@Chelonian Regarding your comments on my answer philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/61563/29944 I see the OP asking a very similar question to what Plantinga was addressing in the EAAN. Plantinga claimed that naturalism is self-defeating. The OP is claiming something similar for atheism. My argument is that he can better pursue this using naturalism rather than atheism.

Naturalism is a special form of atheism. He would not be arguing against all forms of atheism, but only the extreme form represented by naturalism.

@Bread I listened to a few of the shorter videos last night. They weren't as helpful as Gallagher's introduction, but it is good to hear words spoken about a topic as well as read them. I will start the interview with Marcel hopefully later today. Thanks for bringing my attention to these.

@FrankHubeny How can you see the OP asking any other question other than the one he asked? He asked "If there is no god..." and asked for reasons why people would be good given that scenario. In my answer, I provided four possible reasons that adhered to that supposition.

The OP isn't claiming anything about atheism being self-defeating, he is saying he doesn't know of any reasons that would explain human benevolence OTHER THAN a god existing. But now he has four reasons from me and one from you (panpsychism).

I also have challenges to your response in the comments, but let me let you address this first. Thank you.

@Chelonian This is the OP's question: If God does not exist how do we explain all the good in the world? Plantinga's EAAN could be phrased as If naturalism is true how do we explain our better than expected cognitive abilities?. Both the OP and Plantinga place the question in the context of evolution. The OP focuses on a specific cognitive ability that leads to good acts.

The OP is trying to set his case up to show that atheism is self-defeating. I don't think that succeeds, but it would it he restricted atheism to naturalism.

@FrankHubeny I disagree that the EANN can be phrased that way. First, benevolence is not a cognitive ability; it's not primarily a matter of cognition, that is, thinking and symbol manipulation. It's a behavior. Second, that is not the argument of the EANN. The argument of the EANN is that the combination of naturalism + evolution is self-defeating, because we can't know if anything is correct, since we may have evolved in such a way to have faulty truth-detecting faculties.

I also disagree that OP is "setting up a case". He's merely asking a question. He sees no other explanation for human benevolence but some spirit of goodness coming from a god. Yet there are other reasonable explanations.

Words like "minds" and "choices" are ones that need to be defined carefully before we can discuss them effectively. I'm happy to try to do that if you want to, but otherwise it's hard for me to respond to your final comment.