Is Religion a Necessary Condition for the Emergence of Knowledge? Some Explanatory Hypotheses

Viorel Rotila


By using the general investigation framework offered by the cognitive science of religion (CSR), I analyse religion as a necessary condition for the evolutionary path of knowledge. The main argument is the "paradox of the birth of knowledge": in order to get to the meaning of the part, a sense context is needed; but a sense of the whole presupposes the sense (meaning) of the parts. Religion proposes solutions to escape this paradox, based on the imagination of sense (meaning) contexts, respectively closures of these contexts through meta-senses. What is important is the practical effectiveness of solutions proposed by religion, taking into account the costs of faith and the costs of the absence of religious belief. The hypothesis has the following consequences: religion is a necessary condition for the initial evolution of knowledge and the emergence of religion is determined by the evolution of knowledge. The continuation of the solving of paradox is a Bayesian one, using explorations: a sense of the whole allows cognitive arrangements of the parties, which in turn open the possibility of a rearrangement of the whole. The contribution of religion to the emergence of sense (meaning) could be governed by the rule: any map of the world is more useful than no map; any meaning (of life) is better than no meaning. The human mind fills the perceptual and cognitive gaps, some (religious) filling solutions being true vault keys of the entire cognitive construction called the world. 


the evolutionist paradox of knowledge; religion; knowledge; evolution; Gettier issues;

Full Text:

View PDF


Barrett, J. (2004). Why would anyone believe in God? Walnut Creek, California, SUA: AltaMira Press.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection. New York, New York, SUA: W.W. Norton & Co.

Comte, A. (1830). Course of positive philosophy (1st. vol.). Paris, France: Bachelier.

Edis, T., & Boudry, M. (2019). Truth and consequences: When is it rational to accept falsehoods? Journal of Cognition and Culture, 19(1-2), 147–169. doi:10.1163/15685373-12340052

Eliade, M. (1961). The sacred and the profane: The nature of religion. New York, New York, SUA: Harper and Brothers.

Gell, A. (1998). Art and agency: An anthropological theory. New York, New York, SUA: Clarendon Press.

Gettier, E. L. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23(6), 121-123. doi:10.2307/3326922

Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York, SUA: Oxford University Press.

Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. New York, SUA: Viking Penguin.

Guthrie, S. E., Agassi, J., Andriolo, K. R., Buchdahl, D., Earhart, H. B., Greenberg, M., Jarvie, I., Saler, B., Saliba, J., Sharpe, K. J., & Tissot, G. (1980). A cognitive theory of religion. Current Anthropology, 21(2), 181-203. doi:10.1086/202429

Guthrie, S. E. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hayek, F. A. (2013). The fatal conceit: The errors of socialism. London, UK: Routledge.

Harari, Y. N. (2017). Homo deus. A brief history of tomorrow. New York, USA: Random House.

Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21 lessons for the 21st century. London, UK: Jonathan Cape.

Heidegger, M. (2000). Zur sache des denkens [As a matter of thinking]. Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.

Ingarden, R. (1978). Studii de estetică [Aesthetic studies]. Bucharest, Romania: Univers.

Inzlicht, M., Tullett, A. M., & Good, M. (2011). The need to believe: a neuroscience account of religion as a motivated process. Religion, Brain, and Behavior, 1(3), 192-251. doi:10.1080/2153599x.2011.647849

Kelemen, D. (2004). Are children “intuitive theists”? Reasoning about purpose and design in nature. Psychological Science, 15(5), 295-301. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00672.x

Rossano, M. J. (2006) The religious mind and the evolution of religion. Review of general psychology, 4(10), 346–364. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.10.4.346

Rotilă, V. (2013). The structure of consciousness: The concept of domain of consciousness. Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Argonaut.

Rotilă, V. (2018). The evolutionist role of religion; Some arguments. International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on the Dialogue between Sciences and Arts, Religion and Education, 2(2), 160-167. doi:10.26520/mcdsare.2018.2.160-167

Searle, J. (2005). Mind: A brief introduction. New York, SUA: Oxford University Press.

Shults, F. L. (2014). Theology after the birth of god: Atheist conceptions in cognition and culture. New York, SUA: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Sloman, S., & Fernbach, P. (2017). The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone. New York, SUA: Penguin Random House.

Sosis, R. (2009). The adaptationist-byproduct debate on the evolution of religion: Five misunderstandings of the adaptationist program. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 9, 315–332. doi:10.1163/156770909x12518536414411

Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. New York, SUA: Random House.

Taleb, N. N. (2018). Skin in the game. Hidden asymmetries in daily life. New York, SUA: Random House.

Teehan, J. (2018). The cognitive science of religion: Implications for morality. Unisinos Journal of Philosophy, 19(3), 272-281. doi:10.4013/fsu.2018.193.09

Tillich, P. (1951). Systematic theology (1st vol.). Chicago, SUA: University of Chicago Press.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 The Authors & LUMEN Publishing House

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright © POSTMODERN OPENINGS | A LUMEN Peer Reviewed Gold Open Access Journal |

Journal covered in: Web of Sciences (WOS); EBSCO; ERIH+; Google Scholar; Index Copernicus; Ideas RePeC; Econpapers; Socionet; CEEOL; Ulrich ProQuest; Cabell, Journalseek; Scipio; Philpapers; SHERPA/RoMEO repositories; KVK; WorldCat; CrossRef; J-GATE