Spandrel or Fitrah? An Essay on the Relationship between Cognitive Science of Religion and Fitrah

Habilitation , 2023 , 98 Pages , Note: 1,0

Philosophie - Théorique (Conscience, Science, Logique, Langage)

This paper analyzes the two concepts of "spandrel" and "fitrah" in the context of the Cognitive Science of Religion and, opposed to that, evolutionary thinking. Despite that the two concepts in this study's title seem to have the same meaning, they are understood differently due to differences in perspective. Both concepts acknowledge that human beings have certain innate faculties and claim that these faculties predispose them to believe and be moral. Spandrel argues that these innate faculties are a result of adaptations that enable us to survive in the evolutionary process, while "fitrah" asserts that these faculties are given by God.

In the study, first, the experimental studies proposed by the proponents of the idea of spandrel and the general ideas of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) are given. Then, it has been established, through experimental tests, that these faculties, proposed by this theory, have similar aspects with the "Commonsense Principles" put forward by Thomas Reid, and his epistemological views have been conveyed. According to him, we should rely on the information provided by these faculties and accept that they are essential for reasoning. After these determinations were made, the study argued that the concept of "fitrah" aligns with the idea of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) and Thomas Reid's views.

CONTENTS

PREFACE

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1. THE SOURCE AND EPISTEMIC VALUE OF RELIGION

2. COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION (CSR) AND COMMONSENSE PRINCIPLES
2. 1. Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) and its Philosophical Background
2. 2. Commonsense Principles
2. 3. Evaluation

3. COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION (CSR) STUDIES AND THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS
3. 1. Moral axioms as a necessary principle of commonsense
3. 2. Dualistic Assumptions of Existence as a Principle of Necessary Common sense
3. 3. Design as a Mandatory Principle of Commonsense

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

PREFACE

Despite that the two concepts in this study’s title seems to have the same meaning, they are understood differently due to differences in perspective. Both concepts acknowledge that human beings have certain innate faculties and claim that these faculties predispose them to believe and be moral. Spandrel argues that these innate faculties are a result of adaptations which enable us to survive in the evolutionary process, while "fitrah" asserts that these faculties are given by God. In the study, first, the experimental studies proposed by the proponents of the idea of spandrel and the general ideas of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) are given. Then, it has been established, through experimental tests, that these faculties, proposed by this theory, have similar aspects with the "Commonsense Principles" put forward by Thomas Reid, and his epistemological views have been conveyed. According to him, we should rely on the information provided by these faculties and accept that they are essential for reasoning. After these determinations were made, the study argued that the concept of "fitrah" aligns with the idea of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) and Thomas Reid's views. In contrast to those who answer "spandrel or fitrah?" from a naturalistic basis, the response given is "fitrah".

The main motive that led to the emergence of this study is the acceptance of the fact that man is a being of belief. The fact that people from all periods, geographies and cultures throughout human history have believed in supernatural powers and that there are common features in all beliefs despite their formal differences shows that this is a subject which needs to be researched. Since 2014, we have been following the publications of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR), whose publications we have followed and translated numerous times, and we have noted the compatibility between the idea of "fitrah" and the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR). In this study, we were going to discuss the similarities between Thomas Reid and the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR). This study, which was intended as an article, was instead released as a book because it exceeded the dimensions of an article and it was agreed upon that it would be more meaningful to make a wider study by including fitrah. I would like to thank my dear wife for her help in reading and revising the raw materials throughout the study. I also owe a debt of gratitude to my dear colleague and friend Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ömer Faruk Erdem, who agreed to serve as the scientific editor of the article. Finally, I would like to thank my publisher GRIN Publishing and its valuable editors for their support and assistance during the publication process.

28.01.2023

Konya

Dedicated to my dear wife Meryem.

INTRODUCTION

Science appears to have taken on a structure that permeates nearly every element of life, is viewed as having a voice not only in the field of fact but also in many issues, including the field of value, and is accepted as an authority by almost everyone. As a result of the developments, new ideas and movements in the West during the historical process, science has become a new authority for verification and decision-making and even the sole source of knowledge for humanity.

There is a reciprocal interaction between the scientific method and human beings. Man establishes the scientific method, and this method aids man in his quest to understand life, yet draws limits to his point of view. The fact that man is a social being which cannot isolate himself from social values and norms has a significant impact on the scientific method he has formed, which in turn influences his perspective of beings. This point calls into question the fact that science is a field that provides universal truths, produces objective results and has an objective point of view. During the development of the scientific method, humans also adopt a certain point of view towards objects. Based on Karl Popper's emphasis on deduction in his works, it is evident that humans have presuppositions in their efforts to make sense of and understand, including scientific research, from a point of view that can be summarised as "every effort to understand involves a belief" (Popper, 1998, 2013). Regarding the human perspective, deduction, and not induction, is essential. People view life according to the whole (religion, ideology, etc.) that exists in their minds and make sense of what they see according to that whole. These interpretations based on the whole appear as paradigms.In accordance with these paradigms, humanity has produced systems and paradigms based on everything it knows on many subjects, especially existence, knowledge and value, and has made sense of life. As a result of the cultural worldview to which they belong, societies have differing world and afterlife views. These beliefs are reflected in their efforts to understand and make sense of the world. In fact, knowing is an endeavour to understand. Understanding is a process we do with the help of the existing schemes in our minds. Thomas Kuhn refers to this conceptual scheme as "Paradigm" (Kuhn, 1996). Depending on the paradigm, the same things can have different meanings. This is best expressed by the saying "Every culture looks at its own sky, every look creates its own sky". Some of these paradigms have dominated human thought in differing periods. Since the 17th and 18th centuries, the paradigm of Western civilisation has spread all over the world as the dominant paradigm. This paradigm, which has its roots in the Enlightenment, Renaissance and Reformation, bears the traces of the West’s separation from religion. When looking at existence and trying to comprehend it, human beings look at it value-laden and see what they want to see. This reality, which is essentially a human condition, has been observed in every period of history.

