This sounds like Pascal wager with extra steps. You never do Pascal wager with extra steps.

ETA oh yeah. You mentioned Pascal wager. It's is. Is a very faulty argument.

Yeah, this is still just Pascal's Wager.

Also, P1 is not true because knowing your have a finite lifespan is often stated as liberating among atheist circles, and results in greater empathy and a stronger desire to make a positive mark on the world, or at the very least leave it a better place than we found it for future generations..

An entire region suddenly floods due to staggering rainfall. In the aftermath, rescuers in a boat spot a man on his roof. They cruise up, offer the man space on the boat. He replies:

”No thank you, The Lord will provide.”

I won’t belabor the point. You all Know this story ends with the man in Heaven demanding to know why the Lord did not provide, to which the Lord replies “I sent three boats and a helicopter“.

The pre-conclusion reached by the OP is hogwash. As demonstrated by this story. Belief in god that overrides rational naturalism leads to irrational behavior in this world. And the whole of the argument IS Pascal’s Wager, just in longer verbiage.

Aside from what has already been said by the others here

>On Naturalism, I take it that our life has no objective (i.e. mind-independent) purpose or meaning outside of self-created, self-imposed, and illusory ones.

Naturalism doesn't make any such a claim. There could still be objective meaning in nature. Lions may be born to hunt, bees may be born to make honey, and people are often born with different talents and passions and different interests which may hint at an objective inborn purpose.

> 𝐏𝟭 A belief that accepts death as the permanent terminus to life results in infinite negative utility for the one who adheres to such belief.

> 𝐏𝟰 Theism is an example of a belief that can potentially entail infinite positive utility for the adherent.

Acceptance of death as a "permanent terminus" may compel one to place a greater degree of value on various aspects of the life they do have, such as the worth of their time or the magnitude of their actions, than they would if they didn't believe death was a "permanent terminus". From this perspective theism may even pose a threat to one living well or effectively.

Think of the real life implications of this also. We are on a boat (the Earth), which is sinking (natural disasters, climate change, nuclear threats). According to the eschatological views of many theists such threats should be welcomed as they predict the coming of their savior in the next few years (so no reason to worry about your grandchildren). Or even worse they may be inclined to add even more fuel to the fire.

The for the most part non-theistic scientists on the other hand are doing what they can to end this madness and to stop this ship from sinking.

OP has it the wrong way around.

I urge you to be careful with your terms. Infinite negative utility is not the same as losing out on infinite positive utility, just as how the mathematical value of negative infinity is not the same as zero. An example of infinite negative utility would be the state of burning in hellfire for eternity. Your argument for P1 is a total non-sequitur if you don't fix this issue.

Why would merely believing in naturalism entail missing out on infinite utility, but not believing in non-naturalism? You think that believers and non-believers of naturalism don't share the same fate after death? Perhaps if I die believing there's no blissful afterlife, but I'm wrong, I'll simply wake up in it and go, "Oh, that's cool", and I'll enjoy myself for eternity.

>I take it that our life has no objective (i.e. mind-independent) purpose or meaning outside of self-created, self-imposed, and illusory ones.

What do you mean when you call meaning illusory? Do you take "illusory" to mean "subjective", or "arbitrary", or something else?

P2 seems to be espousing an epistemic norm, specifically that whether a belief is warranted depends in part or in whole on the good/bad consequences it causes for the holder. Contrast with a strict evidentialist epistemology, which says that whether a belief is warranted depends wholly on whether the available evidence supports it. Your norm is not uncontroversial at all, and can't be assumed without argument.

On your initial analogy: Looking for a life jacket or a flotation device is very reasonable in this situation given you have several instances of seeing boats or hearing about boats with life jackets and flotation devices. Even if you can’t immediately find them, you might keep looking because you have been exposed to several instances in life when boats contained life jackets. You know they often go together.

More analogous would be your crew starts sinking and you start a search for fairies, calling out to them and wishing them to come help you. Or perhaps calling out to mermaids, or Poseidon to save you. Or even looking for a hidden button in the boat which would teleport you home immediately. These things you have no evidence for, no prior experience with, at best you have legends and stories.

If calling out to the fairies makes you feel good, or looking for the magic teleportation button in the boat seems good to you, go ahead. But don’t act like it’s the same level of reasonable as looking for life jackets — which you have more than just legends pointing you to the possibility there could be one in your situation.

It is similar to Pascal's argument only insofar as it is a pragmatic approach. As I stated in the post, I am not looking to convince anyone of theism; rather, I am trying to convince people that naturalism has nothing to offer, on its own terms.

I recognize that atheists consider naturalism freeing, but I think this is shortsighted given the infinite nothing approaching that consumes everything you do. What is there to gain that won't ultimately be lost? To your last point: why does leaving the world a better place matter if the universe is destined for heat death, a cold, dark, empty, dead fate of utter destruction?

OP cannot seem to comprehend a meaningful life or sense of morality without divine inspiration. This is highly reminiscent of Christian theology which argues all “good” comes from God. Their premises all require this fundamentally unfounded assumption, in a rather telling display of preconception and bias.

OP disregards the plethora of historical and modern examples of theocratic governments and religious figures who have actively acted in “negative utility” towards humanity’s wellbeing. Their idea that theism can “potentially” inspire infinite good is arbitrarily decided, artificially restricting such potential from non-theist sources with no actual reasoning as to why.

The fact that OP considers caring about future generations and one’s own legacy postmortem as a purely theist idea is laughable. This is a clear example of beginning at a conclusion and vomiting words, hoping the audience isn’t actually paying attention.

OP is naive at best, though I personally find such rhetoric more likely to be intentionally deceptive.

