Luther H. Martin

Pro- and Assortative-Sociality in the Formation and Maintenance of Religious Groups

Studies of evolved mechanisms and strategies supporting religious prosociality seem to dominate the experimental research agendas of many cognitive scientists of religion. Their enthusiastic and untrammeled preoccupation with prosociality would seem to predict for the human species a kind of global kumbayah. But in the millennia of their existence, religions have never realized this goal. For anti-sociality seems to be as well-established in our evolved repertoire of behaviors as is prosociality (Weierstall et al. 2013, 48; Tooby and Cosmides 2010, 192; Gat 2010; Choi and Bowles 2007; Kelly 2005), perhaps as a strategy for securing reproductive advantage (Weierstall et al. 2012, 1–2; Chang et al. 2011). Religions, especially, historically as well as currently, are recognized to be chronically implicated in this discord and violence, directed at those beyond their artificially defined boundaries of theological doctrine, and, as often, towards those claiming common religious identities but who have fragmented into sectarian factions and conflict (Mlodinow 2012, 164). Those of us with an eye towards history—or even towards current events—know that any simple congruence of religion and prosociality has never been the case.

Great expectations for Ara Norenzayan's Big Gods

Abstract In Big Gods (2013), Ara Norenzayan argues that the rise of large-scale societies was made possible by an extension of small-scale religious prosociality, presided over (and enforced) by Big moralizing watchful Gods. While religious prosociality is, of course, a redundant characterization of any small-scale religious group, it is doubtful that its extension can account for the historical emergence of large-scale societies, nor can cooperation be explained as an effect of surveillance. Rather, the archaeological and historical record indicates that such large-scale expansions of human societies are better explained by economic factors, political power, and/or military force. Difficulties with Norenzayans theory are explored and several alternative theories to his ‘neglect of history’ are suggested.

Of Religious Syncretism, Comparative Religion and Spiritual Quests

From the time when religions mingled in the Greco-Roman world thinkers have been compelled to evaluate their own beliefs and practices in relation to those of other peoples and races, but it was not until the latter part of the nineteenth century of our era that a serious attempt was made to apply scientific principles to the comparative and historical study of the subject. (W.James 1961 [1902]: 15)

Selective reading and selectionist thinking: Why violence has been, and should be, important to the cognitive science of religion

We agree with Martin and Wiebe that CSR researchers would benefit from the insights of ethnographers and historians and we commend them for drawing attention to both the prosocial and violent aspects of religion, as we think both are crucial for understanding religion’s role in human sociality. Here we stress this point by drawing attention to the socioecological conditions under which we expect violence associated with religion to occur between, as well as within, groups. We begin, however, by noting that Martin and Wiebe’s reading of the CSR literature is selective; despite their protestations, violence has been a topic of considerable interest to CSR researchers for some time. In fact, major contributors to CSR including Scott Atran, Dominic Johnson, and Harvey Whitehouse have all written books and numerous articles focusing on the violent side of religion (e.g. Atran 2003, 2010; Johnson 2008; Johnson and Reeve 2013; Johnson and Toft 2014; Whitehouse 1995, 1996; Whitehouse and McGuinn 2013). The second author of this commentary has also written various pieces that aim to explain religious violence (e.g. Alcorta and Sosis 2013; Sosis 2011; Sosis and Alcorta 2008; Sosis et al. 2007; Sosis et al. 2012). And most notably, Norenzayan, who takes the brunt of Martin and Wiebe’s criticism concerning CSR’s alleged prosociality bias, has published several important papers on religious violence (e.g. Hansen and Norenzayan 2006; Ginges et al. 2009). All of this literature was curiously ignored in the target article. In light of Martin and Wiebe’s concern that Templeton is leading CSR’s supposed “Kumbayah” festivities, we should also point out that Templeton has funded all of these researchers. Ultimately, to assess Martin and Wiebe’s contention, we recommend a systematic meta-analysis to determine whether a prosociality bias genuinely exists in the

Cognition, society and religion: a new approach to the study of culture

The problem with the study of culture, as with that of religion, has been an independent status assumed for both despite recognitions of their constructed nature. Consequently, cultural studies have relied almost exclusively on redundantly descriptive and relativistic hermeneutical methods. By focusing on the mental mechanisms of H. sapiens, shared in common as a consequence of evolutionary history, the emerging field of cognitive science is beginning to describe the architecture of the human mind/brain and to offer, thereby, a common human structure in terms of which culture is both constructed and constrained. This universal cognitive potential provides, thereby, a scientific basis for comparison in ethnographic and historical studies. This paper seeks to outline some of the recent developments in the biocognitive sciences and to suggest their relevance especially for the study of religion.

