rational naturalism is impossible!

[Ryantology]

C2 is an invalid conclusion - The actual conclusion that can be drawn from P2 and C1 is that "our cognitive functions came about for the purpose of survivability". Whether or not survivability hinges on determining the truth or whether it does so necessarily has not been established. As it happens, your basic survival does hinge on your ability to determine the truth.

Does a caveman running away from perhaps a lion necessarily need to know that a lion is a four-legged carnivore that is closely related to other felines, or could he believe it to be a sack of potatoes dressed in a scary way yet *still* have the urge to run away and *survive*, despite whatever falsehoods he might believe?

He does have to know that it either is or resembles something which can be dangerous. The caveman who doesn't run from anything might be risking getting killed, the caveman who runs from everything may starve to death. Survival is best guaranteed when the caveman knows what to run from and what to run at.

[FallentoReason]

Does a caveman running away from perhaps a lion necessarily need to know that a lion is a four-legged carnivore that is closely related to other felines, or could he believe it to be a sack of potatoes dressed in a scary way yet *still* have the urge to run away and *survive*, despite whatever falsehoods he might believe?

He does have to know that it either is or resembles something which can be dangerous. The caveman who doesn't run from anything might be risking getting killed, the caveman who runs from everything may starve to death. Survival is best guaranteed when the caveman knows what to run from and what to run at.

Agreed, and notice how truth was left at the door in what you just wrote.

[Ryantology]

I don't follow?

[FallentoReason]

I don't follow?

So we both agree that for the caveman to survive, he needs to be able to go "arghh.. scawey!" but such a reaction is independent of whether the caveman believes he's running from a lion, or a bunch of goblins hiding beneath the skin of what appears to be a lion. In essence, the caveman's survivability was independent of what he believes to be true.

[Ryantology]

I don't follow?

So we both agree that for the caveman to survive, he needs to be able to go "arghh.. scawey!" but such a reaction is independent of whether the caveman believes he's running from a lion, or a bunch of goblins hiding beneath the skin of what appears to be a lion. In essence, the caveman's survivability was independent of what he believes to be true.

That's true, but just because the caveman doesn't need to know that specific knowledge doesn't mean he doesn't need any knowledge at all, which is (I gathered) the premise behind "we have no way to know if our reasoning leads us to truth in any proposition".

Which ignores the fact that knowing whether it's a lion or goblins masquerading as a lion (specifically, knowing how to tell the two apart) would likely enhance survivability. After all, the goblins may pose an entirely different manner of threat, in this scenario, and if so, knowing how to tell real lions from goblins in a lion disguise would benefit the caveman's safety. Simply running away in this situation might amount to no better than a coin toss.

[FallentoReason]

So we both agree that for the caveman to survive, he needs to be able to go "arghh.. scawey!" but such a reaction is independent of whether the caveman believes he's running from a lion, or a bunch of goblins hiding beneath the skin of what appears to be a lion. In essence, the caveman's survivability was independent of what he believes to be true.

That's true, but just because the caveman doesn't need to know that specific knowledge doesn't mean he doesn't need any knowledge at all, which is (I gathered) the premise behind "we have no way to know if our reasoning leads us to truth in any proposition".

Agreed, but if survivability isn't dependent on truth, then whatever the caveman happens to be knowledgeable about doesn't guarantee that it's a reflection of reality, hence my example of the caveman and the lion to begin with.

Which ignores the fact that knowing whether it's a lion or goblins masquerading as a lion (specifically, knowing how to tell the two apart) would likely enhance survivability.

How exactly? The end result is the same; no matter what he happens to believe about the lion - whether true or false - he's surviving by running away.

After all, the goblins may pose an entirely different manner of threat, in this scenario, and if so, knowing how to tell real lions from goblins in a lion disguise would benefit the caveman's safety. Simply running away in this situation might amount to no better than a coin toss.

Errr... I thought goblins didn't exist..?

[Esquilax]

@Lemonvariable72
I don't think you got the point. The point is that we may have evolved with a SYSTEMIC inability to perceive or comprehend certain kinds of information. Appealing to other humans for confirmation isn't going to do anything.

For example, it may be that there are magical fairies all around us. However, they have no bearing on our survival, so we have not evolved any mechanism for perceiving them. If worms could communicate, they would uniformly confirm to each other that rainbows do not exist, since they have no way to infer the existence of light.

Well, then my question to you is, why does any of this matter?

If we can't perceive a phenomena in our environment due to an absent sensory apparatus, and the phenomena does not interact with the physical world we can perceive, then in what way does it matter if we can perceive it or not?

