Are Theological Explanations Superfluous? The Cognitive Science of Religion and Ockham’s Razor

If the cognitive science of religion eventually comes up with a complete and convincing naturalistic account of religion, it seems that, given Ockham's razor, theological explanations of religion will be superfluous. The retreat of theology from the realm of the sciences may thus be complete. In this chapter, two ways to face this challenge are explored. First, one may accept that theological notions are “explanatorily idle,” but reject the argument that this rules out the existence of God and other religious beliefs. I argue that this response is problematic for various reasons. Second, one may deny that theological notions are explanatorily idle by appealing to the concept of conjunctive explanation. If one has reason to believe that theological explanations are viable in their own field, an explanation of religion that conjoins scientific and theological factors may be preferable to a naturalistic one. Even though such a conjunctive explanation displays less simplicity in the field of science, it may provide more simplicity in the overall attempt to make sense of things in the light of God's relationship to us. In particular, theological anthropology may add to cognitive science in delivering the best possible interpretation of the religious impulse in humans