Religious discourse as social coordination of goals

1. Religious discourseas social coordinationof goals Konrad Talmont-Kaminski Marie Curie-Sklodowska U., Poland

2. Line of argument Coordination of actions and goals Superempirical beliefs Non-cognitive function of religion

3. Coordination of actions Necessary for cooperation Discourse must partly reflect reality Assumes goals coordinated Hunting example

4. 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

5. Free rider problem Basic problem for explaining cooperation

6. 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

7. Superempirical “Invisible” “Dangerous” “Far away” Superempirical > Unfalsifiable Content Social Context Methodological Context Sacred Available methods Available tools

8. 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)

9. Moral Gods Gods who act to support human morality Superempirical consequences of failure to cooperate Changed perception of costs/benefits Greater cooperation results

10. Discourse & function Religious discourse need not reflect reality BUT… Religious claims must be believed to motivate cooperation Non-cognitive function presumes cognitive function

11. Conclusions Coordination of goals does not require realistic discourse Non-cognitive function requires protection from counterevidence Non-cognitive function presumes cognitive function

12. Konrad Talmont-Kaminski In a Mirror, Darkly: How the Supernatural Reflects Rationality (forthcoming) konrad@talmont.com deisidaimon.wordpress.com Thank you