Let's go over why, as far as Islam is concerned, these points are irrelevant AND how research demonstrates belief in God is far more intrinsic/refined than this article would like to admit
My source is Dr. Barrett's wonderful book "Born Believers."
(Warning: Long thread) https://twitter.com/DiscoverMag/status/1285024888529522688

The author's argument is that humans have evolved a propensity for religion as a byproduct of other features of the mind, namely 3 key factors:
1. Pattern Seeking
2. Theory of Mind: The tendency to attribute mental states to other entities.
3. Over Imitation.

First and foremost, there is no question that these processes contribute to the emergence of ritual/superstition in the collective psyche. The problem-Abrahamic faith is engaged in COMBATING "religion" that materializes from such faulty processes AND humans have a surprising...

capacity to grasp (G)od's unique features at an exceptionally young age.
Let's give Pattern Seeking a minor discussion. Yes, humans erroneously attribute patterns to the "supernatural." But Islam makes it a point to criticize and demonstrate the facetiousness of such notions?Ex:

The Prophet rebuked the Arabs for believing that they had been given rain due to the "stars." Star positions correlated with seasonal shifts and so the Arabs would incorrectly attribute the rain to a star's "power". Islam stripped them of divine agency and attributed it all...

to an Unseen God. That leaves the looming question, does pattern seeking just incorporate an indoctrinated belief of God-built on a limited "theory of mind?" Key word "indoctrinated."
Which begs another question, is

belief in God simply the result of attributing "mind" to nature and building off that with learned theology?

Nope, it's beyond that-we both attribute "purpose" to the natural world at a young age and successfully envision the uniqueness of (G)od at near infancy.

To give a little background-
This argument about human religiosity draws significantly from the works of Jean Piaget, whose idea of human religion can be summed up as:
"Children see the world as human built, God is just a special guy among other humans, and the view...

of God becomes less human-like as kids age beyond 8yrs."
He was wrong:
Modern researchers have started to explore something a little more elaborate called "Existential Theory of Mind."
EToM is based on the premise that at a young age human's grasp the idea of non-human agents,..

but perceive PURPOSE in the natural world, not just mind.
Ex.
In an experiment that surveyed children ages 6-10, researchers asked a child questions like, "why did the fist ever bird exist?" The answer, "To make nice music."
They were also asked if they thought something,...

or someone made it, or if it just "happened." Over 50% answered "someone."
But this alone doesn't falsify Piaget's assumptions, purpose can be driven by a Man-god.
Let's talk more experiments.
In another study, researchers wanted to check if children could separate between...

the production of something artificial, ex. "doll", or natural, ex. "moon."
They asked children,ages 4-7,if they thought humans made both.
Over 80% accurately answered, humans make "artifacts" while <30% said they made natural things.(over 70% knew it had to be something else!)

Again, not enough.
To successfully demonstrate that a simple ToM is not a sufficient explanation, we have to demonstrate that these children are attributing more than just a version of the human mind unto"God."
They have to view (G)odly intellect as different.

For that we're going to have to discuss the Cracker-Box test.
Screen shot for details but tldr:
Kids of <4yrs can't separate what they know from what you know,once they learn a cracker box has a rock in it, so have you-as they age(4+) they can separate between mental states.

Piaget believed children de-humanized God at the age of 8.
Therefore, if that cracker box contained a rock, kids > 4yrs would know you'd prob get its content wrong(until you learned it contained a rock) and say "cracker" instead of "rock."
So if Piaget is right, kids between..

4-8 should also believe God would erroneously assume the box contains crackers, right?
Dr. Barret, to test that assumption, asked 3-6 yr olds what God, or their parents would think is in the box.
80%, across every age group, correctly answered-their parents would get it wrong..

BUT God would know there's a rock in the box. At an extremely young age, we can differ between human and divine intelligence.
This get's even crazier. The test was replicated with Maya children< 8yrs, who grow up in a syncretic religion.(Diyoos(God)+other spirts/gods)

That's significant because it allows us to test a culture that doesn't believe in infallible gods.
What happened? Same thing with one caveat-50% of kids actually said non-Diyoos gods and spirits would make a mistake!
At an exceptionally young age, kids understand (G)od≠gods.

This thread is already way too long but let's talk a little about over-imitation.
Again, Monotheism is opposed to it and focuses on ending religions of "what we found our Fathers upon." (Faith is not replication!)
But we also know, God is such an attractive idea, kids in...

atheistic homes get these answers right, no religious rearing required.
During Dr. Barret's research a little boy understood that God didn't die, and would knows what was in the box despite having atheist parents.
When his mom asked if he believed, he answered, "of course!"

Hopefully, this illustrated how Monotheism is both natural/unnatural.
It "Naturally" fits our search for purpose/capacity to grasp Divinity.
But "Unnaturally" doesn't exploit faulty mechanisms of the mind that produce facile versions of spirituality.
Fitra and knowledge!