rational naturalism is impossible!

[Rational AKD]

Read it again. I never said you needed *all* your reasoning skills to discern *some* truth - but you do need *some* of your reasoning skills to discern *some* truth and you do need those to be accurate - otherwise, your survival will be compromised. Thus, given reasonable confidence in those *some* reasoning skills, you can use them to evaluate the rest which may or may not be compromised. However, if *all* your reasoning skills are compromised, then your survival is in jeopardy - which, according to you, is contrary to naturalistic premises.

it's possible to have false beliefs mixed with true beliefs that are all consistent. likewise, it is possible to have inaccurate reasoning with some accurate reasoning without conflict. if that is the case, there would be no way to discern which are accurate and which are not.

You don't observe "something resembling truth" - you observe reality.

no, we observe our perception of reality. our perception of reality isn't necessarily real as hallucinations prove. another example, it is said we have a blind spot but to be more accurate the brain fills the blind spot with the space around it. this makes it so we don't see what's really there, the black spot of where our vision is obscured. fortunately we are able to detect this blind spots with certain tests, but the point is the brain is capable of having senses that are not indicators of truth. if that is the case, it's possible there are some we can't possibly detect. this puts all our senses into question.

Paranoia does not improve your chances of survival

actually, yet it does. as they say, it's better to overreact than not react enough. if fire can kill you, it's better to perceive it as an exaggerated threat than what it actually is, because you have a greater chance of being more alert and getting away from it.