A Critique of the Epistemic Function of Religious Beliefs in the Light of the Cognitive Science of Religion (in Polish)

Konrad Szocik

About author

Konrad Szocik, PhD
University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow
Department of Cognitive Science
ul. Sucharskiego 2
Pl-35-311 Rzeszów

E-mail: kszocik@wsiz.rzeszow.pl


Religious beliefs and religion are usually interpreted in terms of their social functionality and motivating social cooperation, as well as in terms of their alleged truthfulness. Here I suggest interpreting religious beliefs and religion with regard to their psychological function. I claim that their pro-social function is an accidental property, reducible to some mechanisms of tribal psychology, rather than a feature of religion itself. I emphasize that the epistemic function is not the main function of religious beliefs and religion. These beliefs are in some sense immune to critique due to their merely psychological function. Throughout my paper I refer to the cognitive science of religion.

Full Text:

PDF (In Polish)


  1. Q. D. Atkinson et al., Are Big Gods a big deal in the emergence of big groups?, “Religion, Brain & Behavior” 2014.
  2. J. Barrett, Why Would Anyone Believe in God?, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek CA 2004.
  3. N. F. Barrett, Toward an Alternative Evolutionary Theory of Religion: Looking Past Computational Evolutionary Psychology to a Wider Field of Possibilities, “Journal of the American Academy of Religion”, September 2010 Vol. 78 No. 3.
  4. J. L. Barrett, Cognitive Science, Religion, and Theology: From Human Minds to Divine Minds, Templeton Press, West Conshohocken 2011.
  5. N. Baumard, P. Boyer, Empirical problems with the notion of “Big Gods” and of prosociality in large societies, “Religion, Brain & Behavior”, 2014.
  6. L. Bortolotti, "Delusion", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition) [w:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), (10.11.2014).
  7. P. Boyer, The Naturalness of Religious Ideas: A cognitive theory of religion, University of California Press, Berkeley 1994.
  8. P. Boyer, Religion Explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought, Basic Books, New York 2001.
  9. J. Bulbulia et. al., The cultural Evolution of Religion [w:] P. J. Richerson, M. H. Christiansen, Cultural Evolution, Cambridge London 2013.
  10. A. Clark, Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science, “Behavioral and Brain Sciences”, (2013) 36.
  11. M. van Elk et al., Priming of supernatural agent concepts and agency detection, “Religion, Brain & Behavior”, 2014.
  12. S. Florek, Intuicyjne i krytyczne myślenie moralne w kontekście jego filogenezy i neuropsychologii, „Słupskie Studia Filozoficzne”, nr 11 2012.
  13. S. Fondevila, M. Martin – Loeches, Cognitive mechanisms for the evolution of religious thought, “Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences”, 299 (2013).
  14. J. Franek, Has the Cognitive Science of Religion (Re)defined “Religion”?, “Religio” XXII 2014.
  15. A. Fuentes, Hyper-cooperation is deep in our evolutionary history and individual perception of belief matters, “Religion, Brain & Behavior”, 2014.
  16. S. Guthrie, A cognitive Theory of Religion, “Current Anthropology” vol. 21 no. 2 April 1980.
  17. S. Guthrie, Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1993.
  18. M. Inzlicht, A. M. Tullett, M. Good, The need to believe: a neuroscience account of religion as a motivated process, “Religion, Brain & Behavior”, Vol. 1 No. 3 October 2011.
  19. M. Jarosz, Psychologia lekarska, PZWL, Warszawa 1983.
  20. D. D. P. Johnson, Big Gods, small wonder: supernatural punishment strikes back, “Religion, Brain & Behavior”, 2014.
  21. L. Newson, P. J. Richerson, Religion: The dynamics of cultural adaptations [w:] F. Watts, L. Turner (red.), Evolution, religion, and cognitive science, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2014.
  22. A. Norenzayan, Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict, Princeton University Press 2013.
  23. P. Norris, R. Inglehart, Sacrum i profanum. Religia i polityka na świecie, tłum. R. Babińska, Nomos, Kraków 2006.
  24. M. Pace, The Epistemic Value of Moral Considerations: Justification, Moral Encroachment, and James’ ‘Will To Believe’, “Nous” 45:2 (2011).
  25. K. I. Pargament, J. Hahn, God and the Just World: Causal and Coping Attributions to God in Health Situations, “Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion”, 25 1986.
  26. I. Pyysiäinen, Cognitive Science of Religion: State-of-the-Art, “Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion” 1.1 (2012).
  27. V. S. Ramachandran, Neuronauka o podstawach człowieczeństwa. O czym mówi mózg?, Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa 2012.
  28. D. J. Slone, Theological Incorrectness: Why Religious People Believe What They Shouldn’t, Oxford New York 2004.
  29. J. A. van Slyke, The Cognitive Science of Religion, Ashgate 2011.
  30. D. Sperber, Explaining Culture: A naturalistic approach, Blackwell, Oxford 1996.
  31. K. Szocik, Ateizm filozoficzny, Nomos, Kraków 2014.
  32. K. Szocik, Czy uzasadnione jest wiązanie wojny z religią?, „Studia Polityczne”, nr 3 (39) 2015, s. 167-181.
  33. K. Szocik, An axiological aspect of terrorism. Remarks on Scott Atran’s perspective, “Journal of Applied Security Research”, April 2016 Vol. 11, No. 2, s. 1-13.
  34. E. Thomas Lawson, R. N. McCauley, Rethinking Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990.
  35. H. Whitehouse, Modes of Religiosity: A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek 2004.
  36. G. Wood, Cognitive Science and Religious Belief, “Philosophy Compass”, 6/10 (2011).
  37. B. Zamulinski, Religion and the Pursuit of Truth, “Religious Studies”, Vol. 39 No. 1 (Mar., 2003).



Article links:

Default URL: http://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/index.php/diametros/article/view/977
Polish abstract URL: http://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/index.php/diametros/article/view/977/pl
English abstract URL: http://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/index.php/diametros/article/view/977/en


All works are licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.