Toward a new scientific study of religion

Atran & Norenzayan (A&N) have proposed a study of religion based in the cognitive sciences. Their final conclusions, however, incorporate functionalist definitions. Further, key features by which they characterize religion are not instantiated by some historical evidence. Nevertheless, the foci of their arguments are central to any study of religion and should provoke further research and experimentation along the lines suggested.

Reflections on My Studies of the Roman Cults of Mithras for the Historical and Comparative Study of Religions

I have spent a number of years focusing my research on the Roman Cults of Mithras. In this autobiographical reflection on that study, I consider the relationship between research on a specific, if perhaps obscure, religious tradition and methodological and theoretical issues in historical and comparative studies of religion generally.

Establishing a Beachhead: naasr, Twenty Years Later

become apparent to a number of scholars, especially those engaged in the history or religions, comparative religions, or the scientific study of religions, or simply those who [felt] the need for theoretical work in the field, that the American Academy of Religion [had] become such a complex and competing repository of interests that the academic study of religion was in danger of being lost in the process.

Book Review: Give God the Glory: Ancient Prayer and Worship in Cultural Perspective. By Jerome H. Neyrey. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007. Pp. x + 273. Paper,

Text, Artifact, and Image is a collection of sixteen essays dealing with the relationship of ancient Israel to its cultural environment. Four questions drive this work: (1) How are deities represented in physical form? (2) What is the relationship of the monarch to the nations tutelary god or gods? (3) Where does divinity make its home within the human settlement, and how is access to this numinous place regulated? (4) Is the divine singular or multiple? Part 1 consists of five essays that deal with “Representations of Deity in Israel and the Ancient Near East.” V. A. Hurowitz examines the process by which idols were fashioned in Mesopotamia, and demonstrates that, among the Sumerians and Babylonians, the materials from which these images were built were believed to contain an inherent divine nature. A. M. Roth considers visual and onomastic representations of deities in Egypt, to demonstrate that both were designed intentionally to obscure the pronunciation and meaning of the deity rather than completely reveal it. M. Smith applies the concepts of “center” and “periphery” to the realm of the gods depicted in Ugaritic texts. E. Bloch-Smith reevaluates the nature of stones found in excavations that have been identified as massebot, an important issue since past criteria defining an object as cultic have been vague. C. Uehlinger contrasts the Arad shrine with Horvat Qitmit, accepting the consensus view of Arad as an outpost of official state-run religion, but challenging the conventional understanding of Qitmit as an Edomite shrine. Part 2 includes five essays that treat the subject of “Royal Cult,” all of which illuminate the involvement of kings in cultic affairs. J. Klein (on Sumer) and P. Machinist (on Assyria) explain that in Sumer and Assyria, kings were deified in their lifetime, while H. Hoffner demonstrates that, among the Hittites, kings were deified only after death. Z. Zevit seeks to show that, when compared to these cultures, “Judahite religion is quite distinct” in that

20.00

Proposals for a scientific study of religion have never been realised because, Daniel Dennett argues in Breaking the Spell , religion is surrounded by a spell that protects it from the critical inquiry characteristic of other academic fields of study. Dennett suggests two reasons for proposing such a study anew at this time. The first is political, namely, major policy decisions are currently being made on the basis of perceptions about religion; the second is theoretical, namely the establishment of an evolutionary psychology and of a cognitive science of religion which can provide the basis for such a study. Surprisingly, a number of those scholars in the field who are well-known for advocating precisely such a scientific study of religion have reacted negatively to Dennetts proposal. Do their very reactions confirm his thesis that an enchanting spell surrounding religion remains unbroken?