Introducing a special issue on phase two of the Evolution of Religion and Morality project

IF 3.6 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION Religion Brain & Behavior Pub Date : 2022-04-03 DOI:10.1080/2153599X.2022.2038096
R. Sosis, Joseph A. Bulbulia, W. Wildman, U. Schjoedt, J. Shaver
{"title":"Introducing a special issue on phase two of the Evolution of Religion and Morality project","authors":"R. Sosis, Joseph A. Bulbulia, W. Wildman, U. Schjoedt, J. Shaver","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2022.2038096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This special double issue, Religion, Brain & Behavior’s first ever double issue, presents results from the second phase of the Evolution of Religion and Morality (ERM) project. Results from the first phase of this pioneering and influential project were published in a previous special issue of RBB (2018, volume 8, issue 2) and elsewhere (e.g., Purzycki et al., 2016). The core of this second wave of research employs experimental games—the Dictator Game and Random Allocation Game—as well as demographic and economic data to explore the relationship between beliefs in particular types of supernatural agents and cooperative behavior. Similar to the previous RBB special issue on the ERM project, this issue presents independent articles on each of the field sites from the project. These articles allowed the ERM researchers to describe the cultural and historical context of their field studies, and offered an opportunity to conduct more rigorous intra-field site analyses in ways that were not possible in the synthetic cross-cultural study previously published with the second-wave data (Lang et al., 2019). Each of these studies explores ethnographically-derived questions that afford rich insights about the subsistence, ecological, and economic variation in the collective ERM data set. In addition to these experimental and interview studies, this issue also offers four new synthetic pieces. First, Baimel et al. analyze the relationship between religious commitments and material insecurity. They show that across the 15 ERM field sites, Christian sites exhibit the strongest relationship between religious commitment and belief in a moralizing god, and this relationship is positively predicted by material insecurity. Second, Vardy et al. use the collective ERM data set to explore the oft-cited gender gap in which women exhibit higher levels of religious commitment than men. Consistent with previous research, the ERM findings support a religious gender gap. However, this gap only arises for traditions with a moralizing god. Women do not exhibit greater religious commitments in traditions that worship local gods. Third, Purzycki et al. assess whether the supernatural agents that elicit commitments across the 15 field sites are interested in human morality. As anticipated, even when “official” or “theologically correct” claims deny that the gods maintain moral interest, across the ERM field sites study participants inferred that their gods, even local gods, were generally interested in their moral actions. In the final paper of this special issue, Purzcyki et al. wrap up the 10-year ERM project with a summary target article that examines the methodological and analytic challenges of a large multi-field site cross-disciplinary study. This article assesses the strengths and limitations of both phases of the ERM project, as well as offers advice for researchers aiming to pursue similarly ambitious projects. It provides a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes machinations of a long-term large-scale research endeavor. We elicited commentaries from five well-known scholars in the scientific study of religion—from anthropology, cognitive science, philosophy, and psychology— to comment on this article and the ERM project in general. The special issue concludes with a response to these commentaries from Purzycki et al. The impact of ERM on the biocultural study of religion in particular, and the academic study of religion in general, is only just beginning. In addition to the various scholarly debates that their results have initiated, ERM has strengthened a trend toward cross-cultural projects aimed at understanding variation in religious expression, commitment, and behavior. Indeed, the scientific study","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religion Brain & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2038096","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This special double issue, Religion, Brain & Behavior’s first ever double issue, presents results from the second phase of the Evolution of Religion and Morality (ERM) project. Results from the first phase of this pioneering and influential project were published in a previous special issue of RBB (2018, volume 8, issue 2) and elsewhere (e.g., Purzycki et al., 2016). The core of this second wave of research employs experimental games—the Dictator Game and Random Allocation Game—as well as demographic