rational naturalism is impossible!

[DeistPaladin]

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.

But what I keep trying to tell you is that if "souls" exist, they're part of the materialistic and natural universe. They would have properties that could be studied and understood.

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.

And as I've said previously, there are two reasons that this argument you've presented is completely moot:

1. Natural selection doesn't necessarily weed out neutral traits or even work to produce the most optimal species. We have "wisdom teeth" which are certainly not things that promote survival. They're actually quite destructive to our dental health. There are many other features of our bodies which aren't optimally designed. We have an appendix that once served a purpose but now just explodes. We breath and eat out of the same orifice, causing choking if food isn't chewed properly.
2. I'm still fuzzy on the whole, "pursuit of the truth is counter-survival" thesis you've presented. What has allowed us to survive is our ability to work together and build communities. A society of paranoid humans would be dysfunctional in its ability to cooperate and coexist and therefore be maladaptive to survival.

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.

And as I've already said, yes you can. You look for internal consistency and support from verified data. Saying you can't validate reason without reason is like saying you can't validate what one book says because it footnotes another book by another reputable source. One could just as easily argue "you're using a book to prove a book and that's circular reasoning" but this would fundamentally misunderstand what circular reasoning is. Where there are multiple sources of data, the conclusion is not necessarily circular.

it shows that solipsism logically and inescapably follows naturalism,

I run into the same line of argument from presuppositionalists who flirt with solipsism and then claim their faith gives them a "get out of solipsism free" card.

How does this work exactly?

Why is naturalism supposedly prone to solipsism where magical thinking is not? In what way does your magical thinking free you from solipsism where naturalism would not?

[Whateverist]

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.

But what I keep trying to tell you is that if "souls" exist, they're part of the materialistic and natural universe. They would have properties that could be studied and understood.

Exactly. Apparently they want their soul club to be faith-only, no reason allowed.

[max-greece]

The what is truth question isn't entirely tongue in cheek. Are we accepting that there is an absolute truth in all things? Would we expect that truth to be the same for me as it is for anyone else? Anything else?

If our version of the truth is somehow compromised does that matter as long as it is internally (and externally) consistent?
If our version of the truth is compromised - couldn't all versions of the truth be, also?

[Lemonvariable72]

@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.

However if worms were sapient then they could infer (eventually) the existence of rainbows because they would likely discover light in much the same way we did with radio waves or infrared. However what you state is interesting. What if there is a color that we cannot perceive?

[max-greece]

@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.

However if worms were sapient then they could infer (eventually) the existence of rainbows because they would likely discover light in much the same way we did with radio waves or infrared. However what you state is interesting. What if there is a color that we cannot perceive?

Unless you can see infra-red and ultra-violet there are colours we cannot perceive. Interestingly - other creatures can. Goldfish have much better colour perception that we do.

[bennyboy]

However if worms were sapient then they could infer (eventually) the existence of rainbows because they would likely discover light in much the same way we did with radio waves or infrared. However what you state is interesting. What if there is a color that we cannot perceive?

It may be that sentient worms would discover light, and build technologies to extend their understanding of it, as we have. But it may also be that since they really don't have any sense of light, they could never discover it-- it might just never occur to them to inquire in that direction.

People have argued against "You don't know what you don't know." They say, "I don't know Madonna's phone number" or whatever. But they're missing the point-- there may be crucially important data in the universe which for some system reason we cannot perceive, or even conceive of. Personally, I'd argue this is a near-certainty.

[downbeatplumb]

"I don't know Madonna's phone number"

There was a time in the eighties when she had a sort of rebellious charm and her phone number would've been desired.
Now she is like an embarrassing granny who keeps flashing strangers.

[genkaus]

People have argued against "You don't know what you don't know." They say, "I don't know Madonna's phone number" or whatever. But they're missing the point-- there may be crucially important data in the universe which for some system reason we cannot perceive, or even conceive of. Personally, I'd argue this is a near-certainty.

Would you now? And where is the evidence for this near-certainty?

Your argument starts off simply enough - being based on facts - and goes on to extrapolate it to ridiculous levels.

"1. There are types of information in the universe that we do not perceive - this is true.
2. If we do not perceive it, it's possible that we cannot perceive it.
3. If we cannot perceive it, it's possible that we do not conceive of it.
4. If we do not conceive of it, it's possible that we cannot conceive of it.

Therefore, I'm near-certain that there is information in the universe that we cannot conceive of."

The problem here is how you equivocate between hypothetical possibility and near-certainty.

