Argument from Reason?

[Barefoot]

Naturalism has fuck all to do with meaning.

The first premise is a non-sequitur.

Could you elaborate?

[Jackalope]

Naturalism has fuck all to do with meaning.

The first premise is a non-sequitur.

Could you elaborate?

Which part did you have an issue with?

Naturalism can be true in a world that is *devoid* of meaning (intrinsic or subjective). In essence, naturalism is the view that the only forces that operate on the world are natural ones - it is, in short, a rejection of the supernatural. It does not appear that consciousness is required in order for the world to exist (though it is in order for us to observe it), and meaning is incoherent without consciousness.

Written another way, the argument is essentially "the supernatural is required for meaning to be deterministic".

Furthermore, I question whether the second premise is demonstrable. The entire thing appears to be argumentum ex culo.

[Barefoot]

Which part did you have an issue with?  

Naturalism can be true in a world that is *devoid* of meaning (intrinsic or subjective).  In essence, naturalism is the view that the only forces that operate on the world are natural ones - it is, in short, a rejection of the supernatural.  It does not appear that consciousness is required in order for the world to exist (though it is in order for us to observe it), and meaning is incoherent without consciousness.

Written another way, the argument is essentially "the supernatural is required for meaning to be deterministic".

Furthermore, I question whether the second premise is demonstrable.  The entire thing appears to be argumentum ex culo

I'm not sure the second premise is demonstrable either, and that's where I'm confused. Because if meaning isn't determinate then what does that say for science, which presupposes it is? I'm not convinced,  nor do I think I could be, that a god is the solution for  the same reason Carrier described in his rebuttal, which another user posted a link to.

[Jackalope]

I'm not sure the second premise is demonstrable either, and that's where I'm confused.

If the premises aren't true, the argument is logically unsound. If the truth of the premises isn't demonstrable, then you have grounds to reject the argument as such.

Because if meaning isn't determinate then what does that say for science, which presupposes it is?

Not that I'm aware of it doesn't.

[Barefoot]

But for a rational inference to be made, these must be true. Doesn't that mean science presupposes determinate meaning?

1. States of mind have a relation to the world we call intentionality, or aboutness. The intentionality I am referring to is propositional in nature.
2. Our possessing this kind of intentionality means that we are capable of having, entertaining, believing, and desiring states of affairs propositionally described. 
3.We recognize the propositional contents of our thoughts. Thoughts and beliefs can be either true or false. Human beings can be in the condition of accepting, rejecting, or suspending belief about propositions. 
4. Logical laws exist
5. Human beings are capable of apprehending logical laws. 
6. The state of accepting the truth of a proposition plays a crucial causal role in the production of other beliefs, and the propositional content of mental states is relevant to the playing of this causal role. 
7. The apprehension of logical laws plays a causal role in the acceptance of the conclusion of the argument as true. 
8. The same individual entertains thoughts of the premises and then draws the conclusion. 
9. Our processes of reasoning provide us with a systematically reliable way of understanding the world around us.

[Jackalope]

I'm sorry, was the above supposed to have some relevance to the topic of meaning?

I'm starting to have a funny feeling that you're misrepresenting your position on this.

[Barefoot]

I'm sorry, was the above supposed to have some relevance to the topic of meaning?

I'm starting to have a funny feeling that you're misrepresenting your position on this.

I wish I could find the presentation of the argument, as I have it, online. I think seeing it in context would help. I'm hoping I'm not misrepresenting, though like my first post said,  I'm having trouble understanding it.

Edited to add:
I see where I was mistaken. Embarrassingly, I've been reading the entire argument as though "determinate" meant something like "intelligible" or "able to be understood". So yes, I did misrepresent his points, by ignorance. I feel so incompetent.

[Jackalope]

I'm sorry, was the above supposed to have some relevance to the topic of meaning?

I'm starting to have a funny feeling that you're misrepresenting your position on this.

I wish I could find the presentation of the argument, as I have it, online. I think seeing it in context would help. I'm hoping I'm not misrepresenting, though like my first post said,  I'm having trouble understanding it.

My impression of it so.far is that it's utter bullshit intended to convince a credullous audience.

[JuliaL]

Thoughts and beliefs can be either true or false.

I apologize in advance for an expected derail, but in any fuzzy philosophy, I find myself driven to ask for clarity.
Can you please define what you mean by "true or false" beliefs?
Or just what you mean by "true?"

[Jackalope]

Thoughts and beliefs can be either true or false.

I apologize in advance for an expected derail, but in any fuzzy philosophy, I find myself driven to ask for clarity.
Can you please define what you mean by "true or false" beliefs?
Or just what you mean by "true?"

And down the rabbit hole we go....