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

In James Maclaurin Greg Dawes (ed.), A New Science of Religion. Routledge (forthcoming)
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.
Keywords Evolutionary epistemology  Philosophy of religion  Alvin Pantinga
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index Translate to english
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive John S. Wilkins, Evolutionary debunking arguments in three domains: Fact, value, and religion
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Geoff Childers (2011). What's Wrong with the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69 (3):193-204.
John P. Reeder Jr (1997). What is a Religious Ethic? Journal of Religious Ethics 25 (3):157 - 181.
Brian Zamulinski (2004). Rejoinder to Mawson. Religious Studies 40 (3):365-366.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2012-09-10

Total downloads

467 ( #342 of 1,101,578 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

99 ( #425 of 1,101,578 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.