Beware evolutionary 'just-so' stories about religious belief

The presence of a brain mechanism for something neither necessarily proves nor disproves the reality of a corresponding extra-cerebral referent: there is a double-think in some anti-theist circles which seems to be saying that if there is a disposition to believe in God then that proves God is an illusion produced by the brain. Yet if there is a disposition to imagine things, that doesn't 'prove' there is nothing really to see?
Okay that's crude, but some of what I'm seeing does seem to operate at that kind of level. More sophisticated, but no less trenchant is this article in the Guardian which says:
"...babies display basic numeracy, but this is a long way from quantum mechanics, which is hard work to grasp and counter-intuitive, but both appear to be grounded in an external reality 'outside the head'. The innate cognitive ability to count compared with quantum mechanics is as the innate childhood bias to theism is to adult theology. There is a big difference between non-reflective and reflective beliefs. The reflective ability to grapple with quantum mechanics does not thereby nullify the baby's non-reflective ability to count, any more than does an adult's reflective belief in God nullify childhood theism. And evolutionary biology will be of little help in 'explaining' human beliefs in either quantum mechanics or the finer points of theology. Evolution may have delivered tendencies to believe certain things and to disbelieve others. But that in itself does not tell us whether those beliefs are true or not."
Quite so.
Beware evolutionary 'just-so' stories about religious belief | Denis Alexander | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk