Evolutionary debunking arguments in three domains: Fact, value, and religion

In James Maclaurin Greg Dawes (ed.), A New Science of Religion. Routledge (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Ever since Darwin people have worried about the sceptical implications of evolution. If our minds are products of evolution like those of other animals, why suppose that the beliefs they produce are true, rather than merely useful? We consider this problem for beliefs in three different domains: religion, morality, and commonsense and scientific claims about matters of empirical fact. We identify replies to evolutionary scepticism that work in some domains but not in others. One reply is that evolution can be expected to design systems that produce true beliefs in some domain. This reply works for commonsense beliefs and can be extended to scientific beliefs. But it does not work for moral or religious beliefs. An alternative reply which has been used defend moral beliefs is that their truth does not consist in their tracking some external state of affairs. Whether or not it is successful in the case of moral beliefs, this reply is less plausible for religious beliefs. So religious beliefs emerge as particularly vulnerable to evolutionary debunking.

Author Profiles

Paul Edmund Griffiths
University of Sydney
John Wilkins
University of Melbourne

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-09-10

Downloads
2,692 (#2,626)

6 months
197 (#11,916)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?