In a 2008 paper, Justin Barrett designed a conceptual scale to measure the level of counterintuitiveness of concepts, “Barrett’s counterintuitiveness coding and quantifying scheme”. According to Barrett, the higher a concept scores in this scale, the more counterintuitive it is. The scale is meant as an auxiliary tool for one of the mainstream theories in the cognitive science of religion, namely, the Minimal Counterintuitiveness Hypothesis. For a concept to be adherent, i.e., to survive across cultures and across time, it has (...) to score points in the counterintuitiveness scale, but it has to score low. Concepts that score too high or that don’t score at all are non-adherent. In this paper the case is made that at least some varieties of religious belief involve concepts that resist accurate measuring. The case study presented here features Spiritual Oneness, the belief that “all things are one”, frequently prompted by mystical experiences and frequently described as being very adherent. We purport that the failure of Barrett’s scale to allow for an examination of the concepts at stake in Spiritual Oneness is to be explained by the fact that the background assumptions about counterintuitiveness underpinning the scale are too narrow. (shrink)

In this paper, we present an abductive argument for the existence of God from the experience of awe at natural beauty. If God’s creative work is a viable explanation for why we experience awe at natural beauty, and there is no satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the origins of such experiences, then we have defeasible evidence that God exists. To evaluate the argument's tenability, we assess the merits of the two main naturalistic frameworks that can be marshaled to answer the question (...) of why human beings experience awe at natural beauty, Wilson's biophilia hypothesis, and Keltner and Haidt's prototype approach to awe. We show shortcomings of both accounts in explaining the relevant experiences and argue that the reliance of these accounts on an adaptationist reading of our aesthetic appreciation of nature entails a commitment to questionable hidden premises: that affordances themselves can figure in the subject's perceptual experience, and that experiences of awe have adaptive value. We maintain that the argument's “empirical” premise is tenable and conclude with directions for future research regarding the argument's “theological” premise. (shrink)

Although wonder has been the subject of much discussion within the philosophy and cognitive science of emotions concerning its perceptual and spiritual aspects, its cognitive aspects are not as clear. The main effort has been to clarify the effects this emotion has on cognition, notably aa broadening of its structures to accommodate a perceptual content marked by beauty, vastness, and complexity of detail. However, emotions can have the same effect on cognition without thereby being cognitive emotions themselves. In an attempt (...) to demarcate the emotion of wonder, we will advance a thesis that aims at specifying its cognitive dimension, namely: wonder is an emotion that is a constitutive part of a metacognitive process by which the agent becomes sensitive to the limits of her conceptual apparatus. What results from this process are precisely the typical sensations which accompany this emotion, such as belonging and reverence. The paper is structured as follows. First, we will bring to the fore the problems inherent in understanding the cognitive emotion of wonder. Second, we will evince a pertinent case of metacognition and show in what way that capacity can be constituted by emotions. Third, we will elucidate the metacognitive character of wonder. Finally, we will offer a case to make clear the explanatory potential of our analysis, namely, the role of wonder in the formation and maintenance of religious belief. (shrink)