Of course an omniscient, omnipotent god should substitute perfect judgment for free will if it is benevolent and it can. If I had the power to dial in the will of my children, and I could foresee the outcome of every choice they would make if I let them, why would I let them make mistakes when I could simply program to do the right thing in every case? If I knew in advance that my dog would run out into the street and be killed, and I could prevent him from wanting to do that by setting his will, it would be pretty negligent and immoral for me to let that happen. I do the best I can limiting the expression of his will, such as training him to obey commands and keeping doors and gates closed, so why wouldn't I reset his choices in his will if I could?
And what value is learning if it is possible to inject all desirable knowledge into a head?
It's interesting that every choice this alleged god makes - allowing free will when it could have determined that will and made it more effective, forcing us to learn when it could have taught us everything we now need to learn instantly - perfectly imitates what would be the case if it didn't exist. You call setting somebody's will rather than letting them freely make mistakes stooping, implying that that is undesirable without an argument why it is.
I think the best explanation is that no such god exists. It's much more parsimonious than fifty explanations for why this god behaves as it does, such as allowing free will because it's better for us, or forcing us to learn because that's also somehow better, and being difficult to find because it's so much better when you do find him. These are all just-so answers.
Let me share an idea I call restricted choice, a term that comes from contract bridge, which I've re-purposed to refer to the idea that if situation 1 (S1) can lead to result A or B (rA or rB), and situation 2 (S2)can only produce one of these outcomes - let's say result B (rB) - and result B is the one always found, that constitutes compelling evidence that situation 2 is the case.
Let's consider the question of whether a given coin is fair (S1) or loaded or loaded (S2). In the first case, the flip can result in heads (rA) or tails (rB) coming up, but if the coin is perfectly loaded, only tails (rB) is possible. Say the coin is loaded (we don't know that yet), and the first flip is tails (rB). Then another tails. Is this coin loaded? Too soon to say. A hundred flips later, still only rB occurs. How about now? Can we say anything about this coin? Yeah, we can calculate the odds of that happening by chance (0.5E100 = 7.888609052210118e-31), and say that it is infinitesimally unlikely that this is a fair coin.
Likewise with a tax cheat (S2). An honest tax preparer (S1) that makes 20 errors honestly ought to have about half be in the IRS's favor (rA) and half in his favor (rB), but the unsophisiticated tax cheat will have 20 errors in his favor (rB). It's this clustering of one result that shows that S2 is the case, and leads to prosecution and conviction.
So let's apply this principle to the question of the existence (S1) or nonexistence (S2) of an interventionalist god. If S1 is the case, the god could have chosen things to be one way (rA) or another (rB), but in S2, where there is no god acting, only rB is possible. For example, in a universe with a god (S1), there might be a revelation that transcends human capabilty or not, but in a godless universe (S2). What do we see? rB. OK, that's like just one heads in the coin flip.
In a universe with a god, there might (rA) or might not (rB) be fixed regular laws governing the motions and mutations of the objects in the universe, but a godless universe requires these laws (rB)
In a universe with an intelligent designer (S1), we might (rA) or might not (rB) find irreducible complexity in biological systems, but in a godless universe (S2), we will not find it (rB).
And so on. In a universe with a god, we might or might not have the option to make mistakes, or need to learn, or find the deity easily, but in a godless universe, living things will be making choices and with them, mistakes, will need to learn, and won't find a god. As I said, it's always rB, the one forced on a godless universe.
"Consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions."
Of course it does. Intellect is a form of intelligence involving symbols and thought in abstractions. It's the quality that human beings possess that makes them literate and numerate. It's the mental faculty that allows me to write this post and for you to understand it.
Actually, I've found just that living a secular humanist life, which is contemplative, and concerns itself with knowing the self and with knowing what kinds of activities lead to satisfaction, and which lead to undesirable outcomes. This can be done without incense, or Bibles, or sweat lodges, or psychedelics, or chants, or forest music, or finger cymbals, or spirit guides, or any other affectation that people that call themselves religious or spiritual seem to connect with acquiring arcane knowledge that they see as conferring an advantage, and those not following in their path living empty, perfunctory, unexamined lives. They make comments like this one, that depict people like me as Roombas, empty of experience and going about making measurements as if that were an end rather than a means. Apparently, the spiritual existence is the only authentic one, or so he seems to assert without evidence. The religious don't bother having their own experiences, and the atheists have none:
I can't see what advantage all of these self-described spiritual people have over say the contemplative and observant secular humanist. I see people eternally searching but never finding what they are looking for, which seems to be relief from existential angst with continual self-reassurance, a search for arcane knowledge or power, some sense of added meaning to life. I
How are such people better off than those who have come to a place of contentment without them? In other words, what is the incentive of somebody who is content and has no such needs to join them in their search? What does whatever you are in pursuit of offer to the person who is already comfortable with who he is and the way he interacts with the world, and finds life meaningful and satisfying without the trappings of the mystics?
I'll leave you with this:
I define intelligence as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills, to use them to discern and respond to environmental factors optimally, and adapt to assorted situations optimally when change is beneficial. Unlike intellect defined above, which refers to manipulating abstract symbols - speaking, reading, writing, contemplating, and calculating - this word applies to the beasts, who also have to solve problems regarding opportunities to exploit and dangers to avoid. And for completeness, if intelligence is knowing how to accomplish your immediate goals, wisdom, which is neither intelligence nor intellect, is knowing what will bring happiness Intelligent people that lack wisdom end up unwittingly pursuing unhappiness. Have you found happiness yet?
