rational naturalism is impossible!

[Rational AKD]

But what I keep trying to tell you is that if "souls" exist, they're part of the materialistic and natural universe. They would have properties that could be studied and understood.

not necessarily. just because they affect the materialistic and natural universe doesn't mean they are a part of it.

1. Natural selection doesn't necessarily weed out neutral traits or even work to produce the most optimal species.

the 'neutral traits' though don't give a reason our cognitive reasoning skills would be accurate. it's far more likely they were developed for the purpose of survival.

We have "wisdom teeth" which are certainly not things that promote survival. They're actually quite destructive to our dental health.

if you did a little research, you would know the reason that wisdom teeth don't come in properly is because of our modern diets.

We have an appendix that once served a purpose but now just explodes.

again, your information is poorly researched. the appendix is now found to be vital in early development of the immune system. so long as you don't get appendicitis, the appendix continues to be useful.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ction-of-t

We breath and eat out of the same orifice, causing choking if food isn't chewed properly.

the reason it's like that is efficiency and to allow the lynx to give us the ability of speech.

2. I'm still fuzzy on the whole, "pursuit of the truth is counter-survival" thesis you've presented. What has allowed us to survive is our ability to work together and build communities. A society of paranoid humans would be dysfunctional in its ability to cooperate and coexist and therefore be maladaptive to survival.

paranoia doesn't create dysfunctional communities. it actually strengthens communities. what do people do when they feel threatened? they ban together. imagine that... humans form societies for survival, and paranoia only strengthens that bond, as you can see in modern politics when they construct 'fear campaigns.'

And as I've already said, yes you can. You look for internal consistency and support from verified data.

I don't know how else to put this. consistency does not equal accuracy. simple as that, your test failed.

Saying you can't validate reason without reason is like saying you can't validate what one book says because it footnotes another book by another reputable source.

how did you even get that analogy? do you even know what you're saying? reason without reason? that's like trying to breathe without air. or write without a utensil, or a surface. without reason, you can't reason. without speech, you can't talk. without sight, you can't see. get it? to suggest otherwise is logically absurd. if we all collectively had false reason, we couldn't possibly tell since we all consistently have false reason. comparing does no good in that case.

Why is naturalism supposedly prone to solipsism where magical thinking is not?

maybe you should listen for a change. if naturalism is true, evolution is driven for the need to survive. discerning truth is not necessarily the most beneficial to survival, therefore many of our reasoning skills would not necessarily discern truth as we would like to think. if that is the case, we can't trust any of our reasoning skills to discern truth.

In what way does your magical thinking free you from solipsism where naturalism would not?

as I've said, the belief in God allows an alternate explanation as to where our reasoning skills came from. the will of God. if God created this world for us, or us for this world; he would want us to experience his creation and thus give us accurate reasoning skills. it may not be substantiated, but at least it doesn't necessarily lead to denying our reasoning skills as naturalism does.