{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01471698113207547, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.326968973747016, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A new science of religion, edited by Gregory W. Dawes and James Maclaurin; Ritual and Christian beginnings, Risto Uro

science. Jones also helpfully notes the limitations of explanations in general by pointing out the importance of context and the intended function of an explanation, which inherently lead explanations to be incomplete. This section may serve as a reminder to many as they offer explanations for various phenomena and should prompt many scholars to further specify the purposes of their arguments and to note important assumptions they are making. Jones’ description of different sources of disagreement may also be helpful for debates and arguments across fields and may prevent disputes that end with no resolution. Both academics and nonacademics may benefit by attending to the source of their disagreements—differences that lie on a foundation of shared beliefs or differences that require an examination of assumptions. A few critiques may also be made. Though Jones critiques those who overextend cognitive science and take their conclusions further than their evidence allows, it would be helpful for Jones to more precisely define and identify what aspects of religion science, particularly cognitive science, can explain. Jones does identify certain ways in which science explains parts of religious phenomena, but future work could more precisely establish boundaries for such arguments. Similarly, future research could highlight a clearer path forward for CSR as a field. How might CSR more clearly state the limitations of its argument? How might CSR more fully and wholly examine religion rather than just a few isolated beliefs and practices? Clear answers to these questions would benefit CSR and religious studies greatly. Furthermore, a clear path forward for conversation with “debunkers” and others who do not share the same background assumptions would be helpful. Jones’ final chapter offers pragmatic discussion points for those who hold to different belief frameworks, but a systematic approach to these discussions may be helpful. Relatedly, future work may more clearly explain how scientific and philosophical explanations of religion interrelate. Further cohesion and elaboration on these topics may help advance the arguments made by Jones. In conclusion, Jones identifies important problems with debunkers’ attempts to explain religion. His arguments serve to benefit the fields of CSR and religious studies more generally by raising important questions and suggesting some answers for them. Future work may build upon this book and further consider CSR and its ability to explain religious phenomena.