rational naturalism is impossible!

[Rational AKD]

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.

I am showing that according to logic, naturalism entails the denial of reason itself, which in turn leads us to a view of solipsism since we can't reason what is true and what is false. I have not once made a God of the gaps argument here. is this what you do? when you don't like a conclusion you accuse you opponent of a fallacy of no relevancy to what they're actually saying? if only you could be a little more honest.

The argument is absurd.

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

Science works, bitch.

we can only interpret what we observe using reasoning skills, which is what the entailments of naturalism put into question. once you even partly doubt your reasoning skills, it's game over. you now can't determine which reasoning skills are compromised, which means all of them are in question, which means reality itself is in question since you can't use reason to conclude your senses are indicators of truth.

Fail!

There could be some sort of explanation for consciousness beyond our current understanding. Maybe these "souls" are yet to be discovered. Once they are, we will be able to study them and eventually explain them. You know what they will be then?

you seem to forget what the argument is about, which is amazing since it's not only in the title, but in almost every post I've made so far. this is not an argument against atheism. if you want to believe in supernatural atheism, go ahead. this is an argument against naturalism.

a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

the definition of naturalism excludes beliefs in the supernatural and spiritual. nice try.

Fail!

Evolution has no goals. There can be random mutations that have nothing to do with survivability.

really? lets look at another definition then.

the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.

that's 2 strikes now. but even if I were to give you the point that "evolution has no goals" that would merely show there is no goal of evolution to give us senses that are indicators of actual truth, and the conclusion of the argument would remain the same.

Thinking rationally and determining what is real has much to do with survivability.

no it doesn't. studies have shown that mild paranoia is actually better for survival than perceiving actual truth.

Nonsensical solipsism.

exactly, once we deny our senses it inevitably leads to solipsism.

I have no problem conceding that rationality cannot support itself. So lets just throw that sucker out. However, why should that reflect more poorly on naturalism than on whacko superstition? What reason do you think you have for embracing the supernatural?

you are correct. this argument doesn't make a case for the supernatural. it doesn't even show that naturalism itself is false. all it does is points out the impossibility of the rational belief in naturalism. you may say that is some evidence for the supernatural indirectly, by saying if you do think your cognitive faculties are reliable, this can only necessarily be the case if a supernatural explanation is invoked since a rational natural explanation can't be attained. but i'm not really trying to go that route. so then, what is my goal with this argument? it's to try and show what is truly rational and see if anyone here is willing to accept it. it's to test the people here and see if they are truly willing to follow the truth wherever it leads, or that they are simply stuck in the ideas they prefer.

You look for internal consistency.

consistency doesn't necessarily indicate truth. you can be consistently wrong and still end up being wrong.

For example, in "A Beautiful Mind", Nash was able to determine his best friend and his daughter were imaginary because "she never gets older".

that's testing whether you see a hallucination. that's a very different concept to what i'm arguing for. his reasoning skills remained in tact in the movie, but if his reasoning skills were compromised then he wouldn't be able to reason which ones are and aren't because the reason he bases those conclusions could likewise be compromised.

But is it rational for the theist or anyone else to believe a personal god created them with their cognitive functioning wired correctly?

the problem with naturalism is according to our current logic, naturalism would entail the inaccuracy of some of our reasoning skills. theism, on the other hand, can reason how our reasoning skills can be entirely accurate indicators of truth. and if someone believed in a God who only wanted us to see truth, they could thus have the possibility of rationally believing in theism which is impossible for naturalism.

Do theists suppose that God just screwed up when wiring the brains of atheists?

there's a difference between having accurate reasoning skills and having accurate beliefs. all people have the possibility of finding what is true, but that doesn't mean all people find it. whereas, if any of our reasoning skills were compromised we would be incapable of finding the truth at all.

Without a certain minimal amount of truth present in your beliefs, you would not be able to behave in a way beneficial to survival.

you miss the point. not all truth is necessary for survival, and in fact mild paranoia is better for survival than actual truth. if any of our reasoning skills are compromised, we would be unable to determine which ones. if that is the case, there can be no confidence in any of our reasoning skills because for all we know they are just as likely to be true as they are to be false since we can't reason which is more likely.

Also, not necessary.

true, it is possible they would be accurate for survival. but again, with some uncertainty of our reasoning skills we can't reason if they in fact are.

Wow, you are about one step away from presuppositional apologetics here, and as a consequence, one step away from making me vomit.

this argument has nothing to do with that. it's simply an argument against rational belief in naturalism.

For one, you can check your reasoning against the reasoning and experiences of other people.

again, testing with other people doesn't show anything other than consistency which doesn't necessarily mean accuracy. bennyboy already covered this objection in post #6.

