rational naturalism is impossible!

[TheBeardedDude]

for my first post actually arguing for something, I decided to do something new. i'm using an argument I haven't seen here yet and one I think is very interesting. if you would like more details on it, it is an argument developed by Alvin Plantinga in my own reiteration.

instead of arguing a proposition is true or false, this argument concludes that it is impossible to rationally accept naturalism. here are the reasons for this:
1. P1 if naturalism is true, then there is nothing beyond our physical selves.
2. P2 evolution is a process that operates with the goal of survivability.
3. C1 our cognitive functions have come into being by the process of evolution- from P1&P2
4. C2 all our cognitive functions came about for the purpose of survivability which is not necessarily hinged on determining the truth- from P2&C1.
5. C3 we have no way to know if our reasoning leads us to truth in any proposition including the proposition of naturalism itself. any and all propositions based on our cognitive faculties (which are all of them) then are just as likely to be correct as they are to be incorrect- from P2&C2.

conclusion: it is impossible to rationally believe in naturalism. the very concept of naturalism entails the possibility of our cognitive faculties being unable to reason truth, which includes all truths including naturalism itself. it's self defeating. and before someone asks why this doesn't apply to religion like Christianity, the answer is P1 isn't a claim of Christianity and in fact is inconsistent with Christianity. if P1 is false, then C1 doesn't logically follow. a Christian can simply claim their cognitive faculties are indicators of truth by the intent of our designer.

extra notes- before i'm misunderstood I want to make it clear, this argument is not formulated to prove naturalism is false. I hope to see no one who interprets it that way. it is only meant to show how it is impossible to rationally believe it for the reasons in the argument. it shows that presupposing naturalism is true entails the best probability for all our beliefs to be correct is 50/50 since we can't know if our cognitive faculties are in fact indicators of truth. that is it.

"If naturalism is true, then nothing exists beyond our physical selves."
This seems almost certainly true, so I am with you so far.

"Evolution is a process that operates with the goal of survivability."
No. Evolution is indeed a process with numerous mechanisms, but to say it has a "goal" is to misunderstand it. You wouldn't describe a chemical process as having a "goal". That is because it is a dynamic process of numerous variables that does not operate in a linear trajectory. It is the same with evolution. It is a process that does not operate with any degree of consciousness. It does not move in a uniform trajectory towards any endpoint. We can look at it in hindsight and describe the trajectory it did take, but this has no bearing on the future direction (that is to say that evolution does not have 'memory' in the statistical sense. Implying that prior evolutionary trajectories have no bearing on future ones. One need only look at organisms like turtles to see this very clearly. Turtle ancestors (amphibians) were largely water-restricted, then went to land, then back to water, back to land, and some have made that trek back to water again.)


"3. C1 our cognitive functions have come into being by the process of evolution- from P1&P2"

Cognitive function is a byproduct evolution as it has proved evolutionarily advantageous.

" 4. C2 all our cognitive functions came about for the purpose of survivability which is not necessarily hinged on determining the truth- from P2&C1."

It did not originate for a purpose. This presupposes that evolution acts consciously, it doesn't. Organisms have adapted cognitive function into aiding in survival. It has no purpose other than how a lineage utilizes it once they already have it. Your fingers didn't evolve for typing, you adapted them to it.

" 5. C3 we have no way to know if our reasoning leads us to truth in any proposition including the proposition of naturalism itself. any and all propositions based on our cognitive faculties (which are all of them) then are just as likely to be correct as they are to be incorrect- from P2&C2."

We call that "Solipsism" and you are about 2,000 years late to the party. You didn't need any of the other/prior points to make that by the way.

And this final point necessarily applies to all ideologies. So yes, this applies to Christians and Muslims, etc. The difference between them and atheists? They are making a claim about truth and knowledge that implies it is knowable by them through a god because that God is supposed to know all. Ergo, solipsism indicates that isn't true and puts them in the boat of having an untestable and unverifiable claim based on no evidence whatsoever.