I agree with carbon-based. If one posits that the “universe is intelligible to us because it and our minds were made for each other,” then one must have an explanation how such a thing can occur. The idea, unless I misunderstand kengen’s meaning, is that consciousness can precede matter. But in fact, every example we have of consciousness is an example of matter producing consciousness through an organic brain. So the proposed “answer” directly contradicts what we know about consciousness.
The theist merely conceptualizes a wish and then declares it to be true. This is thoroughly consistent with what we know about human behavior. A study of the various explanations for the origins of things clearly reveals vastly different conceuptualizations, with a common thread: each of them expresses the deepest longings and fears of the culture from which they emerged. To put it more simply, it looks as though people imagine, construct, accept and repeat stories that comfort them. That is a point theists consistently overlook; even non-theists seem not to appreciate how central it is in explaining what is going on.
Finally, those who do not understand the science of consciousness should not presume to say what scientific naturalists think and believe. We see a clear and undeniable progression of function as we trace organisms through evolutionary history, beginning with the first cell. This does not imply that humans are at the apex of a system designed for progression, but it does imply that given enough time an organism with the mental capacity of a human being can emerge. With each passing decade, we know more and more about how this happens.
The mere fact that we still have open questions does not negate the tremendous progress we have made. All of it, 100%, has come through science, not theology. So in practical terms, there isn’t even a contest between the two. Theism is offered as an alternative mechanism of explanation, in contrast with science, solely because people wish that it was true. Science is offered as a mechanism of explanation because it has a proven track record of explaining things and giving us more tools with which to approach the world and live in it.
When you say that 100% of it came through science, that is really not giving an accurate representation of what science is nor of its limitations. Consider the statement, ‘all truth that can be known comes through the scientific method,’ or something similar to that. Now, is that statement in itself derived from the scientific method? No, you cannot empirically prove this statement. In the same way many things we know cannot be derived from the scientific method such as philosophy, logic, or morality.
Rationality is inconsistent with naturalism for at least 2 reasons according to JP Moreland 1.) the necessity of the enduring rational self and 2.) the need for teleological factors to play a role in the thought process. Regarding point #1, if human beings are rational thinkers who can engage in rational deliberation then there must not only be a unified self at each time in a deliberative sequence, but also an identical self that endures through the rational act. The naturalist position is that persons are a collection of parts such that if you gain and lose parts you are literally a different aggregate from one moment to the next, and thus there is no enduring “I” that can serve as the unifier of rational thought.
Regarding point #2, consider this argument given by Moreland:
(1) If naturalism is true, there is no irreducible teleology.
(2) Rational deliberation exhibits irreducible teleology.
(3) Therefore, naturalism is false.
Teleology says that some things happen as a means to a final goal while naturalism replaces it with material causes. An example of the difference between the teleological and material cause is seen in the following two sentences:
4.) The glass broke because the rock hit it.
5.) I raised my hand because I wanted to vote.
#4 gives a material, efficient cause while #5 gives a reasons explanation which is irreducibly teleological.
If you start with particulars only and naturalism, all things are simply the arrangement of mechanical unconscious, non-rational parts and not consistent with rational action and deliberation of human persons. On the other hand, they are predicted by Christian theism since God Himself is rational and created humans as image-bearers.
The idea you express above regarding consciousness arising from invoking higher levels of organic complexity through evolution really does nothing to explain either consciousness nor human rationality. The idea that religion is a formation of human notions of cultural ideas that comfort them doesn’t really go far enough to explain the particulars of the New Testament gospels, for instance. It’s too simple an explanation and the formation of the N.T. contradicts it at so many points.