Then why should I care?

you don't have to care. you just can't possibly rationalize belief in naturalism.

The reason naturalism works is because even under the solipsistic world you're envisioning, the natural world is the only one that acts upon us. We're subject to its laws, our senses seem to correspond to its attributes, our experiences, for the most part, roughly match up. Yes, there could be a bunch of woo out there that's possible, but if it has no intrusions into the physical world then its indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist, and if its presence has even the smallest iota of effect, then it is a part of the natural world too and thus explainable in a naturalistic framework.

you miss the point. naturalism entails that some of our senses are corrupted to better act in a survival manner. this means we can't be sure which senses are accurate and which are not. that in turn means we can't be any more sure naturalism is true than 50/50. this means, as the title says, rational naturalism is impossible!

[bennyboy]

I am showing that according to logic, naturalism entails the denial of reason itself, which in turn leads us to a view of solipsism since we can't reason what is true and what is false. I have not once made a God of the gaps argument here. is this what you do? when you don't like a conclusion you accuse you opponent of a fallacy of no relevancy to what they're actually saying? if only you could be a little more honest.

I guess I read you wrong. I suppose those other threads where you asked about what evidence it would take to accept the God proposition, and this thread about naturalism, aka evidence, are completely unconnected.

Many apologies. Maybe I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. I suppose once you've established naturalism as logically unsupportable, you are not after all going to use that to discard "show me the evidence" questions and redefine what it means to fulfill the burden of proof. I suppose you have no intention to use the intrinsic agnosticism involved in accepting physical monist observations as "real" as an open door for other interpretations of reality-- like a Christian one, for example.

Again, my humble apologies. I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions.

[Chas]

Fine, but there is no evidence for a matrix or simulation or mind of god.

There is evidence that we are in a world actually composed of matter and energy, that our minds evolved to deal reasonable accurately with a narrow range of that, that we are able to extend our evolved senses to perceive somewhat more than the narrow band evolution gave us.

To use evidence is to use your sense perceptions to draw inferences. If there is some systemic failure, weakness, or lacking in human perception, then evidence itself is meaningless as a determiner of absolute truth. So we end up with something like:

If X is true, X proves X is true.
If X is false, X cannot prove X is true.

Physical evidence is compelling only because we are fully immersed in X. Or to put it more accurately, we ARE X. So from an experiential point of view, evidence feels very compelling. From the perspective of a philosophical search for absolute truth, it borders on useless.

Have a lovely time on your quixotic search for absolute truth.

I will happily continue to investigate reality.

[bennyboy]

Have a lovely time on your quixotic search for absolute truth.

I will happily continue to investigate reality.

It's good to read ALL the posts in the thread, not just the ones in which you personally are quoted.

If you'll look at my responses to RAKD, you'll understand the implications of what I'm saying better. What you just quoted is an EVEN IF argument, basically. Chess isn't always 1 move deep.

[Whateverist]

I have no problem conceding that rationality cannot support itself. So lets just throw that sucker out. However, why should that reflect more poorly on naturalism than on whacko superstition? What reason do you think you have for embracing the supernatural?

you are correct. this argument doesn't make a case for the supernatural. it doesn't even show that naturalism itself is false. all it does is points out the impossibility of the rational belief in naturalism. you may say that is some evidence for the supernatural indirectly, by saying if you do think your cognitive faculties are reliable, this can only necessarily be the case if a supernatural explanation is invoked since a rational natural explanation can't be attained. but i'm not really trying to go that route. so then, what is my goal with this argument? it's to try and show what is truly rational and see if anyone here is willing to accept it. it's to test the people here and see if they are truly willing to follow the truth wherever it leads, or that they are simply stuck in the ideas they prefer.

If naturalism is correct, then rationality and reason, arose as a by product of our pursuit of dinner, shelter and anything else which supported our survival. That isn't controversial. But over and above this account of its origins you want to claim that reason and rationality are faulty and unreliable. That doesn't logically follow. Even if our cognitive faculties arose for utilitarian purposes it doesn't follow that those faculties would not be generalizable for more abstract purposes. That could be the case, but there is no in principle reason to think it so.

There are in fact many ways in which our mental processing is hardwired in ways which probably served an adaptive purpose but which are therefore now exploitable by magicians to fool us by manipulating our attention. For that matter having a durable reliance on operational beliefs would probably be more adaptive than being prone to existential doubts during the eons during which we were hunter/gatherers. That is why when earnestly seeking empirical evidence, scientists go to the trouble of using double blind experiments and rely on peer review to guard against inadvertent bias.

