rational naturalism is impossible!

[Chas]

The argument is absurd.

We can see that it is rational by observation, by cause and effect.

Science works, bitch.

Just for reference:





But. . . not quite. Science works whether we're in the Matrix, or the Mind of God, or a physical universe-- so long as there are consistent observations to be made, and underlying patterns to reveal, and the ability to test hypotheses about them. If there is something systematically lacking or flawed in the way we perceive or think, it isn't guaranteed that we will (or even can) be aware of it.

And that evolution gave us a mind that can deduce, project, imagine, and so on, because this increased our chances of surviving to procreate; even evolved to be more attractive for procreation.

The science works in the context of a functioning universe. It doesn't do anything to answer the WHY questions: why is there a universe rather than not. WHY is there actual sentience, rather than just processing of information? It also can't answer subjective questions, like what it the best way to live?

Now, I'm not seeing science and religion as competing sources of truth. In that regard, science wins epically. However, you are missing RAKD's point-- there's no remedy for uncertainty, because we can never know for sure where all the experiences we have (including looking through telescopes etc.) come from. Objective naturalism fails as an absolute test of reality due to intrinsic agnosticism.

Fine, but there is no evidence for a matrix or simulation or mind of god.

There is evidence that we are in a world actually composed of matter and energy, that our minds evolved to deal reasonable accurately with a narrow range of that, that we are able to extend our evolved senses to perceive somewhat more than the narrow band evolution gave us.