Hearing Voices, Interpreting Words


  • Mark Q. Gardiner Mount Royal University




cognition, behavior, interpretation, religion, mental disorder


In this commentary I will be exploring a number of implications that McCauley and Graham’s theses about the interrelationship of normal, religious, and mentally disordered cognition have for an interpretative methodology that has been fruitfully utilized by empirically-oriented scholars of religion. I argue that that methodology imposes some important constraints on the type of theorizing McCauley and Graham propose, and that their findings in turn suggest some important modifications to that methodology.


Barrett, J. L. (2012). Born believers: The science of children’s religious belief. New York: Free Press.

Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Davidson, D. (1984). Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

———. (1993/2005). Method and Metaphysics. In Truth, language and history (pp. 39–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/019823757X.003.0003

Davis, G. S. (2012). Believing and acting: The pragmatic turn in comparative religion and ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dennett, D. C. (1989). The intentional stance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Dror, I. E., & Harnad, S. R. (2008). Cognition distributed: How cognitive technology extends our minds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.16

Engler, S., & Gardiner, M. Q. (2010). Ten implications of semantic holism for theories of religion. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 22(4), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1163/157006810X531067

———. (2013). “God(s)” as a comparative concept. Din. Tidsskrift for Religion Og Kultur, 2(1), 120–132.

———. (2017). Semantics and the sacred. Religion, 47(4), 616–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2017.1362784

Gardiner, M. Q. (2015). Semantic holism and methodological constraints in the study of religion. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 79(3), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-015-9516-3

Gardiner, M. Q., & Engler, S. (2016). The philosophy and semantics of the cognitive science of religion. Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion, 3(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1558/jcsr.v3i1.21033

Gross, S., Tebben, N., & Williams, M. (2015). Meaning without representation: Essays on truth, expression, normativity, and naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198722199.001.0001

Jensen, J. S. (2010). Doing it the other way round: Religion as a basic case of “normative cognition”. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 22(4), 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1163/157006810X531102

———. (2016). How the philosophy of language should equal meta-cognition of the cognitive science of religion. Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion, 3(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1558/jcsr.v3i1.29553

Lawson, E. T., & McCauley, R. N. (1990). Rethinking religion: Connecting cognition and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCauley, R. N., & Graham, G. (2020). Hearing voices and other matters of the mind: What mental abnormalities can teach us about religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190091149.001.0001

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, Mass.: Massacheusetts Institute of Technology Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6730.001.0001

Wilson, B. R. (1970). Rationality. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953/1972). Philosophical investigations. Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.



How to Cite

Gardiner, M. Q. . (2021). Hearing Voices, Interpreting Words. Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion, 7(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1558/jcsr.19502



Book Panel