and economic data to explore the relationship between beliefs in particular types of supernatural agents and cooperative behavior. Similar to the previous RBB special issue on the ERM project, this issue presents independent articles on each of the field sites from the project. These articles allowed the ERM researchers to describe the cultural and historical context of their field studies, and offered an opportunity to conduct more rigorous intra-field site analyses in ways that were not possible in the synthetic cross-cultural study previously published with the second-wave data (Lang et al., 2019). Each of these studies explores ethnographically-derived questions that afford rich insights about the subsistence, ecological, and economic variation in the collective ERM data set. In addition to these experimental and interview studies, this issue also offers four new synthetic pieces. First, Baimel et al. analyze the relationship between religious commitments and material insecurity. They show that across the 15 ERM field sites, Christian sites exhibit the strongest relationship between religious commitment and belief in a moralizing god, and this relationship is positively predicted by material insecurity. Second, Vardy et al. use the collective ERM data set to explore the oft-cited gender gap in which women exhibit higher levels of religious commitment than men. Consistent with previous research, the ERM findings support a religious gender gap. However, this gap only arises for traditions with a moralizing god. Women do not exhibit greater religious commitments in traditions that worship local gods. Third, Purzycki et al. assess whether the supernatural agents that elicit commitments across the 15 field sites are interested in human morality. As anticipated, even when “official” or “theologically correct” claims deny that the gods maintain moral interest, across the ERM field sites study participants inferred that their gods, even local gods, were generally interested in their moral actions. In the final paper of this special issue, Purzcyki et al. wrap up the 10-year ERM project with a summary target article that examines the methodological and analytic challenges of a large multi-field site cross-disciplinary study. This article assesses the strengths and limitations of both phases of the ERM project, as well as offers advice for researchers aiming to pursue similarly ambitious projects. It provides a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes machinations of a long-term large-scale research endeavor. We elicited commentaries from five well-known scholars in the scientific study of religion—from anthropology, cognitive science, philosophy, and psychology— to comment on this article and the ERM project in general. The special issue concludes with a response to these commentaries from Purzycki et al. The impact of ERM on the biocultural study of religion in particular, and the academic study of religion in general, is only just beginning. In addition to the various scholarly debates that their results have initiated, ERM has strengthened a trend toward cross-cultural projects aimed at understanding variation in religious expression, commitment, and behavior. Indeed, the scientific study
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
介绍“宗教与道德发展”计划第二阶段专题
《宗教,大脑与行为》是《宗教,大脑与行为》的第一期双刊,本期特刊介绍了宗教与道德进化(ERM)项目第二阶段的研究结果。这个开创性和有影响力的项目的第一阶段的结果发表在RBB的上一期特刊(2018年,第8卷,第2期)和其他地方(例如,Purzycki等人,2016年)。第二波研究的核心是利用实验游戏——独裁者游戏和随机分配游戏——以及人口和经济数据来探索特定类型的超自然行为者的信仰与合作行为之间的关系。与之前关于ERM项目的RBB特刊类似,这期特刊提供了关于项目中每个现场站点的独立文章。这些文章使ERM研究人员能够描述他们实地研究的文化和历史背景,并提供了一个机会,以先前用第二波数据发表的综合跨文化研究无法实现的方式进行更严格的实地现场分析(Lang et al., 2019)。这些研究中的每一项都探索了民族志衍生的问题,这些问题为集体ERM数据集中的生存、生态和经济变化提供了丰富的见解。除了这些实验和访谈研究外,本期还提供了四个新的合成片段。首先,Baimel等人分析了宗教承诺与物质不安全感之间的关系。他们发现,在15个ERM研究地点中,基督教地点在宗教承诺和对道德上帝的信仰之间表现出最强的关系,这种关系与物质不安全感呈正相关。其次,Vardy等人使用集体ERM数据集来探索经常被引用的性别差距,其中女性表现出比男性更高的宗教承诺水平。与之前的研究一致,ERM的研究结果支持宗教上的性别差异。然而,这种差距只会出现在有道德上帝的传统中。在崇拜当地神灵的传统中,女性没有表现出更大的宗教信仰。第三,Purzycki等人评估了在15个实地地点引发承诺的超自然主体是否对人类道德感兴趣。正如预期的那样,即使“官方”或“神学上正确”的说法否认神保持道德利益,在整个ERM现场研究的参与者推断,他们的神,甚至是当地的神,通常对他们的道德行为感兴趣。在本期特刊的最后一篇论文中,Purzcyki等人用一篇总结性的目标文章总结了10年的ERM项目,该文章研究了一项大型多领域跨学科研究的方法和分析挑战。本文评估了ERM项目的两个阶段的优势和局限性,并为致力于类似雄心勃勃的项目的研究人员提供了建议。它提供了对长期大规模研究努力的幕后阴谋的罕见一瞥。我们从人类学、认知科学、哲学和心理学等五位宗教科学研究领域的知名学者那里获得了评论,对这篇文章和ERM项目进行了总体评论。本期特刊最后对Purzycki等人的评论进行了回应。ERM对宗教生物文化研究的影响,尤其是对宗教学术研究的影响,才刚刚开始。除了他们的研究结果引发的各种学术辩论外,ERM还加强了旨在理解宗教表达、承诺和行为变化的跨文化项目的趋势。的确,科学研究
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
13.60%
发文量
93
期刊最新文献
Autonomous neural network activation during religious worship experiences using heart rate variability measurements The role of religion in adolescent mental health: faith as a moderator of the relationship between distrust and depression Religion evolving: applying system theory to a case of blood libel Religion without scare quotes: cognitive science of religion and the humanities Steps towards a more holistic, dynamic and integrative approach to the evolution of religious systems
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1