Evolutionary Theories of Religion

[rainmac]

Is human agency detection different from other mammals' agency detection? Why is it that humans' agency detection builds the religious framework?

It doesn't appear to be the case that agency detection is significantly different in humans than other animals.  The difference between agency-detection leading to religiosity versus agency-detection that doesn't seems to lay, therefore, in the human capacity for abstract thinking which does seem to be unique to us and no other animal (yet discovered).  Hence why, in the quote above, I said:

I'm surprised that a #3 isn't included that mentions phenomena like pareidolia, apophenia and agency-detection coupled with the human capacity for abstract thinking.

Pareidolia, apophenia and agency-detection exist in animals to the point that they are always sifting through incoming sensory information to synthesize and detect if something is meaningful in their environment. I can't cite specific evidence, but I suspect that animals often respond overcautiously to sensory stimuli that coincidentally mimic real threats but aren't. The difference, as you correctly point out, is tied to abstract thinking as well as other cognitive skills humans have different from other animals. Another way of describing human cognitive differences is that humans are capable of learning/processing contingent or conditional information. Humans can adapt to different environments and deal with temporary inputs compared to other animals whose range of behavior is much more limited by their inherited behavioral repertoire.

That being said, I don't see how abstract reasoning results in a tendency to religiosity. In fact, abstract reasoning should result in thinking in terms of the tangible and the empirical, not supernatural god-fantasies. With abstract reasoning, why did humans have to fabricate a pantheon of mythologies that are obviously completely contrived? Now, I think some people in this thread may have suggested that people are unable to assign causes to phenomena, which leads to the invention of gods and religion. I think that's a worthy course to pursue, but it requires a deep dive into how our great neocortex evolved. People assume it's normal to want to seek answers because we do it, but it still begs for a psychological exploration. Not for the faint of heart, the article Consider the source: The evolution of adaptations for decoupling and metarepresentation nails it for me. It's no walk in the park, but it lays out the essential issues around the problem of human cognition. And I'm pretty sure there's no mention of religion. But that's the level we have to go to figure this out.