Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"\; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0\; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0\; mso-style-noshow:yes\; mso-style-priority:99\; mso-style-parent:""\; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt\; mso-para-margin-top:0cm\; mso-para-margin-right:0cm\; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt\; mso-para-margin-left:0cm\; line-height:115%\; mso-pagination:widow-orphan\; font-size:11.0pt\; font-family:"Calibri"\,"sans-serif"\; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri\; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin\; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri\; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin\;}
\nExtended deadline
\n\;
\nWorkshop &lsquo\;Explaining Religion. Cognitive Science of Religion and Naturalism&rsquo\;
\nWhen: December 4th-5th 2015
\nWhere: VU University Amsterdam\, The Netherlands
\nOrganizers: Hans van Eyghen\, Rik Peels\, and Gijsbert van den Brink
\nhttp://www.abrahamkuypercenter.vu.nl/nl/index.asp \;
\nAlthough Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) is still a rather young discipline\, its main theories have been the subject of considerable debate. One main point of discussion is whether cognitive theories explain religion. The title of Pascal Boyer&rsquo\;s book Religion Explained (2002) signals that at least one goal of CSR is to explain religion. Many authors have interpreted &lsquo\;explaining&rsquo\; as explaining away and have argued that CSR-theories have not explained religion away because the truth of religion is compatible with the main theories in CSR.
\nThis workshop will focus on a different question\, viz. whether CSR-theories allow for a natural explanation of religion\, where a natural explanation is a scientific one that does not involve anything supernatural or spooky. When it relies on the principle of parsimony (Occam&rsquo\;s Razor)\, a natural explanation of religion makes the existence of anything supernatural superfluous . Daniel Dennett already suggested something along these lines in his 2006 book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Since then\, few scholars have discussed this particular issue in CSR. The topic raises questions about explanation\, naturalism and the evidential weight of religious cognition.
\nConfirmed speakers:
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Dr. Helen de Cruz (Oxford University)\, author of the upcoming book A Natural History of Natural Theology (2014)
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Prof. Dr. Robert McCauley (Emory University)\, co-author of Rethinking Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture (1993)\, Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not (2011)
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Prof. Dr. Aku Visala (University of Helsinki)\, author of Naturalism\, Theism and the Cognitive Study of Religion (2011)
\nWe invite contributions from philosophers\, theologians and scientists. Please send a 1000 word abstract to h.m.r.a.van.eyghen@vu.nl by September 15th 2015. The abstract should be suitable for blind review. Questions can be sent to the same email address. \; Possible topics include but are not limited to:
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; What do the main theories of CSR explain?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Do the main theories in CSR amount to a naturalistic explanation of religion?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Does a natural model of religious belief explain away religion?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Does CSR speak in favor of naturalism?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Is there a standard CSR explanation of religion?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Is a naturalistic interpretation of CSR preferable to a theistic interpretation?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Does a natural explanation of religious cognition make a difference to the epistemic status of religious belief?
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR