When I was a believer, my church made me feel guilty about lots of things. Fortunately, I was able to get over it, but the notion that some people can't make other people feel certain things is, in my considered judgment, a load of New Age claptrap.

Perhaps even in spite of mounting data that there will be no food to be found, the dog has been "tricked" by his DNA to keep seeking, seeking, seeking.

The only trick a dog's DNA needs to perform is to make the dog look for food when it's hungry, and if food is not found in one place, look in another place, and if the food isn't there, either, look in yet another place, and repeat the process until one of two things happens: (1) the dog finds food, or (2) the dog collapses from exhaustion and dies of starvation.

Jim, sorry for the late response. Been really busy lately. If you are still interested here is my response.

Do you think there is any reason that I should privilege my primary
experience of matter over and above my primary experience of desire? Why would I treat one as more real than the other? Why is either one a more valid starting place for an argument?

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at here, but I will give you my thinking on the matter to see if that answers your questions. If we look at all the desires that we have, we can ask the question "why do we have this or that desire" and look for sufficient explanations.

For instance, we desire food, so we do not starve and die. We desire sex, so our species can continue. We sexually reproduce, because it gives us certain advantages over asexual reproduction.

The next question I would ask, is are there consequences of our desires that suggest that they came from an undirected process rather than design. I would say that the answer to this is yes. For instance, it would be nice to be able to reproduce without all of the angst that accompanies the teenage years. Also, what about the sexual desires of pedophiles. I would think a designer God would have designed the human race without this defect.

Some humans have a strong desire to commit unspeakable acts of violence. I can understand this desire in an evolutionary context, for instance, "in the state of nature" a violent predisposition could cause a great deal of evolutionary success. However, why would a designer God include such possible excesses in our nature?

I'm not sure we can say that humans have a desire for God. We have a desire for happiness ( chemical balance in the brain), safety, longevity, etc. I don't think anybody innately desires God - we are just taught that various good things come with worshiping him and obeying his commandments, while various bad things come about if we do not. Religious belief plays on our desires, and uses the proverbial carrot and stick to keep us believing.

If the desire for God is innate, why do different civilizations have vastly different conceptions, based upon their experiences?

What is the difference between a human belief that is a properly
adaptive response to all human-inhabited environments, and a human
belief that corresponds to truth? (Is there any difference?)

I would say that the former makes the most sense in terms of adaptation, while the latter beliefs stem from proper methods,like science and deductive logic.

The analogy is far too malleable to be of any use whatsoever. Ben wrote it as counterfeit money suggests that there is real money. A represents B, therefore B exists. I plugged in my niece's toy dragon into the equation and the analogy fell part.Breaking down your explanation a toy dragon suggests the existence of the concept of dragons which suggests a fantasy world in which that dragon exists which suggests there is another world (reality) apart from the world which contains the dragon. In short A represents B, therefore C exists which contains B, therefore not C exists.You're saying this analogy of the counterfeit money covers both examples. So if we plug one of the possible gods into the equation, do we go with the first equation which shows this god exists; or do we go with the second equation which says the world in which or proposed god exists isn't real and differs from reality?

I ain't the Buddha.

First mention of admitting to having Original Sin. Good. Jesus is Truth. He is our Divine Master. Through Jesus we learn the Way to Live and have Life.
I have read this far and the childhood song came to mind, "All around the mulberry bush, the monkey chase the weazle....."
Hope you don't mind having an old, cradle Catholic chime in..Love to you all. Keep praying..

Have you ever had a desire for something, and when that desire is seemingly fulfilled, you begin to desire for something else, and so on and so on and so on? Do you honestly think there could ever, in your lifetime with all your wits about you, be a day when All your desires are met, all of your longings fulfilled? And I mean All, completely, nothing else left, nada. Oh, you can? But what will the next day be like, or the next week or the next year? Will that feeling of complete fulfillment of whatever that desire was last 'til your last breath?

There is no problem with his counterfeit money analogy. The stuffed dragon toy represents a fantasy world which suggests the existence of a Real non-fantastical world.