rational naturalism is impossible!

[genkaus]

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.

I disagree. Mixing false beliefs with true ones ans simultaneously having accurate and inaccurate reasoning would lead to conflict, contradiction and inconsistency. It is, in fact, one of the checks indicating that either your premises or your reasoning are at fault. The fact that you can ignore such a contradiction does not render it non-existent.

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.

No, it doesn't. The very idea that there is an error in the interpretation of sensory data means the rest of the interpretation is accurate.

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.

Don't confuse caution with paranoia. If humanity as a whole had been paranoid of fire, then we'd never have considered putting it to use and thus using it to improve survivability. That we did means we weren't paranoid and thus improved our chances. Those who were paranoid and got away were eaten by animals in the dark.