Candace S. Alcorta

Ritual, emotion, and sacred symbols

This paper considers religion in relation to four recurrent traits: belief systems incorporating supernatural agents and counterintuitive concepts, communal ritual, separation of the sacred and the profane, and adolescence as a preferred developmental period for religious transmission. These co-occurring traits are viewed as an adaptive complex that offers clues to the evolution of religion from its nonhuman ritual roots. We consider the critical element differentiating religious from non-human ritual to be the conditioned association of emotion and abstract symbols. We propose neurophysiological mechanisms underlying such associations and argue that the brain plasticity of human adolescence constitutes an “experience expectant” developmental period for ritual conditioning of sacred symbols. We suggest that such symbols evolved to solve an ecological problem by extending communication and coordination of social relations across time and space.

Is religion adaptive

We argue that religious rituals ability to facilitate communication and the pervasiveness of its basic characteristics across societies, as well as its precedence in other social species, suggests that religious behavior is more than a mere by-product. Religious constructs constitute associationally conditioned mnemonics that trigger neuroendocrine responses which motivate religious behaviors. The adaptive value of these constructs resides in their utility as memorable and emotionally evocative primes.

Modes of knowing: how kataphatic practice impacts our brains and behaviors

When God Talks Back is one of those rare books that not only provides ‘‘a good read,’’ but also good science. It is an excellent ethnography and an effective empirical examination of the proximate mechanisms of faith and religious belief. Luhrmann (2012) brings a breadth and depth of scholarship to her work that expands the reader’s understanding of both the historical foundations and psychological processes of evangelical faith. Most importantly, her research opens a window into a world often discussed but rarely observed by cognitive scientists and evolutionary scholars.

Religion, social signaling, and health: a psychoneuroimmunological approach

The effect of religious fundamentalism and mortality salience on faith-based medical refusals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 334–350. doi:10.1037/a0015545 Walker, C., Ainette, M. G., Wills, T. A., & Mendoza, D. (2007). Religiosity and substance use: test of an indirect-effect model in early and middle adolescence. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors: Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 21(1), 84–96. doi:10.1037/0893-164X.21.1.84 Weatherly, J. N., & Plumm, K. M. (2012). Delay discounting as a function of intrinsic/extrinsic religiousness, religious fundamentalism, and regular church attendance. The Journal of General Psychology, 139(3), 117–133. doi:10.1080/ 00221309.2012.672937 Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (T. Parsons, Ed., A. M. Henderson, Trans.). New York: Free Press. Weber, S. R., & Pargament, K. I. (2014). The role of religion and spirituality in mental health. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 27(5), 358–363. doi:10.1097/YCO.0000000000000080 Whitehouse, H. (2004). Modes of religiosity: A cognitive theory of religious transmission. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Wildman, W. J., & Garner, S. C. (2009). Lost in the middle?: Claiming an inclusive faith for Christians who are both liberal and evangelical. Herndon, Va: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Wildman, W. J., & Sosis, R. (2011). Stability of groups with costly beliefs and practices. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14(3), 1–25. doi:10.18564/jasss.1781 Willer, R. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 23–43. doi:10.1177/000312240907400102 Wink, P., Ciciolla, L., Dillon, M., & Tracy, A. (2007). Religiousness, spiritual seeking, and personality: Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality, 75(5), 1051–1070. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00466.x Xygalatas, D., Mitkidis, P., Fischer, R., Reddish, P., Skewes, J., Geertz, A. W., Roepstorff, A., & Bulbulia, J. (2013). Extreme rituals promote prosociality. Psychological Science, 0956797612472910. doi:10.1177/0956797612472910 Zubieta, J.-K., Smith, Y. R., Bueller, J. A., Xu, Y., Kilbourn, M. R., Jewett, D. M.,... Stohler, C. S. (2001). Regional Mu Opioid receptor regulation of sensory and affective dimensions of pain. Science, 293(5528), 311–315. doi:10.1126/ science.1060952

Beyond the building blocks of religion: a commentary on the Hilbert problem essays

The scientific study of religion has made steady progress over the last several decades, but, in many ways, it is much like the proverbial “elephant” in the room. Not only does it carry a great deal of unacknowledged cultural and emotional baggage; it is also notoriously difficult to describe, with as many definitions as there are those who seek to define it. The current Hilbert problem essays acknowledge these problems and offer an eclectic array of excellent empirical approaches that cut to the heart of many current debates. Justin Barrett’s essay, “Could We Advance the Science of Religion (Better) without the Concept of ‘Religion’?” stands at the very center of these debates. Barrett rightly identifies the lack of an accepted standardized definition of religion as a major obstacle to progress in the field. He proposes abandoning the “folk” category of religion altogether and replacing it with a “piecemeal” or “building blocks” model. Indeed, much of the research proposed in the Hilbert problem essays reflects such an approach.

The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion

This volume is the first collection of essays on the cognitive and evolutionary study of religion to encourage a dialogue between scientists and theologians. In the Introduction (pp. 1–43), Jeffrey Schloss surveys evolutionary explanations of religion and distinguishes ‘cognitive’, ‘Darwinian’, and ‘co-evolutionary’ accounts (p. 16). It appears that Schloss equates ‘cognitive’ theories with ones that regard religion as a by-product of Darwinian evolution — a somewhat misleading categorization, which excludes scholars arguing for an adaptive role of religion from the field of the cognitive science of religion. Dominic Johnson and Jesse Bering (pp. 26–43) reformulate the frequently advocated hypothesis that believing in supernatural punishment has an adaptive value in human evolution. They suggest that individuals holding such beliefs will have a better chance to survive because they have a ‘lower probability of detection’ (that is, as transgressors; p. 39), considering arguments about the success of cooperative groups only as of secondary importance (p. 40). Whereas some causal link between religious beliefs and moral behaviour is quite plausible, as also argued in other essays in the book, one wonders whether moral feelings (guilt, shame, emotional reward) are not much simpler and cost-effective tools to constrain selfishness and avoid punishment in a group of humans equipped with an ‘intentionality system’ (pp. 34–36).