Just started reading this interesting little book by James Jones (2016), on the cognitive science of religion. Can religion be debunked by analyzing its evolutionary mechanisms? 
Much current CSR is still too dependent on outdated models of the brain: cognitive 'modules' and linear causation. Reality is far more complex and causation works both ways.
The heavy reliance of CSR-explanations of religion on HADD should be questioned. It is not at all obvious for people to assume ghosts, etc. and false beliefs are usually rejected very quickly. Not so with religion.
Pascal Boyer's concept of 'minimally counterintuitive concepts' is interesting, but it rests on the assumption that (a) paleolithic humans had the same intuitions about the world as we moderns, and (b) human evolution ran the same course as child development.
Now chapter 2: on 'explaining' religion. What does it mean to 'explain' something? First, every explanation requires faith in background assumptions. What we prove depends on what we cannot prove.
Second, CSR explanations of religion focus on separate building blocks of religion such as HADD and Theory of Mind. They largely ignore emergent qualities of religion. Religion is much more than some building blocks.
Third, CSR explanations are obsessed with beliefs of children, and seem to assume that religion does not develop after 4 yrs of age. But that is nonsense, of course.
There is something very Freudian about this focus on immature and intuitive beliefs, and assuming that this is what 'religion' is all about. No wonder that religious scholars are not that interested in CSR. They have seen it all.
Debunkers of religion who use CSR (Boyer, Bering, etc.) seem to think that an explanation of religion's origins amounts to disproving it. A clear genealogical fallacy.
Then there's the rhetoric: using terms like religion 'hijacking' normal cognitive intuitiins, or brain modules 'going awry' and producing religious beliefs amounts to mere spin. Nothing scientific about it, and it certainly doesn't explain anything.
Interestingly, and also very rhetorical, science is usually excluded from the range of human practices that somehow 'hijack' human cognition.
And the 'atheist-are-brave-enough-to-think-really hard' meme cannot be missed in any religion-debunking discourse.
So, what if we applied the same strategy that some CSR-experts use to debunk religion on (proto-)scientific practices, biology for example, and then compared those to the most sophisticated religious thought?
Finally some wise words on religious vs scientific language: 'To compare the professional language of working scientists to a discourse designed to speak to the experiences of astrophysists and plumbers together' is rather silly.