First of all, as we've shown, the limits of biological perception do not limit human perceptual capacities - therefore, saying that something that we do not perceive cannot be perceived is simply wrong. Secondly, as we've shown through imagination - we can conceive of things beyond actual perception. Thirdly, different types of information are related to each-other - so, the type of information that we cannot perceive would likely be associated with one that we do and thus conceiving and then perceiving its existence is not an impossibility.

Finally, you seem to have lost the perspective within this thread. The central issue here is if the fact that our rational processes evolved in any way compromises their ability to determine the truth. You seem to be arguing that, in fact, it is impossible for our perceptual and conceptual faculties to determine the whole truth, which means - what, exactly? That they are inherently compromised for determining any truth?

[DeistPaladin]

By the way, is this the best Christians can offer when it comes to proof?

That's a rhetorical question. I know the answer is "yes".

This kind of highly abstract philosophical argument with its thought experiments and spurious assumptions supported by hot air seems to be the best you'll get. Where's the hard evidence promised by the Bible?

Where's the public appearances of Yahweh (Judges 1) or the booming voices from the sky (Mark 1)? Where are the angels that interact with humans regularly throughout the Bible? Why aren't there any magical artifacts that can be submitted to scientific study (i.e. Paul's handkerchiefs in Acts) or faith healings performed under medical peer review (Mark 16:17-18)?

Read your Bible. It depicts a world full of supernatural activity. Now put down the Bible and look around. It's a natural world governed by predictable laws and best understood through science and reason.

Where did your god go? Has he grown shy and withdrawn? He used to be a hands-on deity who wrestled with Jacob, gave a public speech to Judea, showed off his loins to Ezekiel and dropped by Abraham's place for lunch. He flooded worlds, confounded people with different languages and consumed blasphemers with columns of fire.

Where did the angels go? They used to make donkeys talk, assassinate leaders like Herod Antipas and break true believers out of jail when they were persecuted. Have they also grown shy? Have they suddenly decided to respect free will now that we have mass communication, recording technology and a society more skeptical?

What happened to the demons? They used to be responsible for illness and insanity. Now these ailments have natural causes. If the Gospels and Acts are to be believed, Christians could heal by the power of their faith. Out of a billion or so Christians, can we not generate any with enough faith to cast a Cure Light Wounds spell?

"Blah blah blah blah blah, therefore Jesus". That's the best you can offer, is it?

[Rational AKD]

By the way, is this the best Christians can offer when it comes to proof?

That's a rhetorical question. I know the answer is "yes".

This kind of highly abstract philosophical argument with its thought experiments and spurious assumptions supported by hot air seems to be the best you'll get. Where's the hard evidence promised by the Bible?

Where's the public appearances of Yahweh (Judges 1) or the booming voices from the sky (Mark 1)? Where are the angels that interact with humans regularly throughout the Bible? Why aren't there any magical artifacts that can be submitted to scientific study (i.e. Paul's handkerchiefs in Acts) or faith healings performed under medical peer review (Mark 16:17-18)?

Read your Bible. It depicts a world full of supernatural activity. Now put down the Bible and look around. It's a natural world governed by predictable laws and best understood through science and reason.

Where did your god go? Has he grown shy and withdrawn? He used to be a hands-on deity who wrestled with Jacob, gave a public speech to Judea, showed off his loins to Ezekiel and dropped by Abraham's place for lunch. He flooded worlds, confounded people with different languages and consumed blasphemers with columns of fire.

Where did the angels go? They used to make donkeys talk, assassinate leaders like Herod Antipas and break true believers out of jail when they were persecuted. Have they also grown shy? Have they suddenly decided to respect free will now that we have mass communication, recording technology and a society more skeptical?

What happened to the demons? They used to be responsible for illness and insanity. Now these ailments have natural causes. If the Gospels and Acts are to be believed, Christians could heal by the power of their faith. Out of a billion or so Christians, can we not generate any with enough faith to cast a Cure Light Wounds spell?

"Blah blah blah blah blah, therefore Jesus". That's the best you can offer, is it?

Why doesn't God do miracles today? because God doesn't aspire to convince everyone of his existence. you may think that to be his goal but it's not. if he performed mass miracles seen by many, everyone would most definitely have to acknowledge his existence. but then that will invoke a response of fear from everyone. they could not live freely by choosing to obey and disobey God. they would be worried of provoking God's wrath at any given moment. and those who aspire to follow him will do so by their own purposes, and no one will truly follow God for love which is what he desires from us. if God were to demonstrate his power to everyone, it would only invoke fear within everyone and not instill love. creating this fear would in turn create selfishness inspiring people to save themselves instead of loving God. it would be counter productive to his goal.
PS, this isn't my best argument.