W1 Reading -- Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations

Article Metadata

• Authors: Cristine H. Legare, E. Margaret Evans, Karl S. Rosengren, Paul L. Harris
• Publication: Child Development (Wiley / Society for Research in Child Development)
• Volume/Issue: 83 / 3 (May–June 2012)
• Page Range: 779–793
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01743.x
• Stable JSTOR URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23255721

Central Thesis

• Natural (scientific, observable, empirically-verifiable) and supernatural (violating or external to natural laws) explanations coexist within single minds across cultures and development.
• Contrary to “replacement” or “secularization” views, endorsement of supernatural explanations often increases with age, even in technologically advanced societies.

Working Definitions

• Natural Explanation: Refers to phenomena that are, in principle, observable/measurable; assumes proximate physical mechanisms.
• Supernatural Explanation: Refers to causes outside known natural law (e.g., God, witchcraft, ancestors); assumes distinct causal mechanisms.

Foundational Background & Competing Hypotheses

• Secularization Hypothesis: As science/technology advance, religious explanations should fade. Empirical data do not support full displacement.
• Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) (Gould 1997): Natural & supernatural do not conflict because each addresses separate domains. Current research shows overlap & interaction.
• Piagetian/Modernization Views: Predict developmental shift from “pre-logical/supernatural” to “logical/scientific.” New data reveal U-shaped or bidirectional patterns.

Motivating Example: Azande Granary Collapse (Evans-Pritchard 1937)

• Natural factors: termite damage + weight ⇒ collapse.
• Supernatural factor: witchcraft explains why those exact people were under the granary at that moment.
• Illustrates layered causal reasoning (proximate vs. ultimate “why”).

Shared Functional Goals of Both Frameworks

• Provide coherent causal narratives for origin, intervention, prediction, control.
• Address emotionally charged, existential questions (illness, death, purpose).

Three Typologies of Coexistence Thinking (Table 1)

1. Target-Dependent
   • Different aspects of the same event are explained by different frameworks.
   • Example: Biological decay of body vs. spiritual continuation of soul after death.
2. Synthetic (Laissez-faire Combination)
   • Two explanations cited side-by-side without explicit integration.
   • Example: “Evolution with the environment and God’s plan.”
3. Integrated (Coordinated Chain)
   • Explanations hierarchically or causally linked (proximate vs. ultimate).
   • Example: Unprotected sex (proximate) + witchcraft manipulating judgment (ultimate) in AIDS causation; Theistic evolution (natural selection guided/initiated by God).

Empirical Domains Reviewed

1. Biological Origins of Species

• Surveys: Gallup 2007 – 24\% of U.S. respondents simultaneously endorsed evolution and recent divine creation of humans.
• Developmental Findings (Evans 2000,2001,2008):
  • Children & adults often accept evolution for distant taxa (butterflies, frogs) yet creation for humans ⇒ target-dependent.
  • Christian Fundamentalists: Accept micro-evolution within “created kinds” but reject common descent (wolves ⇒ dogs).
  • Emergence of integrated theistic-evolution models in non-fundamentalist participants: God as distal cause; natural selection as proximate.
• Cultural Nuance: Pope John Paul II (1997) endorses body-evolution/soul-creation compromise.

2. Illness (Focus on AIDS)

• South Africa Studies (Legare & Gelman 2008): Participants N=366 across ages 5,7,11,15,adult.
  • Biological explanations endorsed at high rates across ages.
  • Witchcraft explanations show U-shape: high in young children, dip in adolescents, rebound to 100\% in adults.
  • Experimental priming: Mention of social envy/jealousy cues ↑ witchcraft attributions; medical cues ↑ biological attributions.
  • Evidence for all three coexistence types: “supernatural AIDS” (target-dependent), additive mention of unsafe sex + witchcraft (synthetic), proximate/ultimate chains (integrated).
• Vietnamese- & Euro-American Samples (Nguyen & Rosengren 2004) & Indian Samples (Raman & Gelman 2004):
  • Biological causality dominant, yet magical/fate/karma explanations endorsed by both children and adults.
  • Increase in moral/supernatural causality with age among Indian participants.

3. Death and Afterlife

• Cross-Cultural Evidence (Spain, Madagascar, China, Mexico, U.S.):
  • Children master biological finality (inevitability, irreversibility, cessation) by ≈6 yrs yet simultaneously assert soul’s continuation.
  • Older children (11 yrs) show more coexistence reasoning than younger (7 yrs) (Harris & Giménez 2005).
  • Adults often struggle to articulate fully integrated models; may adopt “I don’t know – never been dead” stance (Astuti 2011).
  • Studies using animal (mouse) targets yield lower afterlife attribution; human specificity matters.

Developmental Trajectories & Patterns

• Early Childhood (≈3–5 yrs): Default reliance on salient physical causality; nevertheless open to supernatural input via testimony.
• Middle Childhood (≈7–11 yrs): Biological knowledge consolidates; coexistence appears via target-dependent/synthetic forms.
• Adolescence & Adulthood: Greater cultural immersion ⇒ resurgence or elaboration of supernatural reasoning; potential for integrated models conditional on education/metacognition.
• U-shaped Curves documented for witchcraft beliefs relative to AIDS causation (knowledge of curricula vs. cultural tradition).

Methodological Highlights

• Mixed-method vignettes allow participants to endorse multiple explanations per scenario rather than forced choice.
• Contextual priming (biological vs. social/moral cues) dynamically shifts explanatory weighting.
• Cross-sectional samples spanning cultures, religions, and ages provide convergent validity.

Ethical, Philosophical & Practical Implications

• Health Communication: Public-health campaigns must address both biomedical facts and culturally entrenched supernatural logics (e.g., acknowledging witchcraft fears in HIV interventions).
• Science Education: Recognizing coexistence helps educators anticipate resistance, tailor curricula (e.g., differentiating micro- vs. macro-evolution discussions).
• Cognitive Flexibility: Ability to compartmentalize vs. integrate multiple epistemologies may be a conceptual achievement rather than confusion.
• Research Ethics: Investigators must avoid pathologizing supernatural reasoning; treat it as integral, enduring cognitive pattern.

Connections to Broader Theories & Literature

• Aligns with sociocultural frameworks (Vygotsky 1978; Cole 2005) stressing community mediation of cognition.
• Challenges “Whig” interpretations in developmental psychology (Harris 2009).
• Resonates with studies on explanatory virtues (Lombrozo 2006) and theory-formation drives (Gopnik 2000).

Key Numerical & Statistical References

• Gallup Poll 2007: 24\% endorse both evolution & recent creation.
• Legare & Gelman sample sizes: N=366; adult witchcraft endorsement 100\%.
• Creationist proportion in U.S.: ≈30\% (Doyle 2003).
• Museum visitor education: >60\% college degree; 22\% “human-only” creationist; 6\% universal creationist.

Remaining Questions & Future Directions

• Individual Differences: Which cognitive/metacognitive traits predict integrated vs. compartmentalized coexistence?
• Longitudinal Trajectories: Need for within-subject tracking to map true developmental curves.
• Domain Generality: Do similar coexistence patterns hold for procreation, morality, marriage, natural disasters?
• Intervention Studies: Can explicit pedagogy foster reflective integration without eroding cultural identity?

Take-Home Messages

• Natural and supernatural explanatory systems are not mutually exclusive; they are dynamically negotiated across the lifespan.
• Coexistence adopts multiple cognitive forms—target-dependent, synthetic, integrated—each context-sensitive and culturally scaffolded.
• Supernatural reasoning is persistent, elaborative, and contextually adaptive, requiring respectful engagement in education, health, and policy domains.