Science Is Disruptive, Science of Religion Particularly So




philosophy of science, science and religion, scientific study of religion, secularization, methodological naturalism


White’s book will serve to set the agenda for the cognitive science of religion. One crucial aspect of that agenda is the relationship between this kind of scientific research and theistic commitment. White has been eager to show the two are wholly compatible. However, any serious scientific study of religion is necessarily going to be highly disruptive, making the management of the relationship between science and religion a particularly difficult issue in that question. We show why this is the case and discuss two examples where White’s stated views are not well-justified. The first of these is the naturalist commitment of scientific research, which should be understood as the rejection of supernatural claims based upon a long history of their failure to explain observed phenomena, rather than as the limitation of scientific methods that White sees it as. The second is the issue of secularization, where we have extensive evidence for its rapid progress in developed societies and where the human tendency to supernatural beliefs and practices must be considered in the context of particular environments, despite White’s view that secularization theory has been found wanting.

Author Biography

Andrew Atkinson, University of Bialystok

Society & Cognition Unit, University of Bialystok/Dept. of Global Development & Social Planning, University of Agder


Ambasciano, L. (2019). An unnatural history of religions. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic. DOI:

Arnal, W. E., Braun, W., & McCutcheon, R. T. (Eds.). (2014). Failure and nerve in the academic study of religion. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing. DOI:

Astin, J. A., Harkness, E., & Ernst, E. (2000). The efficacy of “distant healing”: A systematic review of randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 132(11), 903–910. DOI:

Atkinson, A. R. (2020). HIDD’n HADD in Intelligent Design. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 20(3–4), 304–316. DOI:

Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Braeckman, J. (2010). How not to attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about methodological naturalism. Foundations of Science, 15(3), 227–244. DOI:

Bruce, S. (2011). Secularization: In defence of an unfashionable theory. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI:

Davie, G. (1990). Believing without belonging: Is this the future of religion in Britain? Social Compass, 37(4), 455–469. DOI:

Ernst, E. (2003). Distant healing – An “update” of a systematic review. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 115(7), 241–245. DOI:

Gould, S. J. (1997). Nonoverlapping magisteria. Natural History, 106, 16–22.

Jong, J., Kavanagh, C., & Visala, A. (2015). Born idolaters: The limits of the philosophical implications of the cognitive science of religion. Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie, 57(2), 244–266. DOI:

Jong, J., & Visala, A. (2014). Evolutionary debunking arguments against theism, reconsidered. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 76(3), 243–258. DOI:

Lane, J., & LeRon Shults, F. (2018/2021). The computational science of religion. Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion, 6(1–2), 191–208. DOI:

McCauley, R. N. (2000). The naturalness of religion and the unnaturalness of science. In F. C. Keil, & R. A. Wilson (Eds.). Explanation and cognition (pp. 61–85). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

———. (2010). How science and religion are more like theology and commonsense explanations than they are like each other: A cognitive account. In D. Wiebe, & P. Pachis (Eds.). Chasing down religion: In the sights of history and cognitive science (pp. 242–265). Thessaloniki: Vanias Publications.

———. (2011). Why religion is natural and science is not. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stark, R. (1999). Secularization, R. I. P. Sociology of Religion, 60(3), 249–273. DOI:

Stark, R., & Bainbridge, W. S. (1985). The future of religion: Secularization, revival, and cult formation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. DOI:

Stark, R., & Iannaccone, L. R. (1994). A supply-side reinterpretation of the “secularization” of Europe. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33(3), 230–252. DOI:

Stolz, J. (2020). Secularization theories in the twenty-first century: Ideas, evidence, and problems. Presidential address. Social Compass, 67(2), 282–308. DOI:

Talmont-Kaminski, K. (2013a). For God and country, not necessarily for truth: The nonalethic function of superempirical beliefs. The Monist, 96(3), 447–461. DOI:

———. (2013b). Religion as magical ideology: How the supernatural reflects rationality. Abingdon: Routledge.

Voas, D. (2009). The rise and fall of fuzzy fidelity in Europe. European Sociological Review, 25(2), 155–168. DOI:

Voas, D., & Bruce, S. (2016). The spiritual revolution: Another false dawn for the sacred. In K. Flanagan, & P. C. Jupp (Eds.). A sociology of spirituality (pp. 43–62). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Voas, D., & Chaves, M. (2016). Is the United States a counterexample to the secularization thesis? American Journal of Sociology, 121(5), 1517–1556. DOI:

White, C. (2021). An introduction to the cognitive science of religion: Connecting Evolution, Brain, Cognition, and Culture. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. DOI:

Wiebe, D. (1984). The failure of nerve in the academic study of religion. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 13(4), 401–422. DOI:



How to Cite

Talmont-Kaminski, K. ., & Atkinson, A. (2022). Science Is Disruptive, Science of Religion Particularly So. Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion, 7(2), 213–225.



Book Panel

Most read articles by the same author(s)