Pretty much the same here. If my hand were forced, I'd place my bets on the pattern I've seen, but I don't see what is gained by going full atheist. My imagination and senses have limits. They don't seem terrible to me, but they might be ridiculously so in the grander scheme. As for the "sensus divinitatis", there's evidence that we can stimulate it with transcranial magnetic stimulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet I'll have to look into Plantinga's thoughts on evolution. However, regarding the 'selection' part of natural selection, I think that many miss the point that there really isn't 'selection' at all. It only looks like selection if you trace back an evolutionary path of a particular genotype or phenotype. Simply put, all living things have dynamic genotypes. In any given environment, one genotype might prove more advantageous than another. So, a reproductive bias results towards the genotype that is more advantageous for that environment. However, the environment didn't select for it, and the gene didn't try to fit the environment. It's just like shaking gravel through a screen: if you are interested in those that pass through, you could say that the small stones have an advantage. If you are interested in those that stay behind, the big stones have the advantage. In evolution, survival isn't the object anymore than going extinct is. That's why Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene drives me a bit nuts. IMO it confuses people.
All that aside, I doubt the finer mechanisms of evolution could foil a synchronization with theism for Plantinga. Or if they could for him, I daresay that would evidence a problem in his approach. Reconciling apparent randomness of systems with theological determinism is an old game among theistic philosophers, and it only falls flat when the starting point is an overly anthropomorphic view of divine will. When these run amok, their logic is seldom more persuasive than that of Manifest Destiny (i.e., we brutally took the land, we now therefore have the land, therefore God must have always wanted us to have the land). Or, to state in non-theistic terms, "it happened in this way. Therefore, it could not have happened in any other way." Wow, the God Helmet! Thanks for the link. I've heard of connected studies, but not this actual item -- which, by the way, sounds like something out of the Dungeon Master's Guide. This connects directly to the book I wanted to recommend to you the other evening, which I've just finished reading. It's a novella called "Flying to Nowhere," in which, among other threads, an Abbots slips towards madness (or epiphany?) whilst secretly dissecting cadavers in search of the seat of the human soul. Interestingly enough, the object of his inquiry is the pineal gland, a thing I keep running across of late. Being a medical physicist (est-ce vrai?), you're probably more familiar with it than I, but just in case, the wiki page ain't too shabby: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland Not only did the likes of Rene Descartes consider it to be "the principal seat of the soul," but many have noted its handy correspondence to the third eye, the ajna chakra. While chakras and meridians, considered axiomatic in eastern medicine and religion, await anything resembling confirmation by western scientific method, such coincidence across widely disparate traditions seems at the very least interesting, if not significant. But here's the kicker: even if we were to grant the effects of the God Helmet and the metaphysical significance of the third eye, our conclusions would still result, not from such evidence, but from our presuppositions. Once again, we're left with the same simple chicken and egg question. Does the brain have a God-senser so that it can sense God? Or does it merely sense God because it has a God senser? And this is why I find most debates between atheists and theists ultimately doomed, though fascinating. Almost invariably, predisposition determines conclusion, especially where ideology is concerned. The conversion of such basic inclinations is rare.
Not at all. The characteristics of the species match the environment to the extent that the creatures with them survive in that environment. But, this is not selection. The environment isn't selecting (it isn't even aware that the creature exists), and the creatures aren't evolving (that's not something they can choose to do). Evolution is a story you make after the fact to explain why a creature is different from its ancestors. No creature evolves. Kids are different from parents. Say you have two kids, one is bright but weak, and one is strong but dim. Post-apocalyptic battle world? The dim one may be more likely reproduce. Super high-tech matrix world? The smart one might have the better chance. In each case, your grandchildren are going to come out a bit further along different paths. No agency. No one evolved, yet we see evolution. Environments change, and genes are unstable but duplicate. That's all you need, and evolution is the byproduct. It's not very special actually. It would be weird if it didn't happen. IMHO we just can't seem to sit back and say, "hey look, it's me with the issues, not the physical world! It works just fine." IMHO we are just a pathologically self-important species. But, I'm sure that's been an advantageous in this environment. Religion is a trait. :) I'm not so sure I'd look for the soul in the pineal gland. Kids with over-developed pineal glands hit puberty early. It doesn't seem too soulish to me, maybe the funky kind. I'd pick the thumb. It's probably our most God-like organ. Sure our cortex is grand, but so is a dolphin's. But without thumbs, we make them our entertainment. We change our world with our thumbs. Imagine a thumbectomy for everyone in the kingdom but the king. -There's a book. Does the brain have a God-senser so that it can sense God? Or does it merely sense God because it has a God senser? And this is why I find most debates between atheists and theists ultimately doomed, though fascinating. For sure. It's really pointless. As long as people feel a need to believe or not believe it will go on and on. Thanks for the book suggestion. It's interesting, I am finishing Anna Karenina, and near the end I was just reading last night where Levin has the epiphany that all men feel compelled to do good, and that is the miracle that gives him evidence of God. It's a pretty solid argument. To the converse, in my study of physics and science, I have found solid arguments for how this all is just not about me or my notion of a God. In the end, I personally just don't care. I'll get plenty pissed at people telling others how they ought to be for any reason, religion included. But, when it comes down to personal belief, whatever. I don't think the final conclusion has much to do with how much thinking you've done on the subject. The turmoil of it all seems to be a fact of human nature.