While I sense your disdain for the argument, I'm left wondering: do you take issue with a specific premise?

>Our existence would be a brute fact, and we simply live, die, and then stop existing for all eternity.

And? So, what?

I can easily argue a Theist has to believe in eternal after-life because it is how they cope with their own mortality. The alternative is simply too terrifying for them.

Through this lens, these arguments against Atheists then look like desperate attempts at rationalization for belief in an after-life rather than introspection into how they are really coping with their mortality.

>Our finite existence is overshadowed by the reality that death will swallow everything we know, do, and love.

OP's overwhelming fear expressed right here.

OP, I hope you find peace with your mortality however you need to; but please stop projecting this infinite utility nonsense, I am certain you can do better.

As a Christian myself, nothing that you describe is inherent to theism, even if it is true that some theists believe in letting world disasters continue unabated. To the point, I don't believe that's an issue of philosophical coherency on theism.

To the second point you make about unbelieving scientists, however: stopping the boat from sinking now only appears to delay the inevitable; after all, the universe will undergo heat death and total destruction in the future and all human progress will be wiped away forever. If life is worth clinging to temporarily, why is life not worth clinging to eternally given this chance we have to search for it?

I acknowledge that naturalists don't make that claim, but I do. I myself have yet to see a compelling reason to believe there is any "purpose" for human life on naturalism, since naturalists deny there is any intent inherent in nature. Not unless we redefine purpose to mean something else. It would seem that any purpose we assign to mankind would be self-derived and therefore mind-dependent and therefore subjective by definition.

Why would "living well" or "living effectively" matter if the universe is destined to heat death and utter destruction on naturalism? On naturalism, there is no objective purpose to life, and if I wanted to live a life where I waste my time doing absolutely nothing, I can't see why that would be objectionable or of any less value than one "lived effectively."

> 𝐏𝟯 Naturalism is a belief that entails infinite negative utility for the adherent.

I disagree. The "natural laws and forces" observed by naturalism, such as mass energy, entropy, chemistry, biology, etc. have provided significantly more value and utility than the unfulfilled promises of theism.

The lack of objective value does not mean the only value of worth must be objective or else live a life without any value or purpose. Naturalism does not necessitate pessimistic nihilism

As for this not being Pascal, ‘I’m not telling you to do X, I’m just telling you to not do non-X’

Your story is just painting a scenario, not demonstrating a robust point. A similar story with a similar effect: You’re on a sinking boat. You try to find the life jacket you know should be there, but your religious friend stops you, says “Stop doing that, God will surely perform a miracle and save us”, and sits down waiting for a miracle that doesn’t arrive. Therefore, faith does not offer pragmatic value compared to your active efforts of self-preservation

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback.

I assert that the fate foretold on naturalism is as bad as a fiery hell. Right now, it would strip the adherent of objective purpose and meaning, condemn the adherent to everlasting nothingness as the universe grows towards eventual heat death, and deprive the adherent of any possible hope. This state, and it's future, are not just 0 (i.e. of neutral effect on well-being)- this is as bad as it gets. Pure deprivation and infinite loss.

"Why would merely believing in naturalism entail missing out on infinite utility, but not believing in non-naturalism?"

I'm saying that naturalism, on its own terms, indicates this to be the fate of all humans. If it turned out another way, that would be lucky to say the least, but I'm engaging naturalism on its implications.

"What do you mean when you call meaning illusory? Do you take "illusory" to mean "subjective", or "arbitrary", or something else?"

Sorry if I'm unclear. I mean that any sense of mind-independent purpose would only be the appearance of one. We wouldn't really be created for anything and our lives wouldn't really have some kind of in-built intent.

"P2 seems to be espousing an epistemic norm, specifically that whether a belief is warranted depends in part or in whole on the good/bad consequences it causes for the holder."

I could stand to reword it, but my intended meaning is simply that no one likes being infinitely unwell compared to infinitely well off. If anyone disagreed with that notion, I would find it contrarian, honestly.

Naturalism is just what is. It doesn't have to offer anything. Except truth, assuming one values that.

I fail to see how belief in an infinite afterlife doesn't completely diminish this finite life. It makes this life an annoying gate keeping exercise to get on to the real thing. So much so that all religions need to incorporate rules against suicide to prevent their adherents from just checking out prematurely to get on with it. And, as you say, your gains here in this world are even more utterly worthless and non-transferable to the afterlife.

On the other hand, the finite lifespan of the universe has the same bolstering effect as the finite lifespan of a human, just writ large. The bounded time frame adds a sense of urgency to seeing what we can accomplish, both individually and collectively as a species..

I think some of the folks here are being a little unfair to OP's point (or, if this is not OP's point, then to a slightly different point that I think this post raises!) - so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this argument boil down to something like this:

If we restrict ourselves to a naturalistic worldview, the only resources we have for claims or beliefs or attitudes like hope about the future are the predictions we can make based on the facts of the situation and the various statistical probabilities of things being likely or not likely. If this is the case, it would follow that it is difficult to see how we could generate attitudes like faith and hope that we would need to be open to radical kinds of interventions or unexpected solutions to seemingly impossible situations (and this might include the miraculous appearance, appearing miraculous of course from the context of the people on the roof of the house, of the rescuers.) So if this is so, it would mean that there is good reason to hold some kind of, if not super-naturalist, at least openness to non-naturalistically expected intervention that appear to operate according to a dynamic or set of laws that is somehow beyond the ordinary natural order, which, taken on its own, would naturally lead us to despair, and thus, to foreclose many possibilities that would not only lead to our happiness, but lead us to be able to lead richer lives, and to find solutions to difficult situations, and to ultimately lead better lives (OP's utility point, I take it) and perhaps even more moral lives insofar as despair can be toxic to the achievement of moral ambitions. Or if this last point is put a bit dramatically, the trouble is that it just appears that there are nor resources or grounds for attitudes like hope or faith in the future given the strictly constrained boundaries of the naturalism that OP has brought into view for us. And to the extent that those attitudes seem practically indispensable for the achievement of goods, and of moral goods, and of goods that contribute to our happiness, it would appear to present a problem for an epistemic perspective that was restricted only to naturalistic claims. Is it something like this, perhaps?