So what you say about our actual epistemic position is true enough but it as true for the theist as it is for the atheist. Of course rationality can not vouchsafe itself. But that is really only a problem for anyone who wants to make a positive argument against gods. I wouldn't waste my time. For so poorly defined a term as 'god' there is nothing with which reason can work. One either drinks the kool aid or they do not. (Of course if you were forced to drink it since before you could speak, choice never really entered into it.)

[Simon Moon]

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.

Your entire argument is self refuting.


For arguments sake,. I'll accept all your premises and conclusions.

If C1, C3 and C3 are true, you have no way of knowing if this very argument is valid and sound, since you are using those same cognitive functions that came about to aid in survivability, which you say may be unreliable to obtain the truth.

You have no way of knowing if your reasoning has lead you to truth in this very argument. Your own argument must lead you to the conclusion that your own argument may be correct or may be incorrect, and you'd have no way of knowing.

In affect, you have no way of knowing is your premises lead to your conclusion because your cognitive functions are suspect.

I guess you could assert that your cognitive functions didn't evolve. But that would be an assertion that would require demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support.

[DeistPaladin]

the definition of naturalism excludes beliefs in the supernatural and spiritual.

It would exclude the "supernatural", yes, by definition. Would it exclude the spiritual?

I'm not saying this is what I believe but let's hypothetically say that there really are such things as "souls" that account for our existence as conscious beings. Perhaps they're some kind of energy or something not yet understood by science. Regardless, let's say for argument's sake, they really do exist.

That accepted for the sake of argument, they would currently be beyond the understanding of science. However, as we collect more information, we might one day make that discovery. Having made it, we could then study souls and come to understand their properties and explain how they interact with the brain, which presumably would be the seat of said "soul". Once we understand it, we could then explain how it works.

Do you know what we call something that was once thought to be "supernatural" or "magical" when it can be proven to exist, when it can be observed and studied, when it's properties understood and explained?

"Natural".

Then again, consciousness may just be an emergent property of brain activity. My point is that it doesn't necessarily follow that just because there's no magic and woo in the world doesn't make it necessarily so. I await the findings from neruoscience on just what consciousness is and will withhold judgment until then. For the reasons provided above, "naturalism" doesn't necessarily dictate any conclusions on the nature of our existence.

the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.

Natural selection is only part of the process of evolution, as the very definition above, handily bolded, alludes to.

Organisms over time have many mutations. Some of these mutations are detrimental to survival or reproduction and so are weeded out by natural selection. Some of these mutations are highly beneficial, and so are favored by natural selection. Some of these mutations are neutral or have little effect on survival/reproduction, and so may get passed on or may not. It does not follow that every mutation passed on is perfectly designed for our survival or that some features irrelevant to survival haven't been bolted on.

Your argument rests on the assertion that "determining the truth", whatever you mean by that, isn't necessarily essential to our survival.

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.

Your point?

As others have noted, we're bred for pursuing dinner, not "The Truth". Being able to think about complex philosophical questions may not be essential to survival if you're a primitive human living in the wild. That doesn't preclude the function being present. Unless something is specifically maladaptive to survival, natural selection may not necessarily weed it out.

exactly, once we deny our senses it inevitably leads to solipsism.

Solipsism is technically true and stupid to spend much time thinking about unless you're a science-fiction author working on an idea for a story. Esquilax has already torn apart that concern so I won't steal his thunder.

[Rational AKD]

If naturalism is correct, then rationality and reason, arose as a by product of our pursuit of dinner, shelter and anything else which supported our survival. That isn't controversial. But over and above this account of its origins you want to claim that reason and rationality are faulty and unreliable. That doesn't logically follow. Even if our cognitive faculties arose for utilitarian purposes it doesn't follow that those faculties would not be generalizable for more abstract purposes. That could be the case, but there is no in principle reason to think it so.

I thought I made it quite clear in the OP. the fact that our cognitive faculties are attuned for survival means they aren't necessarily indicators of truth. one may think reasoning truth would be beneficial to survival, but that's not necessarily so. studies have shown that mild paranoia is actually more beneficial than an accurate assessment of your environment. so that means many of our cognitive faculties would very well be a paranoid delusion designed to make us behave more adaptively to improve our survival.

Your entire argument is self refuting.


For arguments sake,. I'll accept all your premises and conclusions.

If C1, C3 and C3 are true, you have no way of knowing if this very argument is valid and sound, since you are using those same cognitive functions that came about to aid in survivability, which you say may be unreliable to obtain the truth.

You have no way of knowing if your reasoning has lead you to truth in this very argument. Your own argument must lead you to the conclusion that your own argument may be correct or may be incorrect, and you'd have no way of knowing.

In affect, you have no way of knowing is your premises lead to your conclusion because your cognitive functions are suspect.

