisely Religion’s cognitive aim. Quite unlike a Rube Goldberg device.
March 26, 2012
This is a stand-out and one-of-kind book in the slurry of books inhabiting the "science and religion" genre. McCauley tackles the topic from the most fruitful angle -- how scientific and religious epistemes differ from a cognitive standpoint.
Although those up-to-date on the topic of religious cognition will find not a lot new here, I'd wager these conclusions and arguments are novel to most everyone else -- including scholars of religion and philosophers of science hailing from more traditional frameworks.
Not only is this book successful in it's intended goal -- to explain the titular promise of "why religion is natural and science is not" -- it would also serve as a nice (albeit incomplete) introduction to the cognitive science of religion.
I highly recommended this book to all of those interested in the topic from all perspectives (atheists, theists, or whatever). McCauley writes clearly, argues soundly, and avoids any axe-grinding. In short, this book was synthetically enlightening to me and I imagine this effect would be magnified in those less familiar with the field.
5/5 stars
Although those up-to-date on the topic of religious cognition will find not a lot new here, I'd wager these conclusions and arguments are novel to most everyone else -- including scholars of religion and philosophers of science hailing from more traditional frameworks.
Not only is this book successful in it's intended goal -- to explain the titular promise of "why religion is natural and science is not" -- it would also serve as a nice (albeit incomplete) introduction to the cognitive science of religion.
I highly recommended this book to all of those interested in the topic from all perspectives (atheists, theists, or whatever). McCauley writes clearly, argues soundly, and avoids any axe-grinding. In short, this book was synthetically enlightening to me and I imagine this effect would be magnified in those less familiar with the field.
5/5 stars
January 31, 2013
A stimulating read, clarifying some common misunderstandings on the relation between science and religion by offering a cognitive framework to look at both. Very accessible, fun to read!
April 11, 2017
Lost me at some parts especially in the beginning. I did find the ending very satisfying as it answered some of my questions regarding ideology. I was pleasantly surpised to see autism being discussed. I know of Simon Baron-Cohen's research. However, I think the imprinted brain theory is more convincing as the extreme male brain theory. The extreme opposite of autism (less prone to religion) would be psychotism (more prone to religion) according to the imprinted brain theory.
This book is important in my quest that started with cognitive biases and evolutionary psychology, towards the imprinted brain theory and political science. Political philosopher John Gray, who doesn't use much science in his works, has rallied against the idea of progressive human nature.
He also holds the belief that religion will persist. This book adds evidence to that view. I personally think that we could see post-religious cultures in the sense of lack of superstitions but never fully, and especially never fully rational or without bias. This because the psychological underpinnings that lead to religion do not go away, so that even ideology (to me the post-religious thought) will have characteristics that religion has. The book divides religion into theology and popular religion, I think that would apply to science as well: as we get to know more science as the general population it will still evolve towards a folk science that is more intuitive and comes more natural.
I suggest to read this book with the following political science books: "Predisposed", "Our political nature", "The righteous mind", the following evolutionary psychology book: "The imprinted brain" and the following evolutionary books on religion: "Big Gods" and "Darwin's Cathedral". The latter I still need to read myself.
This book is important in my quest that started with cognitive biases and evolutionary psychology, towards the imprinted brain theory and political science. Political philosopher John Gray, who doesn't use much science in his works, has rallied against the idea of progressive human nature.
He also holds the belief that religion will persist. This book adds evidence to that view. I personally think that we could see post-religious cultures in the sense of lack of superstitions but never fully, and especially never fully rational or without bias. This because the psychological underpinnings that lead to religion do not go away, so that even ideology (to me the post-religious thought) will have characteristics that religion has. The book divides religion into theology and popular religion, I think that would apply to science as well: as we get to know more science as the general population it will still evolve towards a folk science that is more intuitive and comes more natural.
I suggest to read this book with the following political science books: "Predisposed", "Our political nature", "The righteous mind", the following evolutionary psychology book: "The imprinted brain" and the following evolutionary books on religion: "Big Gods" and "Darwin's Cathedral". The latter I still need to read myself.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews