Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 54, No. 3, 2011
Issue release date: July 2011
Section title: Original Paper
Human Development 2011;54:169–184
(DOI:10.1159/000329135)

Between Religion and Science: Integrating Psychological and Philosophical Accounts of Explanatory Coexistence

Legare C.H. · Visala A.
aUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., USA; bUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Do you have an account?

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger (new!)
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
  • Reduced rates with a PPV account
read more

Direct: USD 38.00
Account: USD 26.50

Select

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restriction apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00

Select

Subscribe

  • Automatic perpetual access to all articles of the subscribed year(s)
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Published online: 7/22/2011

Number of Print Pages: 16
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 0018-716X (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0054 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/HDE

Abstract

Examining the relationship between religion and science has until recently been considered a philosophical exercise and, as a consequence, theories of how natural and supernatural explanations are related tend to be highly abstract and operate at the level of ideal rationality rather than in the psychological reality of actual believers. Although cognitive developmental psychologists have studied the topic of explanation quite extensively, until recently little has been known about how people interpret, accommodate, and reconcile natural and supernatural explanations in everyday life. We review psychological data from three core biological domains and provide an analysis of how philosophical and psychological accounts are complementary. We propose that emerging psychological accounts of the coexistence of natural and supernatural explanations may be developed further by adopting the conceptual resources provided by philosophers, especially with respect to the topics of explanation and possible relationships between science and religion. Furthermore, psychological data can inform philosophical accounts by providing information concerning how people reason about topics of fundamental concern to humans.


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Published online: 7/22/2011

Number of Print Pages: 16
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 0018-716X (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0054 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/HDE


Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Astuti, R., & Harris, P.L. (2008). Understanding mortality and the life of the ancestors in rural Madagascar. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 32, 713–740.

    External Resources

  2. Barbour, I. (1972). Issues in science and religion. London: SCM Press.
  3. Barbour, I. (1998). Religion and science: Historical and contemporary issues. London: SCM Press.
  4. Barrett, J. (2000). Exploring the natural foundations of religion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 29–34.

    External Resources

  5. Barrett, J. (2004). Why would anyone believe in God? Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
  6. Boyer, P. (1994). The naturalness of religious ideas: A cognitive theory of religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  7. Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York: Basic Books.
  8. Churchland, P. (1988). Matter and consciousness: A contemporary introduction to the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  9. Craver, C. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.
  10. Cummins, R. (2000). ‘How does it work?’ versus ‘What are the laws?’: Two conceptions of psychological explanation. In F. Keil & R. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 117–144). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  11. Cupitt, D. (1986). Life lines. London: SCM Press.
  12. Dawkins, R. (2006). The God-delusion. London: Bantam Press.
  13. Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. London: Allen Lane/Penguin Books.
  14. Dennett, D. (2006). Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. London: Allen Lane/Penguin Books.
  15. Draper, P. (2005). God, science, and naturalism. In W. Wainwright (Ed.), Oxford handbook of philosophy of religion (pp. 272–303). New York: Oxford University Press.
  16. Evans, E.M. (2000). The emergence of beliefs about the origins of species in school-age children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: A Journal of Developmental Psychology, 46, 221–254.

    External Resources

  17. Evans, E.M. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 217–266.
  18. Evans, E.M. (2008). Conceptual change and evolutionary biology: A developmental analysis. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 263–294). New York: Routledge.
  19. Evans, E.M., Legare, C.H., & Rosengren, K. (2011). Engaging multiple epistemologies: Implications for science education. In R. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy. New York: Routledge.
  20. Flanagan, O. (2006). Varieties of naturalism. In P. Clayton (Ed.), Oxford handbook of religion and science (pp. 430–452). New York: Oxford University Press.
  21. Frazier, B.N., Gelman, S.A., & Wellman, H.M. (2009). Preschoolers’ search for explanatory information within adult-child conversation. Child Development, 80, 1592–1611.

    External Resources

  22. Gallup (2007). Majority of republicans doubt theory of evolution. More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution.http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847.
  23. Garfinkel, A. (1981). Forms of explanation: Rethinking questions in social theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  24. Gopnik, A., & Schulz, L. (Eds.). (2007). Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  25. Gould, S.J. (1999). Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. New York: Ballantine Publ. Group.
  26. Harris, P.L., & Giménez, M. (2005). Children’s acceptance of conflicting testimony: The case of death. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 5, 143–164.