I guess you could assert that your cognitive functions didn't evolve. But that would be an assertion that would require demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support.

you kind of miss the point of what I was arguing. I give you props for thinking outside the box and all, but there are some things you aren't considering. the entire point of the argument I was presenting was to show that belief in naturalism entails the doubting our senses as indicators of truth. furthermore, in doing this we must admit we can't know which senses are true indicators and which ones aren't, which means reason goes out the window and solipsism is all that's left. you claim if the conclusion is true then the logic is not necessarily valid since the logic is in question, but i'm not working backwards from the conclusion. i'm showing that with our current logic belief in naturalism leads to solipsism, the uncertainty of everything including naturalism itself. if you accept the conclusion, my logic may not be valid, but that's the only way to deny the validity of the argument, by denying reason itself. if you do that to deny the logic of the argument, it doesn't matter because you've already accepted the conclusion.

It would exclude the "supernatural", yes, by definition. Would it exclude the spiritual?

well the definition I presented did exclude spirit. though if it were consistent with naturalism it is not the naturalism i'm addressing. this argument is more tailored toward materialistic naturalists. I suppose if you did believe in a 'spirit' as a form of nature, you may bypass the argument *if* it has an explanation why natural selection doesn't affect our beliefs/thoughts as to make them survival instincts rather than indicators of actual truth.

Natural selection is only part of the process of evolution, as the very definition above, handily bolded, alludes to.

it's the only part of evolution that can act as a driving force to give us beneficial traits.

Your argument rests on the assertion that "determining the truth", whatever you mean by that, isn't necessarily essential to our survival.

it isn't. studies have shown that mild paranoia is more beneficial to survival than an accurate assessment of our environment. all our observations, beliefs, reason could all very well be a paranoid delusion meant to make us act effectively to survive.

Being able to think about complex philosophical questions may not be essential to survival if you're a primitive human living in the wild. That doesn't preclude the function being present. Unless something is specifically maladaptive to survival, natural selection may not necessarily weed it out.

that's not the purpose of that conclusion. as you said, certain traits aren't bred out just because they aren't beneficial to survival, but they could be adjusted to help us better survive. if our cognitive abilities were adjusted to make us more paranoid about the environment we're in, then those wouldn't be indicators of truth. atheists like Richard Dawkins have argued that God was developed by man as a process of evolution because it helped them survive difficult times. if any thoughts are distorted through the evolutionary process, we can't possibly determine which ones are. as I said, you can't reason without using your reason.

Solipsism is technically true and stupid to spend much time thinking about unless you're a science-fiction author working on an idea for a story.

actually, solipsism is an epistemological belief, not science fiction. though it can't be proven false, it also can't be proven true. this fact has in a way saved people from solipsism because since you can't be sure either way and you can't do anything to change the reality you're in, it should make no difference to live like it's real. however, this particular argument changes things. it shows that solipsism logically and inescapably follows naturalism, which means anyone who accepts the reason in this argument and accepts naturalism then accepts solipsism which in turn denies naturalism. it's an inescapable conundrum that leads to the conclusion rational naturalism is impossible.

[genkaus]

you miss the point. not all truth is necessary for survival, and in fact mild paranoia is better for survival than actual truth. if any of our reasoning skills are compromised, we would be unable to determine which ones. if that is the case, there can be no confidence in any of our reasoning skills because for all we know they are just as likely to be true as they are to be false since we can't reason which is more likely.

Are you ignoring my argument or do you just like repeating yourself?

All truth may not be necessary for survival, but a certain amount of truth is. Which is why we can safely say that our reasoning skills are capable of discerning the that amount of truth necessary for our survival. Which is also why we can have also have confidence in those reasoning skills.

If all of our reasoning capabilities were to be compromised, we wouldn't be able to discern any truth and thus not be able to survive. If we can, then that means some of them are working well enough to discern the truth and we can use those to evaluate and correct the others. This all or nothing idea is a false dichotomy.

true, it is possible they would be accurate for survival. but again, with some uncertainty of our reasoning skills we can't reason if they in fact are.

But our reasoning skills are not uncertain.

[Rational AKD]

All truth may not be necessary for survival, but a certain amount of truth is. Which is why we can safely say that our reasoning skills are capable of discerning the that amount of truth necessary for our survival. Which is also why we can have also have confidence in those reasoning skills.

that doesn't logically follow. even if you were correct that a 'certain amount of truth is' that doesn't mean any of our reasoning skills aren't compromised, yet alone all of them as you claim.

But our reasoning skills are not uncertain.

why? why do you think any of our reasoning skills are tailored for discerning truth instead of being adjusted to benefit our survival skills? and even if some of them are adjusted for indicating truth, how can you say all of them are?