Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:48:39.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shamanism within a general theory of religious action (no cheesecake needed)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2018

Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi
Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Singh places the understanding of shamanism within the cognitive/evolutionary psychology of religion but is then sidetracked by presenting unhelpful analogies. The concepts of “superstition” as a general term for religious rituals and of “superstitious learning” as a mechanism accounting for the creation of rituals in humans reflect an underestimation of the human imagination, which is guided by cognitive/evolutionary constraints. Mentalizing, hypervigilance in agent detection, and anthropomorphism explain the behaviors involved in religious illusions (or delusions).

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bandura, A., Grusec, J. E., & Menlove, F. L. (1966) Observational learning as a function of symbolization and incentive set. Child Development 37:499–506.Google Scholar
Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2015). Psychological perspectives on religion and religiosity. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Burger, J. M. & Lynn, A. L. (2005) Superstitious behavior among American and Japanese professional baseball players. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 27:71–76. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2701.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. (1998) Steven Pinker's cheesecake for the mind. Philosophy and Literature 22:478–85.Google Scholar
Davies, S. (2010) Why art is not a spandrel. The British Journal of Aesthetics 50:333–41.Google Scholar
Henslin, J. M. (1967) Craps and magic. American Journal of Sociology 73:316–30.Google Scholar
Legare, C. H., Evans, E. M., Rosengren, K. S. & Harris, P. L. (2012) The coexistence of natural and supernatural explanations across cultures and development. Child Development 83:779–93. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01743.x.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1997) How the mind works. W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Porterfield, A. (1987) Shamanism: A psychosocial definition. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 55:721–39.Google Scholar
Sanday, P.R. (1987). Divine hunger: Cannibalism as a cultural system. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. Y. B. F. (1948) “Superstition” in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology 38:168–72.Google Scholar