    External Resources

  27. Harris, P.L., & Koenig, M. (2006). Trust in testimony: How children learn about science and religion. Child Development, 77, 505–524.
  28. Haught, J. (1995). Science and religion: From conflict to conversation. New York: Paulist Press.
  29. Hitchcock, C. (1996). The role of contrasts in causal and explanatory claims. Synthese, 109, 369–419.
  30. Horgan, T., & Woodward, J. (1985). Why folk psychology is here to stay. The Philosophical Review,94, 197–226.
  31. Kaufman, G. (2004). In the beginning... creativity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
  32. Keil, F.C. (2006). Explanation and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227–254.

    External Resources

  33. Lawson, E.T. (2005). A new look at the science-religion dialogue. Zygon, 4, 555–563.

    External Resources

  34. Legare, C.H., Evans, E.M., Rosengren, K.S., & Harris, P.L. (in press). The coexistence of natural and supernatural explanations across cultures and development: The case of origins, illness, and death. Child Development.
  35. Legare, C.H., & Gelman, S.A. (2008). Bewitchment, biology, or both: The coexistence of natural and supernatural explanatory frameworks across development. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 32, 607–642.

    External Resources

  36. Legare, C.H., Gelman, S.A., & Wellman, H.M. (2010). Inconsistency with prior knowledge triggers children’s causal explanatory reasoning. Child Development, 81, 929–944.

    External Resources

  37. Legare, C.H., Wellman, H.M., & Gelman, S.A. (2009). Evidence for an explanation advantage in naïve biological reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 177–194.

    External Resources

  38. Lindbeck, G. (1984). The nature of doctrine: Religion and theology in a postliberal age. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
  39. McCauley, R. (2000). The naturalness of religion and the unnaturalness of science. In F.C. Keil & R.A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 61–85). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  40. McCauley, R. (in press). The naturalness of religion and the unnaturalness of science.
  41. McGrath, A. (2006). The order of things: Explorations in scientific theology. Oxford: Blackwell.
  42. McGrath, A. (2009). A fine tuned universe: The quest for God in science and theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
  43. Nguyen, S., & Rosengren, K. (2004). Causal reasoning about illness: A comparison between European- and Vietnamese-American children. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4, 51–78.

    External Resources

  44. Peacocke, A. (2004). Creation and the world of science: The re-shaping of belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  45. Phillips, D.Z. (2008). Whose God? Which tradition?: The nature of belief in God. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  46. Polkinghorne, J. (1998). Belief in God in an age of science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  47. Polkinghorne, J. (2008). Theology in the context of science. London: SPCK.
  48. Raman, L., & Gelman, S.A. (2004). A cross-cultural developmental analysis of children’s and adults’ understanding of illness in South Asia (India) and the United States. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4, 293–317.

    External Resources

  49. Rosengren, K., Johnson, C.N., & Harris, P.L. (Eds.) (2000). Imagining the impossible: Magical, scientific, and religious thinking in children. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Saunders, N. (2002). Divine action and modern science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  51. Scott, E.C. (2004). Evolution vs. creationism. Westport: Greenwood Press.
  52. Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
  53. Stenmark, M. (2004). How to relate science and religion: A multidimensional model. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
  54. Stenmark, M. (2010). Ways of relating science and religion. In P. Harrison (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to science and religion (pp. 278–295). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  55. Swinburne, R. (2004). The existence of God (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  56. van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  57. Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge.
  58. Ward, K. (2007). Divine action: Examining God’s role in an open and emergent universe. Philadelphia/London: Templeton Foundation Press.
  59. Wellman, H.M. (2011). Reinvigorating explanations for the study of early cognitive development. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 33–38.

    External Resources

  60. Wellman, H.M., & Gelman, S.A. (1992). Cognitive development: Foundational theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 337–375.
  61. Whitehouse, H. (2004). Modes of religiosity: A cognitive theory of religious transmission. Oxford: AltaMira Press.
  62. Wilson, E.O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. London: Little, Brown and Company.
  63. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.