Remember, I'm not arguing what naturalists should look for, just that sitting down and accepting death shouldn't be appealing to anyone. It should motivate them to seek life. I only discuss theism as a possible alternative.

Now clearly you and I have different levels of confidence in the arguments presented by theists (I am a Christian). That's fine, though personally I don't find the comparison to fairies, etc to be similar at all given the philosophical arguments and robust intellectual tradition that theism has to offer vs fairies.

As a Christian, I am quite at peace. I feel you have missed the point- this post is about the naturalist's outlook on its own terms, and the expressions therein are those of atheists that have told me as much. Not theists.

The point is that naturalists shouldn't be happy to die forever. They should be motivated to seek life and only discontentedly accept naturalism given its implications. Naturalism has nothing to offer that won't be lost eternally.

I think you missed what I meant by utility. Here, I am referring to utility as a measure toward well-being. This is what I said in my post:

"Let "utility" refer to the usefulness of a given outcome toward a goal (in this case, your future well-being). Outcomes that increase one's future well-being are given positive utility, and outcomes that decrease one's future well-being are given negative utility."

To your first point: I can't see how any man-sourced purpose is real. What would separate it from a self-imposed illusion, much the same way that naturalists view religion as a self-imposed illusion?

To your second point: I don't think naturalism and theism are perfect negations of each other. Saying "you should seek to abandon naturalism" does not automatically imply theism. For example, one could seek to defend some kind of spiritual reincarnation that is absent God or religion. Tenability of that specific view aside, the argument is simply that naturalism isn't worth clinging to as many seem to.

In your re-imaged analogy, there simply is no life jacket on naturalism (as the worldview itself concludes), and therefore no reason to be doing any searching. According to the naturalist: we're gonna die, and that's the end! At least the religious friend offers a potential out, even if it were only an uncertain tiny chance.

There will always be debates over what is real. Secular reasoning for values are still real unless you say only objective values of supernatural origins are real, which is a claim. If you say secular arguments can disagree therefore they aren’t as real, well, theists disagree between religions or within their own over the nuances of values. Basically everyone says “Murder is wrong”, naturalist or theist. Naturalism is not pessimistic nihilism. I see plantation slavery being outlawed as a wonderful moment of society directing its values towards good bc if theism was going to be the catalyst of that, it would’ve done that a long long time ago

I’ll admit I was being cheeky with my wording, but it’s effectively the same effect. You paint your own view of what naturalism has to offer and then pull the Pascal of “Well it doesn’t have as much to offer so it’s only logical”

I don’t think you understood my point with the story. I wasn’t creating a story to disprove your story, I created a story to show how anyone can create a story that creates ideal framing, so it is a bad argument. It can be done for anything especially if you necessitate the naturalist as someone saying “We’re all gonna die, there’s no point in trying anything” just like I necessitated the guy with faith to rely on his god saving him rather than making any effort of his own to save his own life

Let's grant everything you say about theism for the time being- I don't think this changes much about the decision to sit with naturalism. Remember, I'm not trying to convince you of theism. What I'm saying is, "why not keep looking anywhere else (including somewhere other than theism) than to sit contentedly on naturalism?"

"I fail to see how belief in an infinite afterlife doesn't completely diminish this finite life."

For what it's worth, theists have every reason to value this life, because our actions have eternal consequences and our lives have real objective value. On theism, this life is the setting stage for eternity and therefore is of infinite worth.

"The bounded time frame adds a sense of urgency to seeing what we can accomplish, both individually and collectively as a species."

Who will it matter to when the universe is cold, dark, and empty? I wonder, for example, how many people would bother writing a lengthy autobiography if the manuscript were to be immediately thrown away upon finishing it and the person's memory were to be wipes of its contents.

> Why would "living well" or "living effectively" matter if the universe is destined to heat death and utter destruction on naturalism?

Individuals judge "living well" or "living effectively" by their personal values, emotions, needs, and wants, and to a degree social and familial pressures. And the hypothesized heat death of the universe -- estimated to occur more than a googol years in the future -- doesn't have anything to do with the utility of different philosophies employed by the relatively short-lived humans on this planet, but the aforementioned criteria by which individuals judge "living well" or "living effectively" do.

> On naturalism, there is no objective purpose to life, and if I wanted to live a life where I waste my time doing absolutely nothing, I can't see why that would be objectionable or of any less value than one "lived effectively."

This is accurate enough, but what qualifies as "wasting time doing absolutely nothing" varies from person to person.

>it would strip the adherent of objective purpose and meaning, condemnthe adherent to everlasting nothingness as the universe grows towardseventual heat death, and deprive the adherent of any possible hope. Thisstate, and it's future, are not just 0 (i.e. of neutral effect onwell-being)- this is as bad as it gets.

I think it'd be worse if we lacked purpose, meaning, and hope, and we were trapped in fire feeling our flesh burn and blood boil forever. That fire would certainly bring an additional loss to my well-being that the other things didn't. But suit yourself.

>If it turned out another way, that would be lucky to say the least, but I'm engaging naturalism on its implications.

I want to make this clear: are you analyzing the implications of belief in naturalism per se, or of belief in naturalism and being correct about those beliefs? I took you to be talking about the former, but the latter is the only one of the two that constitutes a threat to our well-being.

