Religious discourseas social coordinationof goals

Konrad Talmont-Kaminski

Marie Curie-Sklodowska U., Poland

Line of argument

Coordination of actions and goals

Superempirical beliefs

Non-cognitive function of religion

Coordination of actions

Necessary for cooperation

Discourse must partly reflect reality

Assumes goals coordinated

Hunting example

Coordination of goals

Necessary for cooperation

Short term vs long term goals

Coordination of long term needed

Discourse need not reflect reality

Non-cognitive function

Hunting example again

Basic problem

for explaining

cooperation

Free rider problem

Long term coordination

Requires solution to free rider

problem

Discourse need not reflect reality

Evidence might destabilise beliefs

Thereby undermining functionality

Need to protect discourse against

counter evidence

Superempirical

Content

MethodologicalContext

SocialContext

Superempirical

>Unfalsifiable

“Invisible”“Dangerous”“Far away”

SacredAvailable methodsAvailable tools

Religious discourse

Well protected against potential

counterevidence

Popularity of claims can not

depend upon truth

It depends on functionality plus

cognitive factors

Dual inheritance theory (Atran,

Henrich, Norenzayan)

Moral Gods

Gods who act to support human

morality

Superempirical consequences of

failure to cooperate

Changed perception of

costs/benefits

Greater cooperation results

Discourse & function

Religious discourse need not reflect

reality

BUT…

Religious claims must be believed

to motivate cooperation

Non-cognitive function presumes

cognitive function

Conclusions

Coordination of goals does not

require realistic discourse

Non-cognitive function

requires protection from

counterevidence

Non-cognitive function

presumes cognitive function

Thank you

Konrad Talmont-Kaminski

In a Mirror, Darkly: How the

Supernatural Reflects

Rationality (forthcoming)

konrad@talmont.com

deisidaimon.wordpress.com