Religious—And Other Beliefs: How Much Specificity?

Lluis Oviedo,Konrad Szocik

doi:10.1177/2158244019898849

Lluis Oviedo, Konrad Szocik

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019898849

Copy DOI

Abstract

The scientific study of beliefs, including religious beliefs, is thriving. The focus of this research is broad, but notably includes attempts at classifying different kinds of beliefs and their contrasting traits. Religious beliefs appear as more or less specific depending on chosen approaches and criteria. This paper intends to bring the discussion to a different level applying two strategies that yield a similar result. The first tries to reframe the debate about the nature of religious beliefs by connecting it with the current wave of “belief studies,” to test their potential utility. The second critically reviews the epistemological and cognitive dimensions that are involved. Our research points in some distinctive directions: religious beliefs belong to a broad category or class whose structure and function are more related to meaning and purpose provision; at that level, there is no clear way to distinguish religious and non-religious beliefs except possibly by their content.

Highlights

Recent debates within the cognitive sciences have attempted to establish the specific character of religious beliefs by comparing them with other kinds of beliefs
Neil Van Leeuwen started the discussion with an article published in 2014 claiming that religious beliefs are distinct from factual beliefs, arguing that religious beliefs have a reduced scope of practical applicability and, unlike factual beliefs, are subject to normative special authority
The discussion reflects an often-neglected issue in the study of religion—it is about a kind of belief, and beliefs encompass much more than the religious type and shape a broad range of human cognitions and behaviors

Summary

Introduction

Recent debates within the cognitive sciences have attempted to establish the specific character of religious beliefs by comparing them with other kinds of beliefs. The discussion is a reminder of the importance of the study of beliefs, and invites us to consider more carefully what beliefs are and how they function. Over the past few years several alternative paths have been taken to study beliefs in their own dynamics, their scope, and function. These studies are more interdisciplinary, making good use of both philosophy and psychology, together with neuroscience, cybernetics, and even ecology.

Objectives

Conclusion