Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

[Mudhammam]

I would go further than James. Holding dear the prospect of future annihilation leads inexorably to existential nihilism. Ontological naturalism destroys all identity, semiotic meaning, and appeal to rationality. This leaves its adherents living a self-constructed fantasy contrary to what they actually believe true.

This deserves further qualification. As it stands, I can't possibly see how one can make such a generality with perhaps exception to the "appeal to rationality" bit, with the modifier "objective" added to it. That is to say, objective rationality does appear to be about as demonstrable under ontological naturalism as the existence of external objects are to the solipsist. By objective rationality I mean a pure reason that applies to objects as they actually are, rather than as they merely appear in our given conception of them. I don't see escape from an reductio ad absurdum unless we allow for something like Idealism or assume that reality is inextricably rational, though on the naturalistic view, this is, as far as I can tell, totally unaccounted for.

Apart from whether or not the nature of rational experience demands appeal to God, if as nothing less than a necessary ideal in our imagination, there does seem to me another rational basis for faith (I'm only testing these ideas so feel free to expose my errors if I had made one): for the person acutely aware of their infirmities derived from a disposition towards existential nihilism--the person that cannot live in harmony with the world because their environment is so laden with evil and tragedy--such an existence, to persist on, does seem tilted on the side of irrational; might then a belief or a hope in the eventual disclosure of the sublime, the divine, a more perfect state, however you frame it, be the most rational option available for them, other than suicide?