rational naturalism is impossible!

[Esquilax]

by that logic, developing true beliefs would not be a factor in lethal harm. P2 of the argument still stands.

It would be, if the false beliefs were harmful.

See, there's a reason children are more liable to believe authority figures when they're young; that's evolution in action. Parents teach their children things that are important; in an older, tribal civilization where this would be more useful, then fire being hot, and that animal being dangerous, would be true beliefs necessary for survival. Children that are more likely to accept this demonstrably true thing don't get burned or murdered by animals quite as much, while those that reject those true beliefs get killed.

Truth is all there is, and insofar as it regards the physical world that we inhabit, having a grasp on what's true is crucial for surviving. You can't believe a predator out of attacking you, for example.

[Mister Agenda]

@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.

More due to the limits of their reason than their senses, as far as the existence of light goes. They can certainly feel heat and feel that the surface is only exposed to it at certain times. They might be able to infer light, or at least radiant heat (which is a form of light), although without manipulatory limbs to construct devices to investigate it further, they might never get to rainbows.

Fortunately, we DO have manipulatory limbs to construct devices that have capabilities beyond the limitations of our senses. There are many things we have a systemic inability to perceive that we've discovered through our instruments. That we have no way of knowing how much we're missing doesn't doesn't mean a working hypothesis of naturalism is irrational.

[Rational AKD]

It would be, if the false beliefs were harmful.

See, there's a reason children are more liable to believe authority figures when they're young; that's evolution in action. Parents teach their children things that are important; in an older, tribal civilization where this would be more useful, then fire being hot, and that animal being dangerous, would be true beliefs necessary for survival. Children that are more likely to accept this demonstrably true thing don't get burned or murdered by animals quite as much, while those that reject those true beliefs get killed.

Truth is all there is, and insofar as it regards the physical world that we inhabit, having a grasp on what's true is crucial for surviving. You can't believe a predator out of attacking you, for example.

you seem to forget the point I was trying to make in the OP. rational belief in naturalism is impossible. as you said, the only reason to believe any of our beliefs are necessarily true is if it is necessary to our survival. most beliefs aren't. and in fact, it's been shown that mild paranoia is more beneficial to survival than what's necessarily true. in that case, for all we know, many of our beliefs are a paranoid delusion. this includes the belief in naturalism itself, making it impossible to rationally believe it due to its self refuting nature. at best, you can say there's a 50/50 chance it's true which not only doesn't rationalize belief in it, but makes it literally impossible to rationalize because it refutes itself. you can't believe in naturalism and believe it to be true after accepting the conclusion of this argument.

[pocaracas]

What does "believe in naturalism" and "believe it to be true" mean?

[Rational AKD]

What does "believe in naturalism" and "believe it to be true" mean?

to know that, you need only know the definition of belief, which is defined as accepting a proposition as true. this in mind, to say you can't believe in naturalism and believe it to be true is really a negation of statements that simplifies to you can't truly believe naturalism.

[Faith No More]

you seem to forget the point I was trying to make in the OP. rational belief in naturalism is impossible. as you said, the only reason to believe any of our beliefs are necessarily true is if it is necessary to our survival. most beliefs aren't. and in fact, it's been shown that mild paranoia is more beneficial to survival than what's necessarily true. in that case, for all we know, many of our beliefs are a paranoid delusion. this includes the belief in naturalism itself, making it impossible to rationally believe it due to its self refuting nature. at best, you can say there's a 50/50 chance it's true which not only doesn't rationalize belief in it, but makes it literally impossible to rationalize because it refutes itself. you can't believe in naturalism and believe it to be true after accepting the conclusion of this argument.

You're misunderstanding what evolution says about the development of cognitive abilities. It's not that the only reason to believe something is if it is necessary to our survival. It is that our cognitive developments are the result of mutations that are "chosen" through natural selection, which is based upon survivability. Since determining the truth and surviving are not necessarily synonymous, our cognitive abilities were not adapted to determine the truth.

[Rational AKD]

You're misunderstanding what evolution says about the development of cognitive abilities. It's not that the only reason to believe something is if it is necessary to our survival. It is that our cognitive developments are the result of mutations that are "chosen" through natural selection, which is based upon survivability.

do cognitive abilities exclude reasoning skills?

Since determining the truth and surviving are not necessarily synonymous, our cognitive abilities were not adapted to determine the truth.

if that is the case, then how does my conclusion not logically follow? if our cognitive abilities were not adapted to determine truth, then all reasoning that leads to naturalism is not necessarily true.

[pocaracas]

What does "believe in naturalism" and "believe it to be true" mean?

to know that, you need only know the definition of belief, which is defined as accepting a proposition as true. this in mind, to say you can't believe in naturalism and believe it to be true is really a negation of statements that simplifies to you can't truly believe naturalism.

I was going more for the second part, but wth....

naturalism:
Philosophy .
a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

Is this what you are wanting to mean by "naturalism"?
If it's the b.... then belief in naturalism means... belief in the belief that all phenomena are natural.... sweet non-sense.

Anyway...
It seems to me that naturalism should be the default position.
Given a person born and raised without any contact with any claims of divinities, how likely do you think it is that this person will arrive at a supernatural explanation to any phenomena that he comes across? (let's give him a few science books to explain a few things).
As the default position, it requires no belief. It just is...

[Faith No More]

do cognitive abilities exclude reasoning skills?

No.

if that is the case, then how does my conclusion not logically follow? if our cognitive abilities were not adapted to determine truth, then all reasoning that leads to naturalism is not necessarily true.

Your conclusion, as it appears to be stated, is that no knowledge is attainable, which is not the case. Just because our cognitive abilities were not adapted to determine truth does not mean that they can't determine any truth at all.

[Rational AKD]

Your conclusion, as it appears to be stated, is that no knowledge is attainable, which is not the case. Just because our cognitive abilities were not adapted to determine truth does not mean that they can't determine any truth at all.

if any of our cognitive abilities are possibly false indicators of truth and we can't determine which of these cognitive abilities are, then all our cognitive abilities are in question. this includes the proposition of naturalism, which means we can't me more than half sure naturalism is true.

---

I would like to make a correction to my original few posts. I've stated that our observations are not subject to this argument due to the fact that they would most likely have to be true indicators to be beneficial to our survival. the problem I now see is that if our reasoning skills are not necessarily hinged on truth, then we can't say what we can reason to be best for survival is necessarily the case. so to correct the argument, it does in a way sort of advocate a type of solipsism.