Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not

A naturalist examines the cognitive and cultural foundations of religion, science, and more

by Robert N. McCauley, Ph.D.

Science as a Special Set of Social Arrangements

Cognitive research on learning and doing science suggests that scientific rationality relies on a special set of social arrangements. Read More

There Are No Naturals in Experimental Science

In contrast to highly mathematical theoretical science where natural aptitude sometimes seems to play a role, experimental science does not come naturally to anyone. Read More

Are Religious People More Moral than Atheists?

Whether people are religious or not, cuing religious concepts elicits more generous conduct, but so does cuing legal concepts or concerns for reputation. Read More

Why the LDS Church Probably Will Not Take Elie Wiesel's Advice

The LDS ritual of the Baptism of the Dead offers a perfect means for circumventing a barrier that all religious ritual systems face. Read More

Explaining the Universe vs. Explaining Its Rulers

Popular religion engages cognitive capacities that are unconscious, intuitive, automatic, and easy; while the core cognitive capacities that the sciences demand are conscious, reflective, deliberate, and difficult. Read More

Comparing Religion and Science Cognitively

Hundreds of authors, both religious and scientific, have compared the intellectual content and commitments of religion and science, but, until now, no one has compared their cognitive foundations. Read More

Robert N. McCauley, Ph.D., is the author of Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not. He is William Rand Kenan Jr. University Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Culture at Emory University.

more...