I'll make the relevant distinction very clear here: belief in naturalism may cause belief in a lack of infinite utility, but it doesn't entail an actual lack of infinite utility. Naturalism being true entails a lack of infinite utility, and it's being true doesn't depend on our beliefs. If we were all non-naturalists, we might still have nothing left after death.

This is an important point because your argument is trying to move us to hold a certain belief based on the well-being it entails. But if believers and non-believers share the same fate (as I think they do), the nature of which depends on whether naturalism is true, which is independent of whether or not we believe in it, then the expected utility is the same for believers as for non-believers.

Therefore even if I was a pragmatist about beliefs, I wouldn't have a reason to prefer one belief over the other. In any case, I'm an evidentialist, so I wasn't very sympathetic to the argument anyways.

>I mean that any sense of mind-independent purpose would only be the appearance of one. We wouldn't really be created for anything and our lives wouldn't really have some kind of in-built intent.

Sure. I take it that any purpose we ascribe to ourselves originates from ourselves; the meaning of life is mind-dependent. Not all naturalists hold this view, and it's not a certain fact that naturalism entails it. If you want more info, check out the SEP article on the meaning of life, section 3.2.

>My intended meaning is simply that no one likes being infinitely unwell compared to infinitely well off.

This looks like a very different statement from P2. It seemed to me that P2 was an assertion about what makes a belief justified. But alright, the statement is actually just about what preferences people hold. But this bears no apparent relation to what they should believe. I could prefer to be cured from my (hypothetical) terminal cancer but be justified in my belief that I will die, for example. I'm not sure how your argument works from here.

[removed]

I'm not sure I find your first paragraph relevant, since I am not talking about the objectivity of values on naturalism, but rather objective purpose. How is man-sourced purpose anything short of a self-imposed illusion?

"You paint your own view of what naturalism has to offer and then pull the Pascal of 'Well it doesn’t have as much to offer so it’s only logical'"

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here.

"I created a story to show how anyone can create a story that creates ideal framing, so it is a bad argument."

But I don't think you succeeded in that, since the story you painted only reiterates my point: the naturalist would have no recourse, and praying with the religious friend would still seem to be a better option than the naturalist alternative of just dying.

"It can be done for anything especially if you necessitate the naturalist as someone saying 'We’re all gonna die, there’s no point in trying anything'"

Remember, the naturalist does in fact assert "we're all gonna die." I didn't make any statement about whether he would think to try and do anything about it, but I would hope he would do the following: seek to falsify naturalism.

It will matter to those who accomplish great things. Heck, we accomplish great things every day. You can say that you value this life because it sets you on a trajectory for the afterlife, but that's not really the same thing. You can put in the minimum effort or a maximal effort, and the result is the same. Mother Teresa doesn't get a special place or a particularly shiny set of wings or anything.

What is there to accomplish in the infinite? By definition, all accomplishment is diminished to zero, integrated over infinity.

And again, naturalism just is. We're not "chosing to sit with" naturalism. I guess you're right that what you're proposing is not exactly Pascal's Wager. It's more like you're saying that naturalism is just so boring, why don't we look into other alternatives? Not exactly compelling. We're "content" with naturalism because it answers everything. Everything that can be answered, that is. The rest we get to answer for ourselves, which circles back around to that sense of freedom that the finite gives, which the infinite will always find lacking..

I disagree. Following the contemporary evidence will empirically lead one to the fact that the heat death of the universe is a defensible theory and likely outcome. Knowledge of this future event should lead one to ask now "what are we working and striving towards that won't ultimately be lost?" It has palpable consequences for the present, since all of our hopes to leave behind a better future will become null and void ventures. So again, why "live well" or do this or do that?

My first paragraph is relevant bc you are specifically framing naturalism as pessimistic nihilism when it isn’t. You claim naturalism doesn’t offer “real” value or purpose just bc it isn’t as allegedly objective as theistic claims given to us by other humans, and then you compare your own framing to alternatives ala Pascal

You are still focusing on the argument within my story when I am telling you my point is that stories like this can be crafted to paint any narrative you want, so your story is just as valid as mine despite them coming to opposite conclusions

I don’t understand how you can say my story validates your framing. You are comparing a pessimistic nihilist giving up vs a theist with optimism. I am comparing a guy being pragmatic in self-preservation vs a theist relying solely on a divine miracle to intervene. I don’t think you can seriously say in good faith (pun intended) that praying is more pragmatic than taking actionable steps to survive. I am very glad that countries didn’t wait for their god to finally declare slavery to be immoral after thousands of years

And how have the unfulfilled promises of theism improved future well-being? Medicine, rapid travel, comforts such as home heating, etc. etc. are all products of the "natural laws and forces" observed by naturalism, and all have demonstrably improved future well-being.

"It will matter to those who accomplish great things."

They will not exist when the universe is dead.

As for your views on theism, I personally don't find them accurate, but we aren't here to be convinced of theism (as I previously mentioned), so I don't think these details are a relevant matter.

"By definition, all accomplishment is diminished to zero, integrated over infinity."

If there were other fates for the universe that didn't result this way, would you be interested in avoiding this fate?

"It's more like you're saying that naturalism is just so boring, why don't we look into other alternatives? Not exactly compelling."

To be clear, I think naturalists should find their worldview's implications horrifying and infinitely empty in the worst way. Not boring.

>As a Christian myself, nothing that you describe is inherent to theism

Maybe not to theism but Christianity's eschatology speaks for itself.

>To the point, I don't believe that's an issue of philosophical coherency on theism.

It is in so far regardless of whether someone wants to read meaning or meaningfulness into it or not, generally speaking it is within our nature to desire survival (incarnate). Believing in things which are not evidently true (such as theism) may lead someone to act against this inner desire (suicide cults would be an extreme example). If you care about survival like you claim in your boat metaphor then all this should be coherent enough.

>If life is worth clinging to temporarily, why is life not worth clinging to eternally given this chance we have to search for it?

I could think of many good reasons why humanity would want to call it quits at some point. But then at the same time I also never claimed it wasn't worth clinging to and who knows maybe the survival of our species is worth it. But then we still have some 10 billion years until the Sun dies and perhaps 22 billion years until the universe ends and plenty of time left to think, discover, and act if there's something to act on. And if not, as someone who worships the God of Joy, we may as well enjoy it while it lasts.

>since naturalists deny there is any intent inherent in nature.

That looks like a non-sequitur as well as begging the question. There does not have to be any intent for something to exist which is as much true for things in nature or properties of nature or properties of your God or even your God himself.

Meaning may be a property of nature in the same way that having brown eyes is a property of me.

>>It will matter to those who accomplish great things. > >They will not exist when the universe is dead.

Of course not, things only "matter" within the time frame that they exist and to the sentient beings who simultaneously exist to appreciate them. Mattering is not something that should or ever could go on for all perpetuity.

>>By definition, all accomplishment is diminished to zero, integrated over infinity. > >If there were other fates for the universe that didn't result this way, would you be interested in avoiding this fate?

If they held the explanatory power of naturalism and weren't self-evidently untrue and based on wish fulfillment, I suppose I would.

>To be clear, I think naturalists should find their worldview's implications horrifying and infinitely empty in the worst way. Not boring.

Well, I've already explained how we find it freeing and how it enables us to lead a better life, which you previously accepted. I've also explained why I find the infinite to render all meaning null and void. Meaning is only possible within the confines of the finite. I don't see how it could be otherwise..

If life is simply the byproduct of natural forces, any sort of objective purpose/meaning as it's commonly understood (i.e. intentional, end-oriented) will simply be illusory. It's hard to see how "meaning" exists in a soup bowl of atoms (the universe) unless you want to import a different understanding of the words "purpose" and "meaning" altogether.

> Knowledge of this future event should lead one to ask now "what are we working and striving towards that won't ultimately be lost?"

Why should it? This assertion is based entirely on your personal values or wants.

> It has palpable consequences for the present, since all of our hopes to leave behind a better future will become null and void ventures.

The "hope to leave behind a better future" is not universal, but those that have such hopes typically only look to the next generation or two, often leaving the rest to chance or without consideration.

> So again, why "live well" or do this or do that?

Why live a life according to your personal values, emotions, needs, and wants, and to a degree social and familial pressures? Because it's your life to live.

By the way, did you know people with no emotions -- and I mean no emotions whatsoever -- are incapable of making decisions? Damage to the orbitofrontal cortex in the frontal lobe can result in the condition and it goes to show much of an effect emotions have on our sense of meaning.

To this point: "Mattering is not something that should or ever could go on for all perpetuity."

Why not?

"If they held the explanatory power of naturalism and weren't self-evidently untrue and based on wish fulfillment, I suppose I would."

Are you certain there are no other worldviews that satisfy these stipulations? If not, why settle on naturalism?

For example, many people find theism explanatorily powerful, not self-evidently untrue, and not based on wish fulfillment, but actually true (e.g. the majority of philosophers of religion by measure). Are you certain theism is false? If perhaps not certain, wouldn't it be worth taking a second, third, even fourth look? And if not theism, then anything other than naturalism?

This simply misses the point of my post. I'm not talking about temporal finite gains in well-being, nor am I trying to convince anyone to specifically adopt theism. I am discussing the implications of naturalism and the utter oblivion it asserts we are all doomed to.

To your question: "Why should it?" Because we often derive meaning and value from the future impact of our actions. No one wants to labor for something they deem worthwhile only to have it destroyed.

"Those that have such hopes typically only look to the next generation or two, often leaving the rest to chance or without consideration."

In either case, all of mankind's efforts will be reduced to nothing. That's a big pill to swallow now that makes a difference to one's perception of life.

"Why live a life according to your personal values, emotions, needs, and wants, and to a degree social and familial pressures? Because it's your life to live."

This just seems to affirm my point: there's no human-independent reason to do what we do. We will lose everything and we simply do what we enjoy now to bide the time, on naturalism.

"By the way, did you know people with no emotions -- and I mean no emotions whatsoever -- are incapable of making decisions? Damage to the orbitofrontal cortex in the frontal lobe can result in the condition and it goes to show much of an effect emotions have on our sense of meaning."

For one, that is interesting. On a more critical note, this is like saying people who are blind are unable to apprehend the color red. Just because our sense of vision is critical to our ability to apprehend the objective reality of the color red doesn't mean the color red isn't an objective reality. Similarly, emotions may be critical to our ability to apprehend the objective reality of meaning, but that doesn't mean meaning itself isn't an objective reality.

I already answered this. It's a non sequitur as well as begging the question fallacy. Things can exist without intent.

Your God likewise is a "soup bowl of his own properties" and (at least according to theists) purportedly exists without anyone or anything outside of him intending him to so unless you want to add a special pleading fallacy to the list you will find it difficult to get around that one.

All your flimsy critique of theism aside, nothing you stated has anything to do with the thrust of the post. Additionally this post doesn't seek to convince people of theism (as stated) but only offers it as a potential alternative.

The actual point was this: naturalism is an existentially dead-end worldview bereft of objective purpose and meaning, and one which is fated to the heat death of the universe. No one should be content to believe such a thing, and even a convinced naturalist should endeavor to prove it wrong.

