rational naturalism is impossible!

[Esquilax]

@Lemonvariable72
I don't think you got the point. The point is that we may have evolved with a SYSTEMIC inability to perceive or comprehend certain kinds of information. Appealing to other humans for confirmation isn't going to do anything.

For example, it may be that there are magical fairies all around us. However, they have no bearing on our survival, so we have not evolved any mechanism for perceiving them. If worms could communicate, they would uniformly confirm to each other that rainbows do not exist, since they have no way to infer the existence of light.

Well, then my question to you is, why does any of this matter?

If we can't perceive a phenomena in our environment due to an absent sensory apparatus, and the phenomena does not interact with the physical world we can perceive, then in what way does it matter if we can perceive it or not?

If we can't perceive this phenomena but it does interact with the physical world, and hence become of interest to us, then we can test for the effects, and understand that it's there in a roundabout sort of way. This is what we've done with many, many previously undetectable phenomena in the past, why would this be any different?

But if you're proposing that there may be things in the world that we cannot sense, cannot test, and do not impact us at all, then my answer will just be sure, but who cares?