e-rhizome 2020, 2(1):1-18 | DOI: 10.5507/rh.2020.001

Primitive Theories of Religion: Evolutionism after Evans-Pritchard

Konrad Talmont-Kaminski

Society & Cognition Unit, University of Bialystok

Plac NZS 1, 15-420, Bialystok, Poland

k.talmontkaminski@gmail.com

In 1965 Evans-Pritchard published what is considered the ultimate critique of evolutionist theories of religion. More than five decades later, evolutionary approaches to the study of religion are thriving. Is this because the lessons contained in Theories of Primitive Religion have been forgotten? Or is it that the modern approaches have managed to learn from the errors Evans-Pritchard catalogued? The situation is somewhat more complex. It would be facile to dismiss the most fundamental criticisms of evolutionism made by Evans-Pritchard on the grounds that the ‘evolutionary’ theories he focused upon were based much more on Comte’s positivist view of history than on Darwin’s evolutionary theory and, therefore, have little in common with modern approaches that aim to be based upon current evolutionary biology. Evans-Pritchard’s critique was much more thorough than that and concerned theory, methods and data – it applied far beyond evolutionist theories, to a broad selection of approaches. While enormous progress has been made concerning the available data, the variety of methods used to obtain it and the theories used to make sense of it, many of the issues EvansPritchard raised keep reappearing in novel forms. As such his book remains a significant reference point for any attempt to understand religion. It is not, however, the searing indictment of the use of evolutionary theory in the study of religion that some might wish for. The criticisms Evans-Pritchard raised affect theories of religion in general and it is the multidisciplinary approach presented by cognitive science of religion that is best placed to counter them, largely thanks to its use of evolutionary theory.

Keywords: evolutionism, cognitive science of religion, progressivism, reductionism

Accepted: October 13, 2020; Published: October 13, 2020  Show citation