Comments on: Which cognitive revolution? http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/07/18/which-cognitive-revolution/ Secularism, religion, and the public sphere Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:15:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Michael Grossman http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/07/18/which-cognitive-revolution/#comment-4415 Michael Grossman Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:32:39 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/?p=303#comment-4415 Great article, one point to make though: the statement that, "these cognitive predilections to believe in gods can be overridden by special types of enculturation but experimental, historical, archaeological, and ethnographic evidence suggests that as a species we are prone to belief in gods," very well implies the possibility that belief in a personal God may well be threatened if certain strands of modernist secularism are allowed to flourish, such as those stands that find the idea of non-personal agency abhorrent and ultimately immoral in its perceived contribution to a general lack of responsibility for one's actions and/or the limiting of personal agency (a strand that has recently been well covered by anthropologist Webb Keane). However, the evidence that such a strand of modernist secular thought will, in fact, come to dominate the earth as a whole is, of course, by no means extremely compelling. A very interesting discussion overall, the draw toward such a "piecemeal" classification of religious phenomena as the CSR advocates is certainly compelling analytically, and offers theorists an approach that is perhaps more "scientific" in terms of the exactness of its application than other more general methodologies. Great article, one point to make though: the statement that, “these cognitive predilections to believe in gods can be overridden by special types of enculturation but experimental, historical, archaeological, and ethnographic evidence suggests that as a species we are prone to belief in gods,” very well implies the possibility that belief in a personal God may well be threatened if certain strands of modernist secularism are allowed to flourish, such as those stands that find the idea of non-personal agency abhorrent and ultimately immoral in its perceived contribution to a general lack of responsibility for one’s actions and/or the limiting of personal agency (a strand that has recently been well covered by anthropologist Webb Keane). However, the evidence that such a strand of modernist secular thought will, in fact, come to dominate the earth as a whole is, of course, by no means extremely compelling.

A very interesting discussion overall, the draw toward such a “piecemeal” classification of religious phenomena as the CSR advocates is certainly compelling analytically, and offers theorists an approach that is perhaps more “scientific” in terms of the exactness of its application than other more general methodologies.

]]>