Shamanism within a general theory of religious action (no cheesecake needed).
Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi
Behavioral and Brain Sciences January 2018 DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x17001996 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Commentary Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Shamanism |
| Key points | Argues that Singh's use of "superstition" and "superstitious learning" to explain religious ritual underestimates human imagination, and proposes that mentalizing, hypervigilance in agent detection, and anthropomorphism better account for the behaviors involved in religious illusions or delusions. |
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).