The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Dual Inheritance, Common Sense, and the Justification of Religious Belief
Abstract
The cross-cultural prevalence of theistic beliefs, and supernatural beliefs in general, can be explained without any appeal at all to biases in cognitive content. The only universal features of human psychology necessary are content-neutral capacities for social learning in general. That is, the cultural fitness of religious beliefs can already be explained entirely by the role such beliefs play in facilitating large-scale cooperation, so there is no reason to think that this cultural fitness is due the content biases identified by cognitive science of religion (CSR). Our best current science does not support CSR’s claims about common sense, or the claims that philosophers of religion have made, on that basis, about the epistemic justification of religious belief. This chapter also explains how the dual-inheritance theory of religion differs from, and improves upon, the CSR tradition.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“He argues that the belief‐transmission process behind the cultural evolution of religion is insensitive to truth.”
From DEBUNKING ARGUMENTS GAIN LITTLE FROM COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION (2021) · cites this paper as Davis 2020
In the citing paper
“As Davis points out, nontheistic belief in karma can similarly produce prosocial behavior.”
From DEBUNKING ARGUMENTS GAIN LITTLE FROM COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION (2021) · cites this paper as Davis 2020
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Atran, Scott. 2002. In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cited by
DEBUNKING ARGUMENTS GAIN LITTLE FROM COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION
Launonen, L. (2021) · Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science · doi:10.1111/zygo.12683 · Cited by 12
““As a consequence, we observe convergence in science in a way that we do not in religion,” Davis writes, “children in both India and the United States are taught that the earth revolves around the sun, and they are not taught that phlogiston is released in combustion” (Davis 2020, 206).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialOn Literary Miracles and Social Credibility: The Epistemology of an Islamic Argument
Kojonen, E. (2025) · Religions · doi:10.3390/rel16101319 · Cited by 1
“Perhaps, it is argued, the widespread nature of belief in God might owe more to cultural inertia and other factors in cultural evolution, than to people’s independent experiences and reasoning (see further Davis 2020; Launonen and Visala 2023).”
Hearing God speak? Debunking arguments and everyday religious experiences
Launonen, L. (2023) · International Journal for Philosophy of Religion · doi:10.1007/s11153-023-09896-9 · Cited by 3
“Many debunkers agree that having such reasons can get the believer off the hook (e.g., Davis, 2020, 205; Kvandal, 2022, 192; Nola, 2013, 185).”
Königs, P. (2023) · International Journal for the Study of Skepticism · doi:10.1163/22105700-bja10056 · Cited by 1
Why the debunking threat won’t go away
Kvandal, H. (2023) · International Journal for Philosophy of Religion · doi:10.1007/s11153-023-09882-1 · Cited by 1
“However, basing that story on the standard model (SM), which consists of early theorizing in CSR, now rejected by many, is not a good idea.”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Davis, T.
- Corresponding author
- Davis, Taylor
- ORCID
- Davis, Taylor
- Venue
- Scientific Challenges to Common Sense Philosophy
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2020-05-27
- Pages
- 191-214
- OpenAlex
- W3029612093
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 10.03
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- common sense, cognitive science of religion, social learning, large-scale cooperation, theistic belief, supernatural beliefs
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.