The Paradox of the Idea of Intuitive Theism and the Fact of Numerous Atheists; A Research in the Cognitive Sciences of Religion

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
Naeimeh Pourmohammadi 1
Meisam Fasihi Ramandi 2
1 Assistant Professor at University of Religions and Denominations, Qom, Iran .
2 Ph. D. Candidate at University of Tehran, College of Farabi, Qom, Iran.
10.30497/prr.2021.240612.1668
Abstract
In the cognitive science of religion, some, after conducting or examining experiments, believe that all human beings are "intuitive theists" or "Born Believers" and believe in "natural Religion." According to these thinkers, our three basic cognitive mechanisms, i.e. Theory of Mind (TOM), Hyperactive Agency Detection Device (HADD), and Teleological Bias (TB), have been emerged and sustained as a result of evolution. Therefore, the cognitive structure of all of us human beings at birth is such that it provides the basis for religiosity. One of the challenges to this theory at first glance is that if theism is intuitive, then why do so many people believe in atheism? In this paper, we intend to explain the theory of intuitive theism in the cognitive sciences of religion and then defend it against the many forms of atheism. We answer that there are many types of atheism: "cognitive atheism," "motivational atheism," "cultural atheism," and "analytical atheism."  Theism and atheism can coincide in all these categories except the first. In other words, with this analysis of the cognitive sciences of religion, the same large number of atheists can be considered intuitive theists, even if they do not pay attention or accept. Thus, despite the increasing number of atheists, intuitive theism as a theory in the cognitive sciences of religion can still be defended.
Keywords
Cognitive Sciences of Religion
Intuitive Theism
Natural Religion
Instinctive Theism
Atheism  
Barrett,  Justin. 2007a. “Cognitive science of religion: What is it and why is it?,” Religion Compass 1: 768–786.
Barrett, Justin. 2007b. “Is the spell really broken? Bio-psychological explanations of religion and theistic belief.” Theology and Science 5(1): 57-72
Bering, Jesse. 2006. “The folk psychology of souls.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 453–462.
Bering, Jesse, and D. F. Bjorklund. 2004. “The natural emergence of reasoning about the afterlife as a developmental regularity.” Developmental Psychology 40: 217–33.
Boyer, Pascal. 2001. Religion explained: the evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York: Basic Books.
Bloom, Paul. 2007. “Religion is natural.” Developmental Science 10: 147–151.
Clark, Kelly, and Justin Barrett. 2011. “Reidian religious epistemology and the cognitive science of religion.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79: 639–675.
Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Dennett, Daniel. 2006. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. New York: Viking.
Gervais, W. M. 2012. “Religious cognition,” in Religion, personality, and social behavior, edited by V. Saroglou. Psychology Press.
Gray, K., and D. M. Wegner. 2010. “Blaming god for our pain: human suffering and the divine mind.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 14(1): 7–16.
Guthrie, Stewart. 1993. Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harris, P. L., and M. A. Koenig. 2006. “Trust in testimony: how children learn about science and religion.” Child Dev 77(3): 505–24.
Heider, F., and M. Simmel. 1944. “An experimental study of apparent behavior.” American Journal of Psychology 57: 243–59.
Kelemen, Deborah. 2004. “Are Children ‘Intuitive Theists’?” Psychological Science 15: 295–301.
Lawson, E. Thomas. 2015. “Cognitive Science of Religion: Perspectives on the Science and Religion Dialogue at the Breaking New Ground,” in The Science and Religion Dialogue Conference at the University of Texas at Austin, April 10.
Norenzayan, Ara, and Will M. Gervais. 2012. “The origins of religious disbelief.” Trends in cognitive science 17: 20–25.
Stark, R. 2002. “Physiology and faith: addressing the ‘universal’ gender difference in religious commitment.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41: 495 – 507.