This...

> ...the implications of naturalism and the utter oblivion it asserts we are all doomed to...

...isn't actually something people will experience, and therefore doesn't qualify as an...

> ...outcome that decrease one’s future well-being...

...and the "natural laws and forces" observed by naturalism have demonstrably produced results that can be experienced and qualify as...

> ...outcomes that increase one’s future well-being...

>To this point: "Mattering is not something that should or ever could go on for all perpetuity." >Why not?

Things change. Mattering changes. The people experiencing the thing and deciding that it matters change. None of this is possible in the infinite. I went over this.

>Are you certain there are no other worldviews that satisfy these stipulations? If not, why settle on naturalism?

Well, for one thing, I don't find naturalism unsatisfying. That should be self-evident by now.

I'm certainly convinced that all theistic (and by extention deistic) religions are man-made and have nothing to offer but wish fulfillment (as I previously eluded to), among other ills.

Buddhism I think does have a lot to say about the human experience, but I don't find any of that in conflict or even necessarily outside the bounds of naturalism. (Many atheists would agree, in my experience.) The Tao and sayings of Confucius also have a good bit of wisdom to them as well. Have you given those options a fair look..?

I'm not discussing my God here. I'm discussing how naturalism could offer objective purpose without completely redefining the word purpose. I have yet to hear any worthwhile defense from you.

I already replied to this point in the original post:

"If we let utility mean future well-being, then why arbitrarily stop measuring the impact of the future at the end of one’s life? That’s like burying your head in the sand in the face of a massive tsunami and saying, “everything’s just fine if I don’t look!” In addition, it’s not how people tend to look at other endeavors that affect peoples’ lives after they die. For example, people typically want to make positive political changes in the world before they die, leave the world a better place for their children, invent something that will make a mark on history, etc. After all, the universe continues on into the future even if the Naturalist doesn’t. Any positive utility gained now must be measured against the looming reality of infinite meaninglessness and nothingness that the future promises; the Naturalist should therefore consider how this impacts his decisions now."

>I'm not discussing my God here

I am. I am using him as an example of something you believe in as a Christian, without someone or something intending him to have come into existence, which shows that you believe that something can exist without intent. As such you lack consistency when you claim that intent is necessary for purpose to exist.

Claiming that meaning or purpose can't exist without intent is as silly as me claiming that your God couldn't exist without intent. There's no logical contradiction to the claim that something can exist without intent.

To your point: "None of this is possible in the infinite." Sure it is. Theists, for example, derive objective purpose and meaning from God's having created them for intended purposes (namely to know God and enjoy him forever). We have no issue grounding such things in God for eternal time-spans.

"Well, for one thing, I don't find naturalism unsatisfying." As you said earlier, if you could have a different outcome for the universe (+stipulations) you would. So why not be unsatisfied? Why would infinite oblivion be preferable to a continued search at minimum?

"The Tao and sayings of Confucius also have a good bit of wisdom to them as well. Have you given those options a fair look..?"

Definitely. I love philosophy of religion and have investigated Taoism and Confucianism. All said, I find the Christian truth claims to be convincing, and do not have the same pressure to "find my life jacket" that the naturalist does.

Ok. I mean, my argument doesn't rely on my theism. If everything you said was stalwart (p.s. it's not), it wouldn't make a difference as to whether objective meaning/purpose can exist on naturalism. You keep asserting it can, but give no reason to think why it can.

>Theists, for example, derive objective purpose and meaning from God's having created them for intended purposes (namely to know God and enjoy him forever).

We weren't talking about "objective purpose," we were talking about finding meaning. And I'd argue you're not finding purpose, you're just outsourcing the job of finding purpose to god.

>As you said earlier, if you could have a different outcome for the universe (+stipulations) you would.

I think you might be mixing me up with someone else you're replying to.

EDIT: Ah, sorry, I reread things and found what you were referring to. That was not a matter of if I could I would, it was stated more so that if it had better explanatory power, I would be compelled to look into it. I'm still not going to choose fantasy over reality just because it sounds nice.

>Why would infinite oblivion be preferable to a continued search at minimum?

Infinite oblivion, as you put it, isn't preferable. There are a thousand sci-fi / fantasy worlds that I've read that would be wonderful to live in. But reality is reality. Can't change that.

And as you apparently have also, I've done quite a bit of searching..

> Because we often derive meaning and value from the future impact of our actions. No one wants to labor for something they deem worthwhile only to have it destroyed.

People don't derive meaning and value solely from the future impact of their actions though. A great deal of meaning and value is derived from experience and impression, no matter how transitory.

> In either case, all of mankind's efforts will be reduced to nothing. That's a big pill to swallow now that makes a difference to one's perception of life.

I don't think it makes anymore of a difference in our day-to-day lives than the realities of climate change, economic collapse, a global pandemic, global conflict, or the fact that most of us will be forgotten in a generation or two. But people continue to find reasons -- usually personal reasons -- to live.

> This just seems to affirm my point: there's no human-independent reason to do what we do. We will lose everything and we simply do what we enjoy now to bide the time, on naturalism.

Many people -- including theists -- choose to do nothing more than "simply do what we enjoy now to bide the time". But that isn't the only available option. Personal values, emotions, needs, and wants, etc. aren't exclusively concerned with the enjoyment of one's life.

> Just because our sense of vision is critical to our ability to apprehend the objective reality of the color red doesn't mean the color red isn't an objective reality. Similarly, emotions may be critical to our ability to apprehend the objective reality of meaning, but that doesn't mean meaning itself isn't an objective reality.

