Thanks for the compliment, but seriously, if you want a debate on philosophical naturalism, you might consider that conceding that your opponents might have a point to make is a first step. Attacking Pinker and Wilson, both highly erudite men who are not fools, not knee-jerk leftists (Pinker was Larry Summers' most conspicuous defender, and WIlson has been viciously attacked by the left over the last quarter century), and who have come to their positions thoughtfully, is not a productive way to start.
I don't dispute Pinker and Wilson are highly erudite men, and I don't recall saying I thought they were fools. I just don't think either of them has worked through the implications of their "philosophical naturalism," and it is plain to me that both men are constructing systems that are designed from the get-go to obviate the necessity of God. I do not think that good science can start from a categorical bias like this. Especially in light of the fact that God is not an "object" for science at all. FWIW.
I'm glad you're still talking to me though RWP. You know, we can always just cordially agree to disagree.... Obviously, we do not look at the world in the same way; but this is hardly a rare occurrence these days. Just possibly we might learn something from each other.