At this point, it would be appropriate to make the following observation: There is nothing new when it comes to human beings and human problems. In Cicero's words: "There are no unspoken words under the sky." The only thing that changes according to the time period is the manner in which problems exist or emerge according to the period. In the words of Thomas Reid: "In the phenomena of Nature, what happens will probably be like what has happened in similar circumstances" (Reid, 2008b, p. 263). As a matter of fact, the whole history of philosophy seems to consist of a vicious circle. Since we have dealt with this issue in another study, we will not give it a wide coverage. (Çifçi & Şahin, 2022).

Nonetheless, it would be meaningful to briefly mention the vicious circle in this context. Understanding the vicious circle depends on the meaning of reason. The intellect, which has been described in a variety ways throughout the history of philosophy, has traditionally been seen as an essence and considered as a distinguishing characteristic of human beings. In contrast, we believe that reason should be considered as a tool. The intellect is a tool that shows the relationship between the facts accepted by the location to which it is attached and what exists when it is connected to a location. Examining the history of philosophy reveals that human reason is tied to three places and explains what exists according to these locations. Religion was the first place where the mind was connected (mythology). data from archaeological finds to texts from the history of philosophy support this claim as well. Auguste Comte's statements also support this claim, albeit from a different perspective. Looking at nature and himself according to the data of religion, man made his evaluations according to the universal he received from religion. Later on, the order in nature attracted man and thus he attached his mind to nature secondly. Natural philosophers in search of the Arche can be given as an example. When the intellect was linked to nature, the desire to provide natural rather than supernatural explanations emerged. When people observe nature, they observe order and causality. The notion that everything exists according to cause and effect and the perfect order led to the view of man as a piece of machinery. This has led to a result such as the devaluation of human beings. This situation, perhaps as a reaction, has caused man to take his mind away from nature to the third point of connection: Man. Humanity is the third place where human beings connect their reason. In this period, of which we will find many examples in the Sophists, man was accepted as the measure of everything and everything began to be viewed on the basis of man. This period, in which truth claims vanished, man was the measure, and relativity prevailed, ended with Socrates' cry of "Truth exists!". Because human beings, who must be socialised, have to find common truths in order to live together. Later on, it is observed that humanity has reattached its mind to religion in the Middle Ages, to nature with the enlightenment and then back to human beings again in the post-modern period.

The naturalistic point of view, which emerged with the link of reason to nature, and the hermeneutic point of view, which arose with the connection of reason to human beings, are the perspectives that are currently used in the evaluation of all human sciences. The primary distinction between these two perspectives is whether or not human beings are phenomena that can be explained in the same way as natural phenomena. (Visala, 2011, pp. 18-23). Hermeneutics rejects that human phenomena such as thought, behaviour and culture are explainable like natural phenomena. According to this point of view, human phenomena cannot be explained, but can only be comprehended. Therefore, human actions should be evaluated based on a "web of meaning", rather than generally applicable rules. Because, in the case of human phenomena, what occurs is less significant than what causes it. To put it clearly, behaviour is a reaction to an effect whereas action involves intention and reason. In other words, if an action is to be explained, the causes that led to that action and the intention of the person who took the action must be explained. This involves recognizing that human actions are embedded in a web of cultural meaning (Geertz, 1973, pp. 3-31).

In this study, we will attempt to provide explanations based on religion, the initial connection point for the mind. Human beings have a structure that makes sense of beings and events based on who they are as a whole, according to what we've discussed thus far. Despite the fact that perspectives differ from period to period, there are three key elements that constitute these perspectives, provide human beings with a universal, and enable the formation of paradigms. From naturalistic and hermeneutic perspectives, nature and humanity are represented. In this study, with the acceptance that religion also provides a universal and is one of the places where the mind is connected, we will try to analyze religion as a basis. In doing so, we will get philosophical support from Thomas Reid's understanding of epistemology. We hope that our study will become more comprehensible with his help on the principles of common sense.

This study aims to demonstrate that the data of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) may be evaluated from multiple perspectives. We shall argue that the data of this idea, which evaluates existence from a naturalistic point of view, can also be interpreted on the basis of religion. In fact, Justin Barret, a theistic psychologist and one of the most important representatives of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR), analyses this data by accepting the naturalistic method and argues that the results do not exclude the existence of God. We will not use the naturalistic method as a method of interpretation. We will aim to make philosophical interpretations based on religion.

The two concepts referenced in the title of our study are concepts that have emerged according to two distinct perspectives. While "spandrel" is defended by the naturalist point of view, "fitrah" is a concept defended by the religious (Islamic) point of view. "Spandrel", also known as "arch space" or "triangular", is the architectural term for a triangular structure formed by the intersection of two round arches and gradually tapering. Spandrels are pointed triangular spaces formed by the intersection of two round arches at right angles. The fact that these areas are beautifully ornamented and appear to be an integral part of the architecture does not mean that they were built for this purpose. If a dome is to be mounted on round arches, the by-product will be spandrels. This architectural term refers to the spontaneous gap between the arch and the dome. In other words, this gap is not part of the design, but a by-product of design choices.

Gould and Lewontin in their 1979 paper "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme", used this term in evolutionary biology for "the accidental by-products of natural selection". The spandrel, according to Gould, is any geometrical configuration of space that is inevitable and necessary as a result of architectural decisions. According to him, this notion will eliminate the problems that come when everything in evolutionary biology is explained by adaptation. The theory of evolution is harmed by the explanation of adaptive products that do not contribute to survival and reproduction. In this regard, the concept of spandrel is a more clear and useful nomenclature which can replace adaptation. Thus, this notion has begun to be used to describe potentially necessary, yet useful transfers that cannot be called adaptations because they do not solve adaptive problems (Gould & Lewontin, 1979). According to this point of view, which is also shared by the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR), religions and beliefs in the supernatural to which religions refer to are not adaptations but spandrels. In other words, despite the fact their existence appears to be necessary, meaningful and obligatory from the outside, they are phenomena that appear to have emerged as a result of evolutionary design, while in reality they could have been otherwise. To clarify, spandrels are products that must be included if a dome is to be placed on round arches, but do not need to be there in another architectural preference. Their existence is entirely related to the architectural (evolutionary) preference and is accidental. Religions and supernatural beliefs are natural, but they owe their naturalness to the preferences of evolution.

Fitrah, on the other hand, can be defined as creation, possessing certain abilities and predispositions, an attribute with which all beings are characterised at the time of their first creation. It is derived from the root "fatr" which means to split, to split in two, to create, and to invent. Since the initial creation is viewed as the separation of nothingness and the emergence of existence from it, it is expressed with this word. Based on the meaning of the word, we can characterise "fitrah" as a concept which expresses the essential structure and character of beings at the time of their first creation and their initial state away from external influences (Hökelekli, 1996; Okumuşlar, 2002). The word "fitrah" appears only once in the Qur'an. However, the Qur’an has nineteen words derived from the same root. In the hadiths, the word "fitrah" and words derived from the same root as "fitrah" are also frequently used. The first verse that comes to mind regarding fitrah is the verse that reads, "Turn your face towards religion as a Hanif, towards whatever fitrah Allah has created mankind to be" (Rum 30/30). As for the hadith, the first one that comes to mind is the hadith that says: "Every person who comes into the world is born with a fitrah; then his parents make him a Jew, a Christian, a Magi or even a polytheist" (Bukhari "Jenaiz" :79, 80, 93; Muslim "Qadar": 22-25).

In Islamic theology, the common interpretation of fitrah is that it is the creation of man in a neutral state. This interpretation states that fitrah is the tendency of man to recognise his creator, which Allah imbued his nature with during the first creation, and that it expresses man’s positive/negative abilities and predispositions. This interpretation, based on the Surat al-Shams Verse 8¹, is based on the sensus divinitatis proposed by John Calvin (Calvin, 1975). The concept of fitrah is similar to that of God. Therefore, fitrah does not include the concept of a God revealed through religions, but rather a predisposition to believe in a God who creates everything, gives order to everything and designs everything. Based on Calvin's concept, Alvin Plantinga argues that human beings are predisposed to believe in the God of Judaism and Christianity and that this belief should be accepted as the fundamental belief. (Plantinga, 2000) Fitrah, on the other hand, does not refer to the direct existence of belief in God, but to the predisposition to believe in God (Akçay, 2011, pp. 162-166; Hökelekli, 1996; Okumuşlar, 2002). "Created with a talent for religion and morality" (Akçay, 2011, p. 162). In Hökelekli's words, this approach is the most plausible and the most popular among the views on fitrah (Hökelekli, 1996).

According to the concept of Fitrah, human beings are naturally aware of moral values and possess moral faculties. Man also brings with him the belief in an omnipotent supernatural power that organises and designs. According to the hadith, this belief can be suppressed under the influence of the environment. According to the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR), the dualistic nature of humans has a psychological/spiritual aspect as well as a physical aspect (Bloom, 2005b, 2007, 2009). This aspect renders human beings favourable to morality and belief.

Ibn Taymiyyah, one of the most influential thinkers of Islamic thought, also made crucial observations about fitrah. According to him, the human nature is so predisposed to recognize and accept its creator, that there is no need to make an effort to encourage children to this belief. Eliminating the positive aspects of children's fitrah and the situations that prevent this belief is sufficient for this belief to emerge (Hökelekli, 1996). He criticised the evidences of God's existence put forward by the thinkers who lived before him as unnecessary and criticised them for various reasons (Ibn Taymiyyah, 1978, p. 418). According to him, the most important proof of God's existence is fitrah (Ibn Taymiyyah, 1978, p. 419, 1987a, pp. 114-115). Ibn Taymiyyah, who called the ability that God has given to man from birth to distinguish right from wrong as fitrah, asserts that because of this power, people are born in a state of accepting not only the existence of God but also His supremacy over all things (Ibn Taymiyyah, 1978, p. 397). To illustrate this point, Ibn Taymiyyah uses the example of a toddler who is struck on the head for no fault of his own in order to make this view understandable. After being hit on the head, this toddler will look for the perpetrator and question why he received this blow. When the child, who does not see the person who hit his head, is told that there is no one who did this, he will certainly not believe it (Ibn Taymiyyah, 1987b, p. 265). Since even a small child knows that if there is a work done, there must be someone who did it. This is an indication that man has a necessary belief in a Creator (Çifçi, 2015).

After explaining the perspective and concepts on which our study is based on, we will continue by examining the debates on the source and epistemic value of religion. After these explanations, the second part of our study will consist of discussions on the idea of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) and the existence of fundamental beliefs. In the final part, we will provide examples of studies conducted by scientists who produce ideas within the idea of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) in order to disclose the innate beliefs that people are born with. One of the goals of this study is to demonstrate that these studies, most of which are experimental, can be understood in different ways using a different paradigm. The main objective of the study is to show that human beings are innately born with a belief in God and moral values, and in doing so, to reveal that differences in perspective are a reality of human beings.

The last topic we need to deal with before concluding the introduction will be the discussions about the role of reason in the acceptance or rejection of religious propositions. This subject is addressed by contemporary philosophers of religion in three different classifications (C. S. Evans, 1982, pp. 162-168; Peterson et al., 1991, pp. 32-47). The first of these perspectives is known as strict rationalism. According to severe rationalists, in order for religious beliefs to be accepted, they must be able to be rationally justified. This view considers belief to be knowledge and bases it on proof . Knowledge, on the other hand, must rest on a certain foundation that can be acknowledged by every rational person. Strict rationalists can be theists as well as atheists. Many theist philosophers in the history of philosophy were strict rationalists and thought that religious beliefs were rationally provable. According to them, belief must be supported evidence, and there are many plausible evidences for this (C. S. Evans, 1982, p. 164; Peterson et al., 1991, p. 34). William Clifford, whose claim can be summarised as 'Belief in anything on insufficient evidence is wrong for everyone, everywhere', is an example of a non-theistic strict rationalist (Clifford, 2017).

Fideism, on the other hand, is the second of the proposed views regarding the determination of the role of reason when it comes to religious beliefs. According to this view, the intellect plays no role when it comes to religious beliefs. Because this subject cannot be rationally evaluated. Faith is a relationship of trust between God and man. Seeking rational explanations and proofs for religious beliefs will damage this trust relationship (Peterson et al., 1991, p. 37).The final view is critical rationalism, which was named by Karl Popper but for which we can find many philosophers in the history of philosophy to give examples. This approach, which accurately determines the limits of reason and recognises that reason can only produce speculation in the field of metaphysics; unlike fideism, it advocates that religious beliefs can be questioned with reason, and unlike strict rationalism, it rejects the notion that beliefs need to be proven or can be proven. In this perspective, both reason and religious beliefs can be subjected to criticism (Peterson et al., 1991, p. 41).

This is how we can summarise the perspectives on religious beliefs, especially faith in God. While we do not refrain from positioning ourselves on the critical rationalist side, we would like to add a few points to this view. In our opinion, the capacity for reason is not what makes a human being human. As stated previously, reason is only a tool. The quality that makes man human is his desire for morality. When it comes to the human being, we encounter an entity that understands and demands moral behaviour regardless of the period, culture, geography and religion to which it belongs. Among the moral axioms, which Thomas Reid defines as precise as mathematical axioms and includes them among the principles of necessary commonsense (Reid, 2008b, p. 266). As it can be understood, human beings are aware of their wrongdoings even if they do not behave morally. This morality in human beings is not acquired over time, but is innate, as will be shown in the studies, examples of which will be given in the third section. If morality is the distinguishing characteristic of human beings, the basic requirement for the emergence of morality is freedom. One cannot discuss the morality of a person who cannot be free, and who does not choose his/her own behaviour. Therefore, freedom is one of the most important human requirements. Thomas Reid has identified this situation as a principle of commonsense and concluded that the power we have is given by God so that we can be responsible.

If we establish the relationship between the importance of freedom and our subject after evaluating its importance, we reach the following result: If religious beliefs and propositions were verifiable knowledge that every rational person could accept, then human freedom would be gone. This is because there is a difference between knowledge and faith, and knowledge involves certainty. A demonstrated truth does not require faith. To express it more clearly, if God’s existence is proven, then no one who would question His existence, Just as no one would dispute the existence of the sun. Faith is a human act in which freedom is the most active. There is no proof of God, but there is evidence which points to God. On the basis of these evidences, man, with his free will, chooses one of the options, acceptance or rejection. The active freedom in religion is a situation that should not be overlooked. At this point, it will be among the assumptions of this study that God cannot be proven but there are evidences pointing to God.

PART ONE

1. THE SOURCE AND EPISTEMIC VALUE OF RELIGION

Religion has existed wherever humans have , and there has never been a social structure without it. Therefore, it can easily be asserted that the institution of religion is as old as human history. Since every human society is also an attempt to build a world, religion has a special position in this attempt (Berger, 1969).

It seems quite difficult to define the institution of religion, which we say has existed throughout history, in a way that is accepted by everyone. Just as the definition of those who approach religion positively and those who approach it negatively may differ, it is also difficult to find a unity of definition among those who approach religion positively. This is that everyone attempts to describe what they see based on where they look. This is similar to the situation in Jalaluddin Rumi's story of those who tried to describe the elephant with their hands in the dark (Calāl-ad-Dīn Rūmī, 2015, p. 350). Just as everyone describes the elephant that they touch with their hands, people define religion in their own way. It is possible to arrive at a common definition of religion by talking about common characteristics. This is comparable to forming an elephant shape by bringing together elephant descriptions. Although it has shortcomings, it can be assumed that it will be more thorough. When we examine the existing religions, four common features stand out in religions (Arslan, 2021, pp. 296-297):

a. Giving information: It contains information about the relations between the sacred-human, sacred-nature, human-nature and human-human.
b. Demanding faith in the information he gives.
c. Suggesting a way of life compatible with the information it provides: This includes rituals and moral recommendations concerning human-human relations.
d. Promise of salvation: It involves rewarding those who believe and follow the recommended way of life. The promise of salvation is metaphysical, such as heaven or freedom from the wheel of samsara.

On the basis of these common characteristics, we can define religion as an institution which provides information, demands faith in the information it provides, proposes a lifestyle and promises salvation. According to religious people, religion is an indispensable institution for human beings to realise their humanity in the best way, to live an honourable life, to perform moral actions, to act in accordance with their nature and not to move away from their essence, and, especially, to obtain accurate information about the metaphysical field. People who believe in religion, based on the information provided by their religion, believe in the existence of a sacred being, invisible to the eye but possessing transcendent powers. They not only believe but also endure arduous worships for said sacred being, share their possessions with other people, and even risk death for that holy being. All of these are considered normal for people who have faith in the information provided by religions. However, these acceptances are difficult to comprehend for people who view the institution of religion negatively or who do not identify themselves with any religion.

Enlightenment thought and scientific developments gradually diminished the impact of religion on humans and society as a whole, and the gap left by religion was tried to be filled with science. Forgetting that human beings have two vital questions such as "how" and "why", and that they find answers to these questions from science and religion, the acceptance of science as the addressee of both questions has revealed the necessity of science to answer the "why" question. After this period, numerous "scientific" attempts have been made to explain what religions actually are and why people believe in religions.

Influenced by naturalism, these explanations, which rejected metaphysics, dealt with the institution of religion and belief on a factual basis and attempted to reveal the source of religion and the sensation of belief in a manner that unrelated to transcendent existence. With the reformist movements, the impulse to look at religious claims objectively persisted in the guise of seeing it as a part of culture. Religion was removed from the public sphere and began to be dealt with in the private sphere on the same plane with law, history, politics, art and science.These perspective, which recognise the importance of religion in human history, but avoid the metaphysical explanations for the institution of religion, have attempted to explain religion intellectual and functionalist explanations. In these naturalist-dominated explanations, religion is considered either as an institution that emerged due to the absence of science or as an institution that benefits human existence due to its functions.

Intellectual explanations about the origin of religion were first put forward by David Hume. He views religion as a product of human nature, and he believes that the emergence of religion is hidden in its explanatory power. In the absence of science, people turned to religion to explain natural phenomena since they could not find a superior explanation. According to Edward Burnett Tylor and James Frazer, there is a relationship between religion and human nature. In prehistoric times, people tried to explain nature using their limited knowledge and put forward theories to the extent of their reasoning abilities. Religion is the sum total of these attempts at explanation and has taken over the duty of explanation from magic and sorcery and handed it over to science. As science advances, religion will no longer be needed and will disappear (Pals, 2006, pp. 45-46).

Functionalist explanations of religion argue the emergence of religion on human, economic, social and psychological grounds. According to them, the content of religion is meaningless and invalid. However, the reasons for its existence are concealed in its function. As long as it continues to function, despite being unreasonable, it will continue to exist. Sigmund Freud attributes the existence of religion to early childhood emotions and contradictions (Pals, 2006, p. 77). According to Emile Durkheim's view of religion as a social theory, it exists because it fulfils the social desires of human beings (Pals, 2006, p. 182), or Karl Marx's view of religion as a tool developed and used by the ruling class to exploit the lower classes (Pals, 2006, p. 139) are examples of this type of explanation. These naturalistic theories of religion have lost their significance and are now criticised by atheist/naturalist circles because of their reductionist attitude (Bloom, 2005b; Visala, 2011, p. 1). On the other hand, naturalistic attempts to explain the origin of religion and the desire to explain religion in a scientific way are still being pursued by evolutionary and cognitive psychologists. In particular, evolutionary theory and cognitive psychology, which treats the human mind as a computer, support these efforts.

It is a recent phenomenon to point to the process of biological evolution as the cause of the emergence and global spread of religion. Alexander Gallus identifies the brain adapted to survival as the source of religious ideas. According to him, religions are evolved adaptations that contribute to human survival and reproduction (Dow, 2006, p. 68). After this study, which can be regarded the first example of the use of biological evolution in explaining religious beliefs, biological evolution-based anthropic theories of religion have begun to emerge. Although these explanations differ on whether the source of religious beliefs is adaptive or a by-product (spandrel), they agree that the human mind has a structure which tends to produce religious beliefs in specific and predictable ways (Murray & Goldberg, 2009, pp. 183-184). According to the "costly signal and commitment" theory, which claims that religious beliefs are adaptations, religions have both rational and irrational aspects. The rational aspect of religion also highlights the adaptive problem it solves. Religions facilitate the socialisation of people and boost productivity by fostering group unity. The irrational aspect is that they require belief in supernatural beings (Dow, 2006, p. 70).

According to the second explanation of the origin of religion based on biological evolution, religious beliefs are not adaptations but spandrels (by products). According to this argument, although religion provides social benefits that improve group cohesion, these are not the causes for the emergence of religion. Religion arose as a by-product of the most basic cognitive adaptations that will contribute to human survival in the environment of evolutionary adaptation. The idea that defends this view is the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR), which is the subject of our study.These discussions on the origin of religion harken back to the ancient debates on how human nature relates to knowledge. Regarding how human nature acquires knowledge, there are two major viewpoints. While the first asserts the innateness of knowledge, the second argues that it is acquired through experience. Plato was the first thinker to systematically assert that knowledge is innate. According to him, man is composed of body and soul. All rational activities are thus related to the soul. To him, knowledge is the recollection of what the soul already possesses (Plato, 1999, pp. 42-51). Throughout the Middle Ages, Plato's views were accepted and it was argued that human beings possess innate knowledge and cognitive abilities to acquire knowledge. Descartes, who is regarded as the founding figure of modern philosophy, saw these faculties as evidence for the existence of a perfect God (Descartes, 2020, pp. 47-80).

With the advent of the Enlightenment and the reconnection of reason to nature, the notion that human beings have innate knowledge was replaced by the notion that knowledge is acquired through experience. The concept of innate knowledge was undervalued since it would lead to the conclusion that a supernatural power endowed all humans with this ability. According to this understanding, human beings are born with an empty mind and acquire knowledge through experience. This perspective, defended by John Locke and David Hume in particular, objected to the fact that innatism devalued the individual efforts of human beings and paved the way for some people to have intellectual authority over others. In later eras, the claim that knowledge is gained through experience was accepted as the basis of scientific thought and became the starting point of naturalism (Samet, 2008). According to this view, which made itself felt until the 1950s with the behaviourist school in psychology, man is a physical being. He lacks a metaphysical part which may be considered a soul. Moreover, there are no sharp lines to distinguish him from other living beings.

New findings in the field of evolutionary psychology have begun to replace The assertion that human knowledge depends on experience and that there can be no innate knowledge. However, unlike Plato and Descartes, this innateness does not include a supernatural attribution such as the soul. According to this view, which has a physicalist structure and contains naturalistic claims, adaptive solutions that contribute to human life in the evolutionary process result in the formation of certain abilities in the human mind. These abilities cause humans to have a universal nature.

The debates concerning how human nature acquires knowledge have not changed much from the past to the present, and today it is generally accepted that there are innate beliefs. Accordingly, the source of religion should be sought in the innate faculties of human beings. In the following sections of our study, we will analyse these views and evaluate the claims put forward by the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR). For now, however, it will be meaningful to examine the debates on whether knowledge is possible for human beings, how the truth of knowledge can be determined, and the epistemic value of religious knowledge.

The epistemic value of something depends on whether the claims it puts forward correspond to reality. Plato defined knowledge as 'justified true belief' and the determination of epistemic value was linked to what was put forward to be justified.

Discussions on whether knowledge is possible for human beings existed even before Plato's definition of knowledge. According to the sophists, the most important representatives of scepticism, knowledge is not possible for human beings. The views defending the possibility of knowledge, on the other hand, are separated into different currents according to how they should be justified. Some of them considered sensation, some experience, and some reason and mind as the basis for justification.While correct belief is an absolute necessity for the existence of knowledge, only correct belief cannot be considered knowledge. Between belief and truth, there must be a rationale, or evidence, In order for it to be knowledge,. While the currents that accept the possibility of knowledge as possible agree so far, they differ on how the evidence should be (Moser, 2002, p. 4).

Should all our beliefs, if accepted as true, require evidence to become knowledge? Can the need for knowledge to become knowledge be taken back indefinitely? Questions such as "Should every belief be based on evidence?" dominate the main debates of epistemology. Some of our beliefs need evidence to be valid. But are we able to accept that this is true for all our beliefs? This would be quite difficult statement to make, because this demand, as we said above, would bring about an endless cycle. For this reason, there must be fundamental beliefs that are ultimately the basis of all beliefs, but they themselves are not based on evidence. This assertion leads us to foundationalism, which is among the views defending the possibility of knowledge. According to this view, there are two kinds of knowledge: Foundational knowledge and inferential knowledge. Foundational knowledge consists of beliefs whose truth is obvious and does not need to be justified. Inferential knowledge, on the other hand, are beliefs which need to be justified, need evidence to be verified, and that we reach through reasoning (K. Clark & Barrett, 2010; K. J. Clark & Barrett, 2011). The acceptance of core beliefs raises the question 'which beliefs should be accepted as core beliefs and on what basis?

In responding to these questions, it is evident that those who hold the view of foundationalism give two different answers. According to the proponents of classical foundationalism beginning with Descartes, any proposition A can be a fundamental belief for person S only if A is either unfalsifiable or self-evident. According to modest foundationalists, especially Plantinga, a foundational belief is a belief that, under condition C, person S is justified in accepting belief p as a foundational belief (Plantinga, 1981). In this type of foundationalism, it is not required for the basic belief to be self-evident or unfalsifiable, but it is sufficient to provide the appropriate conditions for its existence.

When discussing foundationalism, and especially modest foundationalism, Thomas Reid isa prominent figure. He argues that knowledge is attainable for human beings and that some basic beliefs are necessary for the determination of religious knowledge by reasoning, and tries to demonstrate their epistemic value. Traces of his ideas can be found in Plantinga’s foundationalism as well as in Justin Barret, a theist advocate of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) (K. J. Clark & Barrett, 2011).

Reid, who identifies basic beliefs based on the concept of commonsense and refers to these basic beliefs as the “commonsense principle”, argues that these beliefs emerge non-reflectively and that people possess cognitive faculties that enable their emergence. According to him, the beliefs generated by these cognitive faculties should be accepted as true unless there is evidence to the contrary. Fundamental beliefs cannot be attained through reasoning and they do not need to be evidenced (K. J. Clark & Barrett, 2011; Reid, 2008b). Our thinking and daily actions are founded on these beliefs. These principles precede experience and reasoning and are innate. All our reasoning and experiences are based on these beliefs. Actions or thoughts that are contrary to these beliefs are absurd and incoherent (Reid, 2008b, p. 249). From this perspective, it is understood that Reid attributes the source of religious beliefs to these innate cognitive faculties.

