Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not

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

Good point

And the cognitive difference is clear, at least to me: for centuries, we've approached religious teaching as scientific teaching...that is, teaching "facts" based on "evidence." That's the wrong way. We should approach religious teachings as art...that is, expressions of that which cannot be adequately expressed through rational explanation.

Author doesn't answer the question

The article does not explain why religion is natural--nor whether it is more natural than science. And if it is natural, whatever that means, is that good or bad or indifferent? In short, what difference does it make?

We will see that science

We will see that science tries to explain something that it cannot. We will desperately seek consolation in a religion, but we will never find it with our rational abilities. What science gives us does not satisfy our innate urge to believe there is a life after death, or that life has a meaning other than passing down our genes.
I predict we will find very different patterns of brain activity when comparing religion and science cognitively, and I urge you to remember that science is nothing else than a tool to systematize the material world. It has significant shortcomings when compared to religion if it is used to explain the previously mentioned innate urges.

The irrational vs the rational

I tend to agree with Roger that the author doesn’t seem to answer the question posed, perhaps because of my preconceived ideas about the subject, i.e., I thought I knew the answer. I also agree with Zarathustra; religion is a mythology created by people to account for (in some sense) the things they don’t understand and fear. Religion provides magical stories that seem to provide answers that people find satisfying, like there is life after death, that we will again be with those we love, etc. My answer to the question is that religion is natural because it has an emotional, irrational basis; it responds to basic superstitious (natural) fears and ways of thinking. Science is unnatural because it depends on rational analysis which requires one to give up what comes naturally, a basic fear of the unknown and a desire for answers that are emotionally satisfying.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options

Subscribe to Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not

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...