rational naturalism is impossible!

[Faith No More]

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.

Well, we can test our cognitive abilities to determine what can and cannot be relied upon, however, what makes you think that uncertainty means naturalism is only a 50/50 proposition?

[Rational AKD]

Well, we can test our cognitive abilities to determine what can and cannot be relied upon, however, what makes you think that uncertainty means naturalism is only a 50/50 proposition?

how can you test your cognitive abilities without using your cognitive abilities? you can't. you can't reason without using your reason. if you are unable to reason, then you are unable to determine what is true and what is false. if you're unable to do that, then everything is just as likely to be true as it is to be false and there's no way for us to determine one way or the other because that would require reason.

[FallentoReason]

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).

Except, it doesn't make any sense for him run away from what he believes to be a sack of potatoes. If he believes that the thing in front of him is a sack of potatoes, then the response of running away makes no sense for him. The assumption that he'd, without any cause, regard the sack of potatoes as scary is unfounded. Regarding it as scary implies that he has knowledge of something similar that he has a legitimate reason to be afraid of - ergo, the knowledge of some other truth. At its core, the fear response is the result of true knowledge. Without it, survivability has not been preserved.

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.

If the goblins are not going to harm him, then his survivability was never at risk - then the question of preserving it doesn't arise at all. If the goblins are going to harm him, then the belief that "that thing is dangerous" is true - thus, making survivability dependent upon truth. And if the goblins are really there to give him free food, then his survivability has been harmed by his false belief.

I guess I would have to agree with you if it turns out that truth is relative, otherwise the caveman having to run away (or face it... but undeniably have to do *something*) is a truth relative to him. In other words, "when faced with a lion, do ____ to survive" isn't an objective truth, and thus makes me partly think that at the end of the day, the caveman didn't need truth to survive.

[Faith No More]

how can you test your cognitive abilities without using your cognitive abilities? you can't. you can't reason without using your reason. if you are unable to reason, then you are unable to determine what is true and what is false. if you're unable to do that, then everything is just as likely to be true as it is to be false and there's no way for us to determine one way or the other because that would require reason.

You seem to be equating uncertainty with unreliability and failing to take into consideration that just because something is uncertain, doesn't mean we can't determine the probability of that something being true. So, while we can't be certain of something, we can somewhat determine the probability of that something being true and operate under a reasonable assumption.

[Rational AKD]

You seem to be equating uncertainty with unreliability and failing to take into consideration that just because something is uncertain, doesn't mean we can't determine the probability of that something being true. So, while we can't be certain of something, we can somewhat determine the probability of that something being true and operate under a reasonable assumption.

how do you determine probability? you take information you have on occurrences and reoccurrences. if you are uncertain of that information, you can't determine probability. possibility must be established prior to probability, and we can't even be certain of what is possible since that requires reason.

[bennyboy]

You seem to be equating uncertainty with unreliability and failing to take into consideration that just because something is uncertain, doesn't mean we can't determine the probability of that something being true. So, while we can't be certain of something, we can somewhat determine the probability of that something being true and operate under a reasonable assumption.

how do you determine probability? you take information you have on occurrences and reoccurrences. if you are uncertain of that information, you can't determine probability. possibility must be established prior to probability, and we can't even be certain of what is possible since that requires reason.

You don't need to know exact probabilites to know that something is highly improbable. There COULD be a Flying Spaghetti Monster orbiting Earth. But since we have no reason to believe there is one, and no evidence that points to one, and no mundane experience that gives principles that can be logically extended to the existence of one, we don't believe there is such an entity.

Can't prove it. Still comfortable saying it's highly improbable.

[Rational AKD]

You don't need to know exact probabilites to know that something is highly improbable. There COULD be a Flying Spaghetti Monster orbiting Earth. But since we have no reason to believe there is one, and no evidence that points to one, and no mundane experience that gives principles that can be logically extended to the existence of one, we don't believe there is such an entity.

Can't prove it. Still comfortable saying it's highly improbable.

what you are ignoring is you need to determine what is possible before you can determine what is probable. as you said "There COULD be a Flying Spaghetti Monster orbiting Earth" is a reasonable statement claiming possibility. but that's the problem, it requires reason to make such a statement. since our reason is in question according to entailments of naturalism, we can't even be sure of that much, yet alone how probable it is.

[bennyboy]

You don't need to know exact probabilites to know that something is highly improbable. There COULD be a Flying Spaghetti Monster orbiting Earth. But since we have no reason to believe there is one, and no evidence that points to one, and no mundane experience that gives principles that can be logically extended to the existence of one, we don't believe there is such an entity.

Can't prove it. Still comfortable saying it's highly improbable.

what you are ignoring is you need to determine what is possible before you can determine what is probable. as you said "There COULD be a Flying Spaghetti Monster orbiting Earth" is a reasonable statement claiming possibility. but that's the problem, it requires reason to make such a statement. since our reason is in question according to entailments of naturalism, we can't even be sure of that much, yet alone how probable it is.

I'm with you to this degree: using the mind, which is posited to be PART of the universe, to establish what is true in the whole universe, fails. A subset cannot encompass a set.

If I thought you were working toward an agnostic position, I'd be on board. However, I know that you're attempting to undermine rational or objective views of the universe in order to make room for intuition or purely philosophical views; basically, you're driving a wedge into physicalism to make room for a God-of-the-gaps argument.

With this process I cannot agree. Tearing down objective gnosticism to make room for another, inferior kind of gnosticism fails. "Anything is possible, and we don't know what it true, therefore let's consider the God idea" fails epically.

[Chas]

The argument is absurd.

We can see that it is rational by observation, by cause and effect.

Science works, bitch.

[bennyboy]

The argument is absurd.

We can see that it is rational by observation, by cause and effect.

Science works, bitch.

Just for reference:





But. . . not quite. Science works whether we're in the Matrix, or the Mind of God, or a physical universe-- so long as there are consistent observations to be made, and underlying patterns to reveal, and the ability to test hypotheses about them. If there is something systematically lacking or flawed in the way we perceive or think, it isn't guaranteed that we will (or even can) be aware of it.

The science works in the context of a functioning universe. It doesn't do anything to answer the WHY questions: why is there a universe rather than not. WHY is there actual sentience, rather than just processing of information? It also can't answer subjective questions, like what it the best way to live?

Now, I'm not seeing science and religion as competing sources of truth. In that regard, science wins epically. However, you are missing RAKD's point-- there's no remedy for uncertainty, because we can never know for sure where all the experiences we have (including looking through telescopes etc.) come from. Objective naturalism fails as an absolute test of reality due to intrinsic agnosticism.