Agnostic.com

14 1

Does the Cognitive Science of Religion legitimize the validity of religious behavior as a positive contribution toward human reproductive fitness?

Is CSR legit?

  • 15 votes
  • 8 votes
  • 15 votes
  • 0 votes
  • 10 votes
  • 0 votes
skado 9 Mar 28
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

14 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Let it go. You've moved from nincompoopery to plain assholery.

Opinions from laypeople are irrelevant.

1

Does the Cognitive Science of Religion legitimize the validity of religious behavior as a positive contribution toward human reproductive fitness?

I feel like this is a rather loaded question to be asking of the area of study. Assuming the goal is exploring the various aspects of religiosity from an external prospective (which seems the case given me quick search of the term), I feel no compelling pull towards any of the poll options.

I am also unsurprised by the fact that the reactionary options are getting most of the votes.

The reactionary opinions get most of the votes, perhaps because, the poll is off putting to those who would like to engage in legitimate debate on how genetic evolution affects our religions. And also perhaps because, many sense a hidden agenda behind the poll which induces negative responces.

1

Which religious behavior? Preaching? Praying? Tithing? Baptism? Burning witches at the stake? Maybe the question is about whether religious leaders, having a higher station, were a better catch? I'm sure that was true in some cases. But, how would that be any different than other jobs of high station?

5

That seems like a very shambolic poll.

Firstly. If you wish to ask questions about religion, you should start by defining "religion". since the answer will depend very much on the definition. As the answers below show, people have used several definitions.

Secondly. Science does not deal in terms such as "legitimize" and "validity", If you mean, does it indicate that such things may have occurred in the past, present or are likely to in the future, then that is what you should ask, and each separately please.

Thirdly. Several of the answers are about fact and several are about opinion, the poll is either an opinion poll, or a fact based poll about knowledge, it should not try to be both please.

Four. Number three is ambiguous, since it is possible to have both legitimate science and sham science in the same field at the same time. And indeed, it is very unlikely that you will not have both.

Five. Number five is two answers/questions in one: Is it based on "cherry picked facts"? And also. Is it "irrelevant" ? While I have to ask, "irrelevant" to what, reproductive fitness in the past, reproductive fitness now, or our understanding of religion ? How is it possible to tick or not tick this one with any degree of honest understanding ?

Six. The last is also two statements in one, and therefore ambiguous, since it is perfectly possible to agree with one and not the other.

If I did not know better, I would assume that this was a poll made up by someone, to deliberately produce muddled results, which would allow the maximum amount of reinterpretation to be placed on them. But then, I would not expect such low behavior on this site, so I can only assume that I have misunderstood. So I will tick number one, WTF, not as a comment on the science or its interpretation but only my incomprehension of the poll.

Good analysis!

@AnneWimsey Thank you.

Yes, well and succinctly put but may I also add that, Historical evidence has shown repeatedly that Religion is also a method to control those who are the easiest to succumb and submit as well.
For example, Promise a young child a toy or sweet that they desire greatly and they can, more of than not, be easily manipulated and controlled, the same applies, imo, with religion and those we would class as being "weak of the mind, " imo.
I.e. ALL one needs do to gain control over them is to offer them something that they WILL think and Believe they WILL attain, not today nor tomorrow, but at some unspecified future time and you will be assured to have them, literally hang on your every word.

1

Cognitive Science of Religion?

3

The sheer syntactic precision, the cogent clarity and concision, and the ineluctable dialectic indubitability of the way you have crafted the option means I choose door three thanks Monty.

I do enjoy reading the articles you post on these topics.

3

I give as much credence to the question posed above as I would if I were to hear that Humpty Dumpty is writing a thesis on the origin of the bandersnatch.

Humpty Dumpty would maintain that as long as he believes in the bandersnatch it does exist. Indeed, if challenged he would say said that those who disagree with him are prone to confirmation bias. The mere fact that Humpty Dumpty contradicts himself and backtracks and looks for something to support his beliefs is, of course, not to be regarded as confirmation bias

5

There is no science of religion. Reproduction is a given. No reproduction and then no species.

5

When in history did humans need encouragement to fuck? Not even limiting this to their own species for fuck sake.

4

I can see where a certain kind of spiritualism can help one through this crap called life, but not religion. Religion is about control and power. The three Abrahamic religions have been three of the most destructive forces in this planets history. FUCK RELGION!!!

5

Word Salad. Yaaawwwnnnnnn....

Do you ever contribute anything of value? Or do you enjoy being passive aggressive? Try to use your limited vocabulary to voice your, poorly thought, opinions.

@Tejas I greatly prefer plain language as it is harder to hide crap when using it. Obfuscation helps no one

@AnneWimsey yes plain language is fine, I prefer it too. But your comment to me didn't even have a point. Other than to be a heckler in a crowd at a show. It was the equivalent of a "boo".

@Tejas

  1. It is my right to "Booooo" as I see fit! Gotta Problem with that? Good luck on finding someone who GAF.
  2. Have you not noticed the other, similar, & numerous comments on your oh-so-erudite posting? I be just one of the chorus!

@AnneWimsey yeah I guess it shows idiots stick together.

6

In ONE single and simple word, CRAP.

4

Where is "None Of The Above"? Humans invented gods because they provided a simplistic answer to complex questions. Homo Sapiens were the first creature to have the the intelligence to contemplate their existence and mortality. Denisovan and Neanderthal were smart enough to invent deity as well. Asking questions are a sign of intelligence but I don't know how positive CSR is. I say not.

1

If CSR is about an anthropological objective approach to how religion impacts on human behaviour, I don't see anything wrong with that. It is a theoretical study.

Ryo1 Level 7 Mar 28, 2022

The cognitive science of religion (CSR) is a scientific approach to the study of religion that combines methods and theory from cognitive, developmental and evolutionary psychology with the sorts of questions that animate anthropologists and historians of religion. Specifically, CSR explores causal explanations of religious phenomena (thoughts, ideas, practices and experiences) across peoples and populations. It asks ‘How does ordinary human psychology inform and constrain religious expression?’ Four current prominent topics in CSR are introduced here: teleological reasoning about the natural world; children’s acquisition of God concepts; ‘minimal counterintuitiveness theory’; and religion and prosociality.

Read on: [thepsychologist.bps.org.uk]

@Ryo1 So, where are the PAPERS, etc, thus to PROVE their results, etc, etc?
Have these been Peer Reviewed and by Whom and what, precisely are/were the Qualifications of those performing such reviews, etc, etc.
Where these panel members chosen at random from a very wide and diverse base of Reviewers or were they merely selected from a limited group selected from a religious base sample only?

@Triphid
[thepsychologist.bps.org.uk]
If you checked this link, you wouldn't be asking those questions. Interesting but long read, though.

@Ryo1 No need to since as a still Practising Psychologist I receive such publications as you have exhibited.
And, i might add, that "circular" you have recommended has been de-bunked by the REPUTABLE Psychologists time and time again.

@Ryo1 May one, PLEASE, be acquainted as to and with your ACTUAL Qualifications in Psychology, etc, etc?

@Ryo1 What' s the trouble/problem, not responding/answering my request?
Is it that, perhaps your are attempting to 'create/dream up' some, possibly highly and mayhap equally dubious qualifications to affix to your name?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:658063
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.