Religion and Cognitive Science

David Sloan, in his book, Theological Correctness: Why Religious People Believe What They Shouldn’t, says “Cognitive science provides the best method we have for understanding religious behavior. Religion is the way it is because the mind is the way it is. Theology does not determine people’s thoughts and actions.” This statement and the thesis of Sloan’s book challenges the Christian belief that our theology and life of faith informs all aspects of Christian behavior (pp. 51-54).

Sloan defines Attribution Theory as the “propensity to make sense of the world, to understand the causes of events” (p. 52) and suggests that a religious worldview provides “one mental model among others that humans might employ to explain the events or behaviors in the world.” (p.53) He cites a recent study by Lupfer and colleagues (Lupfer et al. 1996) which revealed that devoutly religious people do not employ religious explanations for most events and everyday behaviors.

Drawing from other research, Sloan writes, “…researchers found that humans are more likely to employ supernatural attributions as causes of events for the following reasons: if one is personally affected by an event; if the event is significantly important; if the event has a positive (rather than negative) impact; and/or if the event is of a health or finance-related concern. He says humans tend to employ religious concepts when naturalistic explanations don’t suffice.

Sloan observes that just because a person has a religious worldview, does not mean that person will employ that conceptual scheme to every experience. If his thesis is true, this may explain why religion does not appear to permeate every aspect of behavior and why there doesn’t seem to be a significant difference between Christians and non-Christians in terms of daily behavior. According to this thesis, most of life’s experiences do not require a theological framework (my words) for meaning, and therefore, religious convictions are invoked only in certain circumstances of need. This thesis raises many questions concerning Christian formation and transformation. If formation and transformation does not differentiate a Christian from non-Christians then what does it mean to be formed in and transformed into the likeness of Christ?

Questions for reflection and discussion:

1. Do you agree with Sloan’s thesis? Why or why not?
2. To what extent can a religious system be transformational if it is only one worldview of many by which persons think, act, and make meaning?
3. Can we really say that a religious course of study is truly transformational, if it is true that cognitive science has greater influence on people’s thoughts and actions than theology does?
4. How does the church introduce the philosophy of cognitive science (the study of thought, learning, and mental organization, which draws on aspects of psychology, linguistics, philosophy, and computer modeling) as a determinant of behavior without bringing harm to people who believe religion to be the one worldview that informs every thought and action of life?