At the end of this chapter, in which we have briefly discussed the source of religion and the epistemic value of religious knowledge, the following can be stated: Religion is an institution as old as human history. People have at times regarded religion as a respectable institution and did not open its existence to discussion, and sometimes, although they realised its importance, debated whether it should exist or not. In any case, the institution of religion still exists and has an impact on human societies.Throughout human history, the epistemic value of religious beliefs has been debated. On occasion, the propositions of religion were considered as an indisputable type of knowledge, while at other times they were not attributed epistemic value. In the post-Enlightenment period, the epistemic significance of religious beliefs has been debated, and they have been accepted by some as propositions that do not even need to be taken seriously and thought about.

In determining the epistemic value of religious knowledge, foundationalism stands out as a comprehensible form of explanation. People should have fundamental beliefs upon which to build their knowledge, as the understanding that every knowledge has to be evidenced by another knowledge would lead to an infinite cycle. Religious beliefs can be explained through these basic beliefs and epistemic value can be attributed to the knowledge they provide. Here, we are not claiming that all religious beliefs should be considered fundamental, but that these beliefs can be supported by fundamental beliefs. These fundamental beliefs, which are called commonsense principles and put forward by Thomas Reid, will constitute the second part of our study. In the second part, we will first talk about the idea of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR). Afterwards, we will discuss the common sense principles necessary for the philosophical evaluation of the data of this idea.

PART TWO

2. COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION (CSR) AND COMMONSENSE PRINCIPLES

In this section, we will try to examine the ideas put forward by the two theories that mentioned in the previous section but not elaborated upon. In doing so, we will refer to their mutual interactions. After discussing the claims of the two theories, we will complete this section with a comparison of these two ideas along with a general evaluation.

2. 1. Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) and its Philosophical Background

Although the idea of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) is seen as a relatively new and undeveloped field, its philosophical foundations are said to be found in the philosophers of enlightenment thought system (Jensen, 2009, p. 133). Behind this assertion are efforts to explain the emergence of religion naturally alongside the Enlightenment belief. In particular, Stewart Guthrie, who has contributed to the ideas within the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR), claims that the fundamental claims of the field were discussed by thinkers such as Francis Bacon, Benedict de Spinoza, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Edward Burnett Tylor and Claude Levì-Strauss (S. Guthrie, 2013, pp. 33- 34).

Francis Bacon argues that purposiveness is a human characteristic and that Aristotle's assertion that even inanimate beings have a purpose should be rejected. Incapable of determining the principles necessary to understand nature, humans thought that nature was similar to themselves and expected purposiveness from it. However, it is vital to comprehend nature with its own principles. Otherwise, as Aristotle did, we will have to attribute to nature properties that do not exist in nature in attempts to understand it (Bacon, 2000, pp. 44-47). According to Bacon, there are universal patterns in the human mind, and these patterns explain why man examines the world with a more purposive eye (Bacon, 2000, p. 44). Because he supported the evolutionary intuitive purposiveness thesis to which Cognitive Science refers, Bacon is one of the founding figures of the field (S. Guthrie, 2013, p. 35).

Benedict de Spinoza, who claims that human beings always view the external world from an anthropomorphist perspective,- is considered one of the pioneers of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR). According to him, our thoughts about nature are based on our thoughts about ourselves. Since we ourselves are purposive beings, we expect purposiveness from nature (S. Guthrie, 2013, pp. 35-36).David Hume, who investigated the natural roots of religion and religious beliefs, is also considered one of the field's pioneering thinkers. Hume, who is frequently cited by scientists who advocate the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) today, sees the causes of religions as human characteristics such as fear, the need to satisfy hunger, desires, revenge, and the struggle for survival. He claims that human beings, who must continually struggle with nature in order to survive and who possess the aforementioned characteristics, take refuge in polytheism and the fact that polytheism is at the root of religions (Hume, 1757, pp. 2-10). According to Hume, our intuitions are solely responsible for our perception of order in nature. Claiming the existence of God on the basis of these intuitions is invalid (Hume, 1947, p. 157). According to him, religious sentiments are not universal. The universal feelings are emotions such as interest in the opposite sex, selfishness, gratitude. While these emotions are found in every culture and period, religious emotions cannot be considered as such. While universal emotions are inevitable, religious feelings can be avoided (Hume, 1947, pp. 1-2). In the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR), Hume's interpretation coincides with and leads to the claim that religion is spandrel.

Having briefly mentioned the philosophers and views that the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) has benefited from historically, we can now examine the theories that have been influential in the formation of this idea.

The 20th century and the subsequent period, known as the "Information Age", are notable as an era in which many innovations, if not in human phenomena, then in events, have been observed. In the humanities, it can be assumed that there are two primary triggers of these breakthroughs. The first of these is evolutionary psychology, which emerged and developed with the notion of evolution, and the second is computer sciences.

Cognitive Science is an interdisciplinary field that investigates the structure of the mind, how it functions, and the interrelationship of the processes resulting from this function with the contributions of disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, computer science, religious sciences, anthropology and philosophy (Barrett, 2011b, pp. 13-14). Cognitive Science, which attempts to analyse the human mind on the basis of the developments in computer sciences and makes use of evolutionary psychology in doing so, yields results that pertain not only to the study of psychology but also to a variety of human-related fields, particularly theology. The Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR), which reveals many findings on the origin and nature of religious beliefs and whose findings are generally analysed from a naturalistic perspective, is the reflection of Cognitive Science in the field of theology. The Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR), which emerged as a third alternative to the intellectual and functionalist explanations of the source of religious beliefs outlined above, is a form of explanation that elucidates the origin without reference to the supernatural. According to this theory, religious thoughts, like other thoughts, are the product of the human mind and no supernatural forces are necessary to explain them.

