rational naturalism is impossible!

[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?

you are correct. this argument doesn't make a case for the supernatural. it doesn't even show that naturalism itself is false. all it does is points out the impossibility of the rational belief in naturalism. you may say that is some evidence for the supernatural indirectly, by saying if you do think your cognitive faculties are reliable, this can only necessarily be the case if a supernatural explanation is invoked since a rational natural explanation can't be attained. but i'm not really trying to go that route. so then, what is my goal with this argument? it's to try and show what is truly rational and see if anyone here is willing to accept it. it's to test the people here and see if they are truly willing to follow the truth wherever it leads, or that they are simply stuck in the ideas they prefer.

If naturalism is correct, then rationality and reason, arose as a by product of our pursuit of dinner, shelter and anything else which supported our survival. That isn't controversial. But over and above this account of its origins you want to claim that reason and rationality are faulty and unreliable. That doesn't logically follow. Even if our cognitive faculties arose for utilitarian purposes it doesn't follow that those faculties would not be generalizable for more abstract purposes. That could be the case, but there is no in principle reason to think it so.

There are in fact many ways in which our mental processing is hardwired in ways which probably served an adaptive purpose but which are therefore now exploitable by magicians to fool us by manipulating our attention. For that matter having a durable reliance on operational beliefs would probably be more adaptive than being prone to existential doubts during the eons during which we were hunter/gatherers. That is why when earnestly seeking empirical evidence, scientists go to the trouble of using double blind experiments and rely on peer review to guard against inadvertent bias.

So what you say about our actual epistemic position is true enough but it as true for the theist as it is for the atheist. Of course rationality can not vouchsafe itself. But that is really only a problem for anyone who wants to make a positive argument against gods. I wouldn't waste my time. For so poorly defined a term as 'god' there is nothing with which reason can work. One either drinks the kool aid or they do not. (Of course if you were forced to drink it since before you could speak, choice never really entered into it.)