What Can the Failure of Cog-Sci of Religion Teach Us About the Future of Religious Studies? Ivan Strenski Abstract Despite its claims to novelty, the cognitive science of religion proceeds by ignoring major works of criticism of religious studies’ fundamental categories, especially that of “religion.” Accordingly, cognitive science of religion defines “religion” variously as the concern for “supernatural beings” or agent causality – both mere variants on E.B. Tylor’s mid-nineteenth century theory of animism. Furthermore, cognitive science of religion commits itself to a narrow – experimental, laboratory – conception of “sci- ence,” the results of which seem, at best, trivial. Taken together, both liabilities of cog- nitive science of religion spell its failure. The author charts an alternative scientific future for the study of religion by recommending a renewed effort in the historical sciences. Keywords cognitive science of religion – experimental science – laboratory science – Russell McCutcheon – Armin Geertz – XXth World Congress I AHR – Marice Bloch – Donald Wiebe – Luther Martin – history – critique of categories Recently the ambitions of the cognitive science of religion (hereafter, CS R) ar- ticulated by Donald Wiebe and Luther Martin have been challenged by Russell McCutcheon. In its quest for ahistorical human universals, McCutcheon has called attention to CSR’s conspicuous failure to address the historical construc- tion of the concept of religion, much less, even, the publications produced in its name. In effect, CSR has totally ignored the decades of work that the likes of Talal Asad, Tim Fitzgerald, I and, indeed, McCutcheon himself, have devoted 1 Russell McCutcheon, “Everything Old Is New,” in Failure and Nerve in the Academic Study of Religion, W. Arnal, W. Braun, and R.T. McCutcheon (eds.), 78-94. Sheffield: Equinox (2012); Donald Weibe and Luther H. Martin (2012) “Religious Studies as a Scientific Discipline: The Persistence of a Delusion,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 80(3): 587-97. smtr11_chapter8.tex; 2018/05/15; 12:30 p. 1 © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden,  | DOI ./_