Both science and religion are human endeavours that recruit and modify pre-existing human capacity to engage in epistemic vigilance. However, while science relies upon a focus on content vigilance, religion focusses on source vigilance. This difference is due, in turn, to the function of religious claims not being connected to their accuracy – unlike the function of scientific claims. Understanding this difference helps to understand many aspects of scientific and religious institutions.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J., & Henrich, J. (2011). The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(SUPPL. 2), 10918–10925. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100290108.
Boyer, P. (2010). The Fracture of An Illusion: Science And The Dissolution Of Religion. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprech.
Gould, S. J. (1997). Nonoverlapping magisteria. Natural History, 106, 16–22.
Henrich, J. (2009). The evolution of costly displays, cooperation and religioncredibility enhancing displays and their implications for cultural evolution. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(4), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.005.
Koenig, M. a, Clément, F., & Harris, P. L. (2004). Trust in testimony: children’s use of true and false statements. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society / APS, 15(10), 694–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00742.x.
Lanman, J. A., & Buhrmester, M. D. (2017). Religious actions speak louder than words: exposure to credibility-enhancing displays predicts theism. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 7(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2015.1117011.
McCauley, R. N. (2011). Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mercier, H., & Heintz, C. (2014). Scientists’ Argumentative Reasoning. Topoi, 33(2), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-013-9217-4.
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason. Harvard University Press.
Sperber, D., Clement, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393.
Talmont-Kaminski, K. (2013). For God and Country, not necessarily for Truth: The nonalethic function of superempirical beliefs. The Monist, 96(3), 447–461.
Talmont-Kaminski, K. (2014). Religion as Magical Ideology: How the Supernatural Reflects Rationality. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Tomasello, M. (2011). Human culture in evolutionary perspective. Advances in Culture and Psychology, 5–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1309 | 365 | 4 |
Full Text Views | 56 | 9 | 3 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 90 | 19 | 2 |
Both science and religion are human endeavours that recruit and modify pre-existing human capacity to engage in epistemic vigilance. However, while science relies upon a focus on content vigilance, religion focusses on source vigilance. This difference is due, in turn, to the function of religious claims not being connected to their accuracy – unlike the function of scientific claims. Understanding this difference helps to understand many aspects of scientific and religious institutions.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1309 | 365 | 4 |
Full Text Views | 56 | 9 | 3 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 90 | 19 | 2 |