An "objective reality of meaning" isn't necessary or evident though. And the available evidence suggests the meaning "apprehended" by emotion is explicitly personal -- for example one patient with damage to their orbitofrontal cortex (who, again, had an inability to make decisions) remarked when listening to a song that they remembered having emotional reactions to the song before but after their accident they felt nothing at all when listening to it.

Ironically, my comment wasn’t even meant as a critique of theism. Rather, it was a critique of your plethora of arbitrary yet undeclared presumptions. For all your attempts at forming a logical presentation, your post is littered with unsupported claims and assumptions. Your argument showed undue bias before you even finished your list of premises.

By your replies, it seems your motivation lies within a perceived “hopelessness” in a life without divine motivation and the promise of an enduring afterlife. Such is more a reflection of your own discomfort and has nothing to do with the actual precepts of naturalism nor atheism. Your declaration of “dead-end worldview” is remarkably arrogant; the beliefs of others have no duty to align with your personal feelings.

You begin with far too many assumptions. Your proposal of an alternative seeks to solve an issue you are simultaneously introducing and asserting as unquestionable. No amount of discourse can be productive when you begin with such a flawed premise.

That your assumptions happen to overlap with common Christian rhetoric is ultimately irrelevant, if not also somewhat indicative of bad faith.

To your point: "I think it'd be worse if we lacked purpose, meaning, and hope, and we were trapped in fire feeling our flesh burn and blood boil forever. That fire would certainly bring an additional loss to my well-being that the other things didn't. But suit yourself."

I mean, I think that's bad too. Different kinds of infinities, different kinds of ways to be infinitely sporked. For what it's worth, I believe the Christian Scriptures indicate hell as annihilation rather than eternal conscious torment, but I suppose that's a discussion for another day.

"I want to make this clear: are you analyzing the implications of belief in naturalism per se, or of belief in naturalism and being correct about those beliefs?"

I'm saying if one believes naturalism, then their belief entails a number of believed conclusions that would color their outlook on life and expectations black. This is a threat to our current well-being when fully realized, and I know atheists who do in fact struggle living with these conclusions.

"This is an important point because your argument is trying to move us to hold a certain belief based on the well-being it entails."

To be clear, I am not pushing for anyone to hold a specific belief (e.g. theism). I am only trying to spur people into reconsidering their naturalism- the naturalist conclusions look bleak but maybe there's time yet to reconsider.

"I could prefer to be cured from my (hypothetical) terminal cancer but be justified in my belief that I will die, for example. I'm not sure how your argument works from here."

I agree. To bridge the analogy: if someone told me I had a terminal illness and that I was likely going to die, I would still seek treatment and wish to live until the day I died. While I may, in fact, be convinced that I am dying, I would remain motivated to disprove that. I certainly would not lie down, give up, and die.

>I mean, my argument doesn't rely on my theism.

Never claimed that it did, but your claim that meaning implies intention is simply false, as things can exist just fine without intent, which your religion agrees with.

>but give no reason to think why it can.

Simply because there's no reason to think that it would be impossible to exist under naturalism. If something is logically possible it's logically possible, it's as simple as that.

>Lions may be born to hunt, bees may be born to make honey, and people are often born with different talents and passions and different interests which may hint at an objective inborn purpose.

Is this possible? Ok, then meaning may be an intrinsic property of nature.

The biggest issue I have with this is that it tacitly assumes that we have the ability to choose what we believe. Barring that there are some additional issues.

I don't think P1 or P3 have been sufficiently demonstrated. For one thing I think we're double counting utility because implicitly a belief that accepts death as a terminus to life is seen as having infinite negative /marginal/ utility relative to a belief that doesn't see death as a terminus to life. Therefore we can't say that a belief which doesn't see death as a terminus to life as having infinite /positive/ marginal utility without switching frames to view the opposite belief as our default/0 point.

It's important to understand it in marginal terms because this shows how in absolute terms we actually still have cumulative positive utility even if believing that death is the ultimate endpoint somehow precludes the possibility of infinitely more positive utility in the future.

More importantly though, it's not clear how a belief that death is the terminus to life or a belief in naturalism results in infinite negative marginal utility relative to the contrary beliefs. It seems like you might be conflating someone's belief about how much utility is possible with the actual utility attained. If I believe that death is the ultimate endpoint then that may lead me to conclude that any possible utility I can accumulate stops at the point of my death (not obvious that this follows though) and therefore that I may only attain finite cumulative utility. If death ends up not being the endpoint then I may end up attaining infinite positive utility over an infinite timespan. Why would my belief that entails I can only achieve finite utility prevent me from attaining infinite utility unless we're saying that believing is a prerequisite for eternal life in which case this is sounding more and more like Pascal's wager.

But further still, why would my belief about death or naturalism even cause me to conclude that my ability to accumulate personal utility ends after death? Are you saying that the examples you give at the end such as trying to leave the world a better place for your children are invalid for Atheist Naturalists? A belief in the possibility of eternal life doesn't seem to be required for someone to have or even for them to justify desires they may have about the future state of the world after their death. I would point out though that if we're appealing to the values that people demonstrate having in every day life outside of any philosophy or theology that people seem to care much more about the immediate future after their death then about the long term future and their concern seems to dwindle exponentially the further out into the future you go. Therefore it would be reasonable to conclude that although most people implicitly have values that extend after their death that nevertheless they also seem to implicitly believe that their possible utility is bounded.

So you, personally, believe that atheism must lead to nihilism.

Your opinion does not contribute to a rational argument.

Basically not.

The Main problem is that OP is misunderstanding what naturalism AND theism means.

Naturalism is flexible enough to account for any "non natiralistic" problems.

But honestly OP chosed one of the worse examples that they could have chosen. It has more holes than the boat that the example proposed.