If we can't perceive this phenomena but it does interact with the physical world, and hence become of interest to us, then we can test for the effects, and understand that it's there in a roundabout sort of way. This is what we've done with many, many previously undetectable phenomena in the past, why would this be any different?

But if you're proposing that there may be things in the world that we cannot sense, cannot test, and do not impact us at all, then my answer will just be sure, but who cares?

[max-greece]

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.

---

C2 doesn't necessarily follow, "all our cognitive functions came about for the purpose of survivability ." You might argue all our cognitive functions came about from the purpose of survivability but that raises the question of how other species, without our cognitive functions manage to survive?

From there on what it truth? Are we talking an absolute truth? How do we know such a thing exists? We can only refer to relative truth according to our own perceptions and experiences. My "truth" and an electron's "truth" are very different - this piece of iron is solid to me but an electron passes through it with comparative ease.

What we can say, however, from our perspective of truth, is that generally it all holds together. We are able to explain phenomena through sciences and mathematics consistently - and consistency is probably enough to accept our truth as valid.

As for the issue of religion, surely its worse:

We are created by God.
We can only know what God wants us to know.
We know God is good because God tells us he is good.....crap.

Now you're really fucked.

[genkaus]

@genkaus
You can say evolution has no goals. However, it's a process which results in adaptation, i.e. the improved ability of the species to survive in its environment. Therefore, it's fine to say improved fitness is the goal of evolution-- so long as nobody tries to equivocate that to meaning evolution has a God-given purpose or something. RAKD hasn't said anything like this.

I think that is precisely the equivocation he has in mind. The assumption of natural teleology and the commission of naturalistic fallacy is very common with this kind of argument. Its better to set the boundaries from the start.

---

Does a caveman running away from perhaps a lion necessarily need to know that a lion is a four-legged carnivore that is closely related to other felines, or could he believe it to be a sack of potatoes dressed in a scary way yet *still* have the urge to run away and *survive*, despite whatever falsehoods he might believe?

I think this is called a "hasty generalization" fallacy.

A: Caveman needs to be able to determine the truth in order to survive.
B: Caveman needs to be able to determine the whole truth in order to survive.

B does not follow A.

The urge to run away is the result of the knowledge that the lion in front of you is dangerous and about to kill you. The false belief that it is just a sack of potatoes dressed in a scary way would not produce the same response. So, while the whole truth of the lion's genealogy is not required, the truth about its carnivorous nature is.

---

@Lemonvariable72
I don't think you got the point. The point is that we may have evolved with a SYSTEMIC inability to perceive or comprehend certain kinds of information. Appealing to other humans for confirmation isn't going to do anything.

For example, it may be that there are magical fairies all around us. However, they have no bearing on our survival, so we have not evolved any mechanism for perceiving them. If worms could communicate, they would uniformly confirm to each other that rainbows do not exist, since they have no way to infer the existence of light.

I think you are missing the point of the original argument. The systematic inability to perceive certain kinds of information does not negate the ability to perceive the truth through the forms of perception that are available. The ability to perceive truth does not require the ability to perceive the whole truth.

---

So we both agree that for the caveman to survive, he needs to be able to go "arghh.. scawey!" but such a reaction is independent of whether the caveman believes he's running from a lion, or a bunch of goblins hiding beneath the skin of what appears to be a lion. In essence, the caveman's survivability was independent of what he believes to be true.

Not quite. His reaction of "arghh... scawey!" is dependent upon his knowledge of the danger the lion represents.

[FallentoReason]

I think this is called a "hasty generalization" fallacy.

A: Caveman needs to be able to determine the truth in order to survive.
B: Caveman needs to be able to determine the whole truth in order to survive.

B does not follow A.

The urge to run away is the result of the knowledge that the lion in front of you is dangerous and about to kill you. The false belief that it is just a sack of potatoes dressed in a scary way would not produce the same response. So, while the whole truth of the lion's genealogy is not required, the truth about its carnivorous nature is.

You're hijacking my example. I'm telling you that the caveman is running away from what he *believes to be a sack of potatoes dressed as a lion*. Therefore, the response is "run away", all the while the belief is "it's a sack of potatoes dressed as a scary thing". Survivability has been preserved while truth hasn't ergo survivability is independent of anything the caveman might believe to be true, which might include a false belief as to why a sack of potatoes is after him (i.e. he doesn't understand the creature is carnivorous).

---

Not quite. His reaction of "arghh... scawey!" is dependent upon his knowledge of the danger the lion represents.

Which in that particular example happens to be that goblins hiding underneath lion skin are after him, thus producing the "arghh... scawey!" reaction out of him.