The Animal at Unease with Itself. Isaac M. Alderman
Anyone Believe in God? (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2004), 32. Also, Tremlin, Minds and Gods, 78.
29.
Tremlin, Minds and Gods, 81.
30.
“Neuromania” claims to provide a neurologically based answer for everything; it is marked by the use of cognitive science research but often makes sensational claims or is implicitly affected by Cartesian dualism. For an example of the debunking of neuromania, see Gregory Hickok, The Myth of Mirror Neurons: The Real Neuroscience of Communication and Cognition (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2014). Also, L. Mudrik and U. Maoz, “‘Me & My Brain: ’ Exposing Neuroscience’s Closet Dualism,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 27 (2014): 211–221.
31.
Patrick Colm Hogan, Cognitive Science, Literature, and the Arts: A Guide for Humanists (New York: Routledge, 2003), 3.
32.
Hogan, Cognitive Science, Literature, 1.
33.
Lisa Zunshine, “Introduction,” in Introduction to Cognitive Cultural Studies, ed. Lisa Zunshine (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010): 3.
34.
Zunshine, “Introduction,” 9–10.
35.
Hogan, Cognitive Science, Literature, 3. The comment by Pinker was made in an interview, in which he said: “We may be seeing a coming together of the humanities and the science of human nature. They’ve been long separated because of post-modernism and modernism. But now graduate students are grumbling in emails and in conference hallways about being locked out of the job market unless they perpetuate postmodernist gobbledygook, and how they’re eager for new ideas from the sciences that could invigorate the humanities within universities, which are, by anyone’s account, in trouble. Also connoisseurs and appreciators of art are getting sick of the umpteenth exhibit on the female body featuring mangled body parts, or ironic allusions to commercial culture that are supposed to shake people out of their bourgeois complacency but that are really no more insightful than an ad parody in Mad magazine or on Saturday Night Live.” Edge.org. “A Biological Understanding of Human Nature: A Talk with Steven Pinker.” Accessed March 14, 2017. www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker_blank/pinker_blank_print.html.
36.
Peter Mendelsund, What We See When We Read: A Phenomenology (New York: Vintage Books, 2014), 9. The reference is from William James, The Principles of Psychology (New York: H. Holt, 1918), 224. “The attempt at introspective analysis in these cases is in fact like seizing a spinning top to catch its motion or trying to turn up the gas quickly enough to see how the darkness looks.”
37.
Gottschall, The Storytelling Animal, xiv.
38.
Gottschall, The Storytelling Animal, 153.
39.
Maryanne Wolf, Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain (Cambridge: Icon Books, 2010), 16.
40.
Ellen Spolsky, The Work of Fiction: Cognition, Culture, and Complexity (London: Routledge, 2017), viii.
41.
Boyd, On the Origin of Stories, 1–3.
42.
Boyd, On the Origin of Stories, 167.
43.
Boyd, On the Origin of Stories, 170.
44.
Boyd, On the Origin of Stories, 171.
45.
Boyd, On the Origin of Stories, 149.
46.
David Herman, Storytelling and the Sciences of Mind (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017), 2
47.
Lisa Zunshine, “Introduction to Cognitive Literary Studies,” in Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Literary Studies, ed. Lisa Zunshine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 2.
48.
Herman, Storytelling and the Sciences of Mind, 2.
49.
Herman, Storytelling and the Sciences of Mind, 7.
50.
E. Thomas Lawson, “Cognition,” in Guide to the Study of Religion, eds. Willi Braun and Russell T. McCutcheon (London: Cassell, 2000), 81.
51.
Luther H. Martin, “Past Minds: Evolution, Cognition, and Biblical Studies,” in Mind, Morality and Magic: Cognitive Science Approaches in Biblical Studies, eds. István Czachesz and Risto Uro (Durham: Acumen, 2013): 18. Referencing E. Thomas Lawson, “Cognitive Constraints on Imagining Other Worlds.” SciFi in the Mind’s Eye: Reading science through science fiction (Chicago: Open Court, 2007).
52.
Martin, “Past Minds,” 18.
53.
Helen De Cruz, A Natural History of Natural Theology: The Cognitive Science of Theology and Philosophy of Religion (Boston: MIT, 2015), 14–15.
54.
De Cruz, Natural History,13.
55.
De Cruz, Natural History, 12.
56.
De Cruz, Natural History,14–15.
57.
De Cruz, Natural History, 13.
58.
Tremlin, Minds and Gods, 11.
59.
Martin, “Religion and Cognition” 528.
60.
Martin, “Religion and Cognition,” 529.
61.
Martin, “Religion and Cognition,” 529.
62.
Justin Barrett, “Cognitive Science of Religion: What is it and why is it?” Religion Compass 1 (2007): 768.
63.
Barrett, “Why is it?,” 769.
64.
Barrett, “Why is it?,” 769.
65.
E. Thomas Lawson and Robert N. McCauley, Rethinking Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). See also Luther Martin, “Religion and Cognition,” 529–530; Also, Ilkka Pyysiäinen, “The Cognitive Science of Religion,” in Evolution, Religion & Cognitive Science, eds. Fraser Watts and Leon Turner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 21–37.
66.
E. Thomas Lawson and Robert N. McCauley, “The cognitive representation of religious ritual form: A theory of participants’ competence with religious ritual systems,” Current Approaches in the Cognitive Science of Religion (2002): 157.
67.
Lawson and McCauley, Rethinking Religion, 87.
68.
Lawson and McCauley, as do others, require here that religious actions have some relationship to a superhuman agent. Not all scholars share this view. Lawson and McCauley acknowledge this and write