In order to better understand the arguments of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR), which argues that religious thoughts are completely natural and can be understood and explained using scientific methods, it is necessary to analyse the theories that laid the grounds for its development. Naturalism, evolutionary psychology and computer science are the theories that paved the way for the emergence of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR).

It seems quite difficult to arrive at a precise definition of the concept of naturalism. This view, which emerged in the first half of the last century with the ideal of bringing philosophy and science closer together, argues that reality exists in nature, that there is no need to refer to a supernatural reality, and that all areas of reality, including the human soul, should be investigated using the scientific method (Papineau, 2021). Naturalism, which is divided into its ontological and methodological aspects, was especially bolstered with the experimental sciences that emerged after the Enlightenment. Naturalism, which was initially a method used only in natural sciences, started to be considered as an approach applicable to human sciences with the scientific method becoming the dominant paradigm. In fact, it has evolved from being just a method to an ideology and is now regarded as the basic idea for making sense of existence.

Ontological naturalism corresponds exactly to this and is regarded as an ideology. According to ontological naturalism, beings are limited to the physical domain. Supernatural beings cannot be mentioned. Both of the primary subfields of ontological naturalism, scientism and physicalism, have likewise become ideologies. Scientism contends that all that needs to be explained can be within the framework of natural sciences and that the data of science are absolute. Physicalism, on the other hand, states that all existing things must have a physical structure, and are therefore subject to the laws of physics. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, prohibits reference to supernatural beings while trying to understand nature. In this approach, where pre-experience evidence is rejected, empirical research is seen as a condition for scientific validity (K. J. Clark, 2016, p. 5; Papineau, 2021; Visala, 2011, pp. 90-92).

After Darwin's attempt to explain existence without reference to the supernatural, the distinction between ontological and methodological naturalism lost its distinctness; ontological naturalism became the dominant paradigm. With On the Origins of Species, an explanation of the way of existence of beings, which was previously designated as a metaphysical field and appeared to be closed to scientific investigation, the belief that science would solve all issues by starting from the "natural" became more prominent (K. J. Clark, 2016, pp. 6-7). The idea of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) has an ontological naturalistic point of view, which we have identified as becoming an ideology. Physicalism and scientism are presuppositions. However, scientism and physicalism cannot explain their own existence using the methods they demand. From this viewpoint, it is necessary to distinguish between the data put forward by the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) and its evaluations of such data. The data of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) can be evaluated not only from a naturalistic point of view but also from other perspectives.

The discipline of evolutionary psychology is also very influential in the emergence and development of the idea of the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR). The existence of this field is related to Darwinism. As the name suggests, Darwinism, which reads life through the ideas put forward by Darwin, is no longer a scientific theory, but an ideology. Darwinian philosophy asserts that three basic principles exist wherever life started. According to the first of these principles, phylogeny, all living things came into existence as a result of a long evolutionary process. The second principle, mechanism, claims that the system that produces mental states is physical, just like the biological systems of human beings such as circulation, digestion, etc. Natural selection is the third principle. According to this principle, there is no rational plan that brings things into existence. The same is true for mental states and faculties. They exist and continue to exist because they provide their owners with the advantage of survival and procreation (Jones, 1999, p. 554).

Through natural selection, three products emerge through natural selection. Adaptations are the first, resulting from the accumulation of phenotypic changes that contribute to the survival and reproduction of organisms. Species-specific adaptations that were selected for their solutions to adaptive problems can be inherited. The second outcome of natural selection are “by products”, also called spandrels. These do not contribute to the survival or reproduction of the organism. They arise together with adaptations and are transmitted together with the adaptations with which they are associated. Based on this, the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) considers religious beliefs as spandrels and explains the universal prevalence of religion with this. The final product of natural selection is “noise”. The distinction between by-product and noise is that noises do not always occur with associated adaptation (Goetz & Shackelford, 2006).

Evolutionary psychology is a branch of science that uses evolutionary theory to explain the functioning of the mind and human behaviour. Darwin, according to evolutionary psychologists, specialized applied natural selection to both physical and mental processes, allowing them to be explained with a single causal explanation; he linked psychology and biology. Therefore, the distinction between natural and human sciences should disappear and all sciences should be subjected to the same methodology. From this point of view, explanations about the functioning of the mind will not be different from explanations about the functioning of the body.

The human mind is viewed as an evolved mechanism that processes information. This mechanism arose through natural selection in the evolutionary process. Their ability to solve adaptive problems is effective in their emergence and they are specialized to produce behaviours to solve these problems. The advancements in computer science prove that mental and physical explanations can be explained by a single method. Evolutionary psychologists argue that advancements in this field show that the mind can be understood as a mechanism that processes information just like a computer, and that it is unnecessary to make metaphysical references when explaining mental processes. According to them, the brain, like a computer, is a system that places the information it receives from outside into its system as input, processes it and gives behaviours as an output. Mind is the name given to the brain’s function of processing information (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992).

[...]

---

¹ "Who placed in him the ability to do good and evil...".

• Université: Selçuk University (Faculty of Islamic Studies)
• Cours: philosophy and religious studies
• Note: 1,0
• Auteur: Osman Zahid Çifçi (Auteur)
• Année de publication: 2023
• Pages: 98
• N° de catalogue: V1330560
• ISBN (PDF): 9783346840462
• ISBN (Livre): 9783346840479
• Langue: anglais
• mots-clé: Philosophy of Religion, Evolution, Cognitive Science of Religion, Spandrel, Fitrah.