Cited by 759Study and Philosophy of ReligionReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Religion's evolutionary landscape: Counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion

Open access
Atran, Scott, Norenzayan, Ara·2004·Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Abstract

Religion is not an evolutionary adaptation per se, but a recurring cultural by-product of the complex evolutionary landscape that sets cognitive, emotional, and material conditions for ordinary human interactions. Religion exploits only ordinary cognitive processes to passionately display costly devotion to counterintuitive worlds governed by supernatural agents. The conceptual foundations of religion are intuitively given by task-specific panhuman cognitive domains, including folkmechanics, folkbiology, and folkpsychology. Core religious beliefs minimally violate ordinary notions about how the world is, with all of its inescapable problems, thus enabling people to imagine minimally impossible supernatural worlds that solve existential problems, including death and deception. Here the focus is on folkpsychology and agency. A key feature of the supernatural agent concepts common to all religions is the triggering of an “Innate Releasing Mechanism,” or “agency detector,” whose proper (naturally selected) domain encompasses animate objects relevant to hominid survival – such as predators, protectors, and prey – but which actually extends to moving dots on computer screens, voices in wind, and faces on clouds. Folkpsychology also crucially involves metarepresentation, which makes deception possible and threatens any social order. However, these same metacognitive capacities provide the hope and promise of open-ended solutions through representations of counterfactual supernatural worlds that cannot be logically or empirically verified or falsified. Because religious beliefs cannot be deductively or inductively validated, validation occurs only by ritually addressing the very emotions motivating religion. Cross-cultural experimental evidence encourages these claims.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0140525x04000172

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Atran, S., & Norenzayan, A.
Venue
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Published
2004-12
Volume
27
Issue
6
Pages
713-730
ISSN
  • 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1825
OpenAlex
W2166928309
Cited by
759
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 37
FWCI
139.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
evolution of religion, folk psychology, agency detection, supernatural agents, metarepresentation, deception, religious beliefs, ritual, religious emotions, cognitive domain
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Ceremonial Behavior, Cognition, Consciousness, Cultural Evolution, Culture, Empathy, Existentialism, Folklore, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Religion, Superstitions, Intuition, Sociobiology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review