June 20, 2008
Cognitive machinery and explanatory ambitions: On Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained
Barbara Herrnstein Smith over at the Immanent Frame:
Boyer presents a picture of human behavior as largely a matter of the automatic, unconscious workings of evolved mental mechanisms, and he promotes the description of such workings as a properly scientific explanation of religion that trumps all other accounts. Indeed, for Boyer, it is precisely insofar as an explanation of some phenomenon—any phenomenon—is put in terms of what he refers to repeatedly as “underlying causal mechanisms” that it counts as genuinely scientific. In relation to these central features of Religion Explained, two important points should be made.
First, it should be recognized that neither the computational-modular model of the mind nor the idea of innate, automatically triggered mental mechanisms is a foregone conclusion of contemporary cognitive science or of any other science. The computational model has been significantly challenged both by practitioners of cognitive science per se and by researchers and theorists working in a number of related fields, including evolutionary biology, developmental psychology, paleoanthropology, and philosophy of mind. Moreover, a number of important alternative models of cognition have been developed in these and other fields...The alternative models often give considerable attention to a number of features of human cognition slighted in Boyer’s book and in the new cognitive accounts of religion more generally. Among them are the significance, for humans, of ongoing individual experiential learning; the complex social dynamics involved in the transmission of skills and beliefs; the presence among post-Paleolithic humans of such crucial cultural cognitive resources as transgenerational material culture, schools, texts, and duplicated images; and the significant differences among individuals with regard to various aspects of cognition.
Contrary, then, to the assumptions of paradigmatic evolutionary psychology and the claims of current cognitive explanations of religion, it is by no means clear that our interactions with our environments are determined largely by the operation of mental mechanisms hardwired at birth or that various widespread and recurrent features of human behavior and culture, including those associated with religion, are best explained by reference to a universal and virtually uniform species-specific mind.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 05:21 PM | Permalink









Comments
I was trying to decipher why the so-called reward system of the brain works seemingly couter intuitively under certain circumstances as it does in some psychiatric condiditions.
I was trying today to understand why a perfectly "normal" medical student chose to amputate her wrist to satisfy the "urge" of being an amputee.
I may sound naif or pessimistic, but I am convinced the certain aspects of our minds and convictions will forever remain elusive.
Thanks for the posting, it served, in my case,the purpose of justifying my feelings of helplessnes.
Posted by: Felix E F larocca MD | Jun 20, 2008 6:10:54 PM
Contrary, then, to the assumptions of paradigmatic evolutionary psychology and the claims of current cognitive explanations of religion, it is by no means clear that our interactions with our environments are determined largely by the operation of mental mechanisms hardwired at birth or that various widespread and recurrent features of human behavior and culture, including those associated with religion, are best explained by reference to a universal and virtually uniform species-specific mind.
Indeed, and there's a fairly knock-down argument for this conclusion:
1) Religion, as we know it, is no more than 6 or 7 thousand years old,
2) Our genetic makeup is essentially identical to that of those humans who lived just prior to the explosion of the varieties of theism, therefore:
3) Genetic information cannot be the sole, nor even the primary feature of a good explanation of religion.
This is just the first difficulty people like Boyer have to face... if they are able to rhetorically squirm their way around it, they still find themselves face-to-face with the contentions in Barb Smith's piece.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Jun 20, 2008 6:31:15 PM
Well, a ant climbing to the top of a bade of grass so the lancet fluke can continue it's reproductive cycle (it has invaded and rewired the ant's brain, so it can be ingested by a sheep, and continue it's parasitic cycle).
Like the lancet fluke, religions invade humans minds, rewire them for religions own interest, and the host (humans) do actions that are not always in their own interest.
Religion and lancet flukes have a lot in common, and religious memes (actually groups of memes working together) are outside the confines of genes.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jun 21, 2008 12:42:52 AM
Wow.... I so wish I could use the lancet fluke analogy with some people I know.
Sadly, I think they'd simply end up "praying for me."
Posted by: reader | Jun 21, 2008 11:13:30 AM
Actually, the Lancet Fluke Analogy desires itself to be shared with atheists (a prepared host).
Religious people just think it's silly, or that they are rubber and you are...well, you get the idea.
Posted by: Carlos | Jun 21, 2008 7:05:35 PM
Just curious... did any of you actually read this article?
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Jun 21, 2008 7:39:56 PM
Nick, don't be silly.
Posted by: Actual Reader | Jun 22, 2008 1:43:03 AM
Nick, you have not noticed? The posts here are less text than pretext. It's our cunning departure from the Letters to the Editor model.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jun 22, 2008 1:47:50 AM
Carlos-
Of course religious people think the "Lancet Fluke Analogy" is silly----
Their rewired brains have been programed to think that way.
"All your bases belong to us."
(for those familiar with viral replications)
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jun 22, 2008 2:35:13 AM
See the links below for other reviews of this book:
http://www.cosmoetica.com/B99-DES54.htm
http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/rev1_9_02.html
Doesn't seem that Boyer has hit gold.
Posted by: aguy109 | Jun 22, 2008 6:31:59 AM
Actually, Dave, pretextually speaking, the mangle was: "All your base are belong to us."
I actually love Dennett's Lancet Fluke Analogy, I just think he is the infected one.
And Nick, I read the review but not the book.
Posted by: Carlos | Jun 22, 2008 1:56:41 PM
Heh, nice one Elatia. Point taken.
In the future, I'll be sure to refrain from reading the pieces, and merely pick up on keywords in order to repeat the same three or four things I always say.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Jun 22, 2008 6:46:29 PM
Post a comment