rational naturalism is impossible!

[Rational AKD]

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.

[FallentoReason]

The way I see it, atheists don't have to invoke a personal God after seeing this argument. The only people in trouble are atheistic naturalists. But for someone such as myself who doesn't believe naturalism is coherent, I have no problems. Therefore, I propose a third alternative (to naturalism and theism) which states that qualia guarantees that I'm in a proper relationship with reality: if I experience greenness, then that can only mean there's greenness out there *to be experienced*. After all, my experiences are partly nothing more than causal relations that began with inputs from the *external* world that I then receive and make sense of.

[Ryantology]

That's a rather roundabout way to arrive at solipsism.

[Rational AKD]

That's a rather roundabout way to arrive at solipsism.

it doesn't confirm solipsism. it makes all our beliefs in question, not all our observations. all our observations may very well be accepted as true, but conclusions drawn from them are no more true than false. it makes us question our cognitive faculties, not our senses.

[genkaus]

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.

P2 is wrong - evolution has no operational goals.

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.

[bennyboy]

@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.

@Rational AKD
I fully agree with this argument. I often use the example of a worm-- it cannot perceive light, and could never infer it from its other senses, like sound. So what things might exist which we are systemically unable to perceive? There may be all kinds of things happening all around us which we have no physical means to be aware of or to interface with.

However, I hope you're not introducing it as an argument from ignorance for ". . . so anything's possible, including my God."

[Lemonvariable72]

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.

Ahh this is why we employ the scientific method, because that allows us to know if our reasoning is accurate.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory

[FallentoReason]

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?

[bennyboy]

@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.

[Cato]

That's a rather roundabout way to arrive at solipsism.

it doesn't confirm solipsism. it makes all our beliefs in question, not all our observations. all our observations may very well be accepted as true, but conclusions drawn from them are no more true than false. it makes us question our cognitive faculties, not our senses.

What a load of shit. Look, here's my proposal...

Consult a reputable dictionary and look up the word 'solipsism'. Then, keep this in mind and re-read your P2 about 20 times. If you still don't get my point, come back and I'll explain it to you.

Also, you fucked up the observation/conclusion/senses argument. The way you put it reads as if I'm to trust my senses without consideration of experience or acquired knowledge (consider what we can 'see' in the electro-magnetic spectrum). Although my senses tell me the stick bends in water, reason suggests it doesn't after repeated dippings. Wait. What word did I use? That's right, reason. Try it sometime.