RE: rational naturalism is impossible!
October 5, 2013 at 12:03 am
(This post was last modified: October 5, 2013 at 12:05 am by Whateverist.)
I have no problem conceding that rationality cannot support itself. So lets just throw that sucker out. However, why should that reflect more poorly on naturalism than on whacko superstition? What reason do you think you have for embracing the supernatural?
Now just because I can't use rationality alone to justify my embrace of naturalism doesn't lead to the conclusion that naturalism should be rejected. Are you claiming otherwise? And what exactly do you propose should replace rationality? Are you against rationality in all cases, or only when it is used to support the rejection of God?
I ask because you surely do seem to be going to great pains to make a rational argument. Given the thesis of your argument, why do you bother? If you are persuaded by your own argument, what gives? If not, then we have that at least in common.
Now just because I can't use rationality alone to justify my embrace of naturalism doesn't lead to the conclusion that naturalism should be rejected. Are you claiming otherwise? And what exactly do you propose should replace rationality? Are you against rationality in all cases, or only when it is used to support the rejection of God?
I ask because you surely do seem to be going to great pains to make a rational argument. Given the thesis of your argument, why do you bother? If you are persuaded by your own argument, what gives? If not, then we have that at least in common.
