Abstract
In this commentary on Claire White’s An Introduction to the Cognitive Science of Religion: Connecting Evolution, Brain, Cognition, and Culture (London: Routledge, 2021), I contrast the circuitous way in which I (and probably a number of others) initially came to teach cognitive science of religion (CSR) at the undergraduate university level with the more direct (and knowledgeable) way in which White came to do so. I then briefly discuss her comprehensive and coherent presentation of the CSR, noting, however, several issues with which I have problems (fractionation, an ahistorical “presentist” bias, and whether or not an “agnostic” view of religious teachings should remain the norm in the modern university curricula). Nevertheless, White’s Introduction is a most welcome and long-overdue contribution to the academic study of religion, the 150-year trajectory of which has been characterized by an anti-scientific history.
Reference35 articles.
1. Ambasicano, L. (2017). Exiting the motel of the mysteries? How historiographical floccinaucinihilipilification is affecting CSR 2.0. In L. H. Martin, & D. Wiebe (Eds.). Religion explained? The cognitive science of religion after twenty-five years (pp. 215–249). London: Bloomsbury.
2. ———. (2019). An unnatural history of religions: Academia, post-truth and the quest for scientific knowledge. London: Bloomsbury.
3. ———. (2021). He who pays the piper calls the tune: Big data, philanthrocapitalism, and the demise of the historical study of religions. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 34(1–2), 182–209. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341527
4. Bains, S. (2011). Questioning the integrity of the John Templeton Foundation. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(1), 92–115. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F147470491100900111
5. Barrett, J. L. (1999). Theological correctness: Cognitive constraints and the study of religion. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 11(4), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1163/157006899X00078