Why the cognitive science of religion cannot rescue ‘spiritual care’ John Paley MA Visiting Fellow, Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK Abstract Peter Kevern believes that the cognitive science of religion (CSR) pro- vides a justification for the idea of spiritual care in the health services. In this paper, I suggest that he is mistaken on two counts. First, CSR does not entail the conclusions Kevern wants to draw. His treatment of it consists largely of nonsequiturs. I show this by presenting an account of CSR, and then explaining why Kevern’s reasons for thinking it rescues ‘spirituality’ discourse do not work. Second, the debate about spirituality-in-health is about classification: what shall count as a ‘spiritual need’ and what shall count as ‘spiritual care’. It is about the politics of meaning, an exercise in persuasive definition.The function of ‘spirituality’ talk in health care is to change the denotation of ‘spiritual’, and attach its indelibly religious connotations to as many health-related concepts and practices as pos- sible. CSR, however plausible it may be as a theory of the origins and pervasiveness of religious belief, is irrelevant to this debate. Keywords: spirituality, cognitive science, evolution, religion, health care. Introduction Peter Kevern (2013) believes that he has found a way of rescuing ‘spiritual care’ from the metaphysical back- water in which it languishes (Paley 2008), complete with a justification for ‘spirituality’ discourse in a secular health care system. The deus ex machina per- forming the rescue operation is the cognitive science of religion (CSR), which is a currently popular explana- tion in evolutionary terms of the origins of religion. In this paper, I will accept for the sake of argument that CSR offers a plausible, though (it should be noted) incomplete, account of religion as a by-product of cog- nitive evolution. However, I will suggest that it cannot play an effective role in Kevern’s rescue mission for two reasons.The first is that his treatment of it consists largely of non-sequiturs.The second is that CSR is irre- levant to the discourse of spirituality-in-health, which is no more than an exercise in persuasive definition. Conflict of interest: No conflict of interest has been declared by the author. Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Correspondence: Mr John Paley, Visiting Fellow, Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Sheffield Hallam University, Montgomery House, 32 Collegiate Crescent, Collegiate Campus, Sheffield S10 2BP, UK.Tel.: + 771 221 0778; fax: 0114 225 4377; e-mail: john.paley@btinternet.com Original article doi: 10.1111/nup.12102 213 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Nursing Philosophy (2015), 16, pp. 213–225