Norenzayan et al. are praised for choosing to deal with significant questions in the understanding of religion. They are then criticized for refusing to define religion and for relying on problematic theoretical concepts. The authors discuss Abrahamic religions as the best-known prosocial religions, but the evidence shows that the case does not fit their conceptual framework. Finally, an extension of the authors' ideas about the meaning of priming effects is proposed.
|Number of pages||2|
|Journal||Behavioral and Brain Sciences|
|State||Published - 2 Dec 2014|
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© 2016 Cambridge University Press .
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
- Behavioral Neuroscience