Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета: Серия I. Богословие, философия (Dec 2025)
“I believe because of evolution”: has cognitive science undermined the rationality of religious belief?
Abstract
This article explores the implications of contemporary naturalistic theories of religion for the rationality of religious (theistic) belief. The so-called evolutionary debunking arguments attempt to undermine the rationality of a belief by appealing to its evolutionary origins. Naturalistic philosophers, using cognitive studies of religion along with other evolutionist theories, have revitalized the debate about the irrationality of religious belief. One of the most discussed topics in the context of this debate has been the “Milvian Bridge”: can we assume that true religious beliefs are evolutionarily successful and increase fitness, or, alternatively, is the truth or falsity of religious beliefs irrelevant to their evolutionary success? Philosophers John Wilkins and Paul Griffiths argue that there is no connection between evolutionary success and the truth of religious beliefs, putting the latter at risk of debunking. Their opponents argue that such logic can call into question absolutely all beliefs, including scientific ones. This article analyzes philosopher Matthew Braddock's transition from naturalism to theism. Braddock, after initially claiming that cognitive theories of religion make it necessary to suspend judgment about the reliability of religious belief formation processes, would later argue that all evolutionist theories of religion are better aligned with theism than naturalism. Key facts and ideas about the topic are also explored: first, empirical criticisms of both the standard model of cognitive science of religion and other naturalistic theories of religion significantly weaken the naturalistic philosophers' arguments based on them. Second, it is necessary to trace the essential difference between methodological naturalism in science, which draws no ontological conclusions about the existence of God or other supernatural phenomena, and metaphysical naturalism, according to which nothing but the physical world exists. Using philosopher Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism, it is concluded that understanding the evolutionary process in the paradigm of metaphysical naturalism places any beliefs, including naturalism itself, under serious skepticism. Naturalists may thus be trapped in their own naturalism, which undermines the rationality of any scientific theories, and thus the arguments that are based on them.
Keywords
