Well, take John Wilkins's article from the former volume mentioned above, who presents the most obvious case of a religion-debunking argument (to be found here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56b23f391bbee0832a71e819/t/56d49fa9b654f96f8828ebb6/1456775088307/introduction-cognitive-science-of-religion-and-its-philosophical-implications.pdf): 

Here's the blueprint he offers:

"An evolutionary debunking argument has the following form (Kahane 2011): Causal premise. S’s belief that p is explained by X Epistemic premise. X is an off-track process Therefore S’s belief that p is unjustified. An “off-track process” is a process of the evolution by natural selection of cognitive dispositions or belief acquisition, in which what makes the dispositions or beliefs (for simplicity we shall refer to beliefs) fit is decoupled from its truth. For example, suppose that belief in God is a fitness-enhancer in a given social environment, because it increases one’s chances of reciprocal altruism in times of need in societies where kin relationships are unknown or too attenuated (Wilkins 2015). The fitness here is granted in virtue of the mere fact of having the same beliefs as those of your social milieu, not in virtue of the truth of those beliefs. In fact, even if the beliefs are entirely false, fitness is still conferred to the believer."

pp. 19-20
 

I was looking into some of the work of Helen de Cruz a little while back, who works in this field but is not entirely unsympathetic to theistic arguments. A Natural History of Natural Theology: The Cognitive Science of Theology and Philosophy of Religion

I don't think any of this is novel. It really just looks like Kant all over again. I'm pretty comfortable saying that the reasoning underlying even cosmological arguments relies upon basic intuitions that need not necessarily be true, but if they're not true, then the natural sciences that implicitly rely upon the very same intuitions about causality collapse too. It seems like special pleading to me to say that we can keep evolutionary psychology but have to throw away natural theology. If you're going to be a radical skeptic, toss out everything.

Paraschis wrote:

Well, take John Wilkins's article from the former volume mentioned above, who presents the most obvious case of a religion-debunking argument (to be found here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56b23f391bbee0832a71e819/t/56d49fa9b654f96f8828ebb6/1456775088307/introduction-cognitive-science-of-religion-and-its-philosophical-implications.pdf): 

Here's the blueprint he offers:

"An evolutionary debunking argument has the following form (Kahane 2011): Causal premise. S’s belief that p is explained by X Epistemic premise. X is an off-track process Therefore S’s belief that p is unjustified. An “off-track process” is a process of the evolution by natural selection of cognitive dispositions or belief acquisition, in which what makes the dispositions or beliefs (for simplicity we shall refer to beliefs) fit is decoupled from its truth. For example, suppose that belief in God is a fitness-enhancer in a given social environment, because it increases one’s chances of reciprocal altruism in times of need in societies where kin relationships are unknown or too attenuated (Wilkins 2015). The fitness here is granted in virtue of the mere fact of having the same beliefs as those of your social milieu, not in virtue of the truth of those beliefs. In fact, even if the beliefs are entirely false, fitness is still conferred to the believer."

pp. 19-20
 

 
So it's pretty much a genetic fallacy. Cool.

Really though, if that has been actually published, then it makes me worry for the state of academic publishing. Can someone please explain to me how "Belief in X has been formed by an off-track process" implies no one can ever have any real justification for X? Plantinga's EAAN at least could be formulated as best explanation argument (instead of a skeptical threat) and could arguably be limited to empirical experience. This one is just ridiculous. If my belief that 2 + 2 equals 4 is explained by an off-track process that gives me a bias for thinking 4 is the result of adding 2 and 2 as a way to manage inventory, does that mean I have no justification to believe 2 + 2 equals 4? Of course not. A belief being formed by an off-track process would not imply that it cannot have justification, even if that justification were to somehow show up later.

Not to mention that kind of view basically invites a Plantinga EAAN response. Really, if we could deal away with rational justifications for a belief simply because it was produced by an off-track process, then we open a pandora's box in which all beliefs would be similarly threatened, including any beliefs about evolution or something as complex as cognitive theory.

Last edited by Miguel (4/17/2018 12:01 pm)

Miguel, I would urge you to investigate the article under question (by John Wilkins). In it he offers an argument for why moral and religious arguments are susceptible to evolutionary debunking while scientific statements are largely evinced. It's called the Milvian Bridge principle, developed also here: https://philpapers.org/rec/WILEDA-3 

For a fairly lengthy critique of this very position, I would suggest https://www.academia.edu/29023067/Are_Evolutionary_Debunking_Arguments_Self-Debunking
and
https://www.academia.edu/34425790/Evolutionary_Debunking_The_Milvian_Bridge_Destabilized