Unless the effects are personal and immediate, most people (including non-Naturalists) are indifferent to the concerns you're describing. Hence the use of leaded gasoline for nearly 100 years, climate change, industrial pollution, the use of slavery in major food and clothing brands, biodiversity loss, soil degradation, overfishing, wealth inequality, and so on and so forth. Heck, in some regions people are even willfully ignorant of tsunami risks!

Edit: lol I just checked your comment history. You clearly despise the "woke" crowd, but here you're suggesting people are typically that and presenting it as a virtue no less. Hilarious!

"By your replies, it seems your motivation lies within a perceived hopelessness in a life without divine motivation and the promise of an enduring afterlife."

You are already off-base. I perceive hopelessness on naturalism on the basis of its own terms, completely independent of theism. Naturalism offers only infinite nothingness and that's a problem for naturalists, some of whom have said as much to me personally.

"Your declaration of “dead-end worldview” is remarkably arrogant; the beliefs of others have no duty to align with your personal feelings."

You left off an important word. I said it is an existentially dead-end worldview. Which it is, because it asserts as much. According to naturalism, you are here by accident, for no reason, and you will cease to exist forever just as meaninglessly as you began to exist.

"No amount of discourse can be productive when you begin with such a flawed premise."

If you've got a problem with a specific premise, then you have yet to make it clear which premise that is.

"That your assumptions happen to overlap with common Christian rhetoric is ultimately irrelevant, if not also somewhat indicative of bad faith."

I am unabashedly a Christian attempting to attack naturalism, and have made this clear in my post and comments. This does not exclude good faith discussion. This is how arguments are tested, which is what this post is here for. Meanwhile, your condescension, your repeated speculation on my motivations, and your irrelevant points on theism convince me that you are the one not here in good faith.

I suggest that like the OP, you fundamentally misunderstand naturalism.

You imply that naturalism would discard observations that do not have natural explanations. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Only theists claim that naturalism is a closed system unable to adapt to unexpected evidence.

More precisely, the “illusory “ clause is false.

To your point: "People don't derive meaning and value solely from the future impact of their actions though. A great deal of meaning and value is derived from experience and impression, no matter how transitory."

Note, I said "often" not "solely." I think it's plainly obvious that people often commit to all sorts of deeply meaningful things with an expectation that it will "make a difference," "leave their mark," etc. If it all gets destroyed in the end, what's the point? What are we progressing towards that won't already be lost to oblivion and then why should these things matter to us?

"I don't think it makes anymore of a difference in our day-to-day lives than the realities of climate change, economic collapse, a global pandemic, global conflict, or the fact that most of us will be forgotten in a generation or two. But people continue to find reasons -- usually personal reasons -- to live."

I think the coming erasure of all things, especially at the end of one's immediate life, makes the whole endeavor worthless. People can try and supply themselves with self-imposed reasons to live, but the universe doesn't care on naturalism, and that's no better than religion being considered a self-imposed reason to live.

"Personal values, emotions, needs, and wants, etc. aren't exclusively concerned with the enjoyment of one's life."

Why would any of those things matter on naturalism beyond trying to make it to the grave comfortably?

"for example one patient with damage to their orbitofrontal cortex (who, again, had an inability to make decisions) remarked when listening to a song that they remembered having emotional reactions to the song before but after their accident they felt nothing at all when listening to it."

Sure, if my eyes were damaged, I would not only fail to apprehend the objective reality of things being colored red, but I would fail to apprehend my subjective experience of seeing red- of which the color itself is an objective feature of reality.

In order to clarify my response to this, could you please define naturalism, utility, and infinite.

Thanks.

It's all false: https://sites.nd.edu/arcadian-dialogues/files/2020/01/The-Convergence-of-Naturalism-and-Teleology-Grace-Schippers.pdf

Though there's a whole variety of different views on purpose under naturalism, or views which don't necessarily conflict with naturalism. But you're correct insofar as that the "illusory ones" stand out, as I'm not sure if anyone holds that view. Either objective purpose exists or it does not lol.

But maybe I'm not understanding what they mean with illusory.

Why do you think I'm making the post? My aim is to spur a subset of people (naturalists/atheists) to reconsider and take in the big picture. Seems to have had an effect on atheists I know personally.

Frankly, I don't understand your last point. It doesn't look like you're aiming to be helpful or charitable though, so I guess that's disappointing.

> Note, I said "often" not "solely." I think it's plainly obvious that people often commit to all sorts of deeply meaningful things with an expectation that it will "make a difference," "leave their mark," etc. If it all gets destroyed in the end, what's the point? What are we progressing towards that won't already be lost to oblivion and then why should these things matter to us?

I agree. People often do commit to all sorts of deeply meaningful things with an expectation that it will "make a difference," "leave their mark," etc. -- but that doesn't mean they do so with the expectation or under the condition that the results are eternal or permanent. And that doesn't mean people cannot believe temporary or transitory actions can't be deeply meaningful or won't "make a difference" either.

> Why would any of those things matter on naturalism beyond trying to make it to the grave comfortably?

Because people don't live objectively, their lives are personal affairs.

> Sure, if my eyes were damaged, I would not only fail to apprehend the objective reality of things being colored red, but I would fail to apprehend my subjective experience of seeing red- of which the color itself is an objective feature of reality.

By this reasoning similar emotional states should produce similar apprehensions of meaning, but they don't.

Well P5 reads like you're trying to get the naturalist to switch over to ("abandon in favour of") non-naturalism. If that's not what you meant, then I take the gist of your argument is that holding a belief can be so psychologically harmful to us that we should be motivated to seek reasons to hold the opposing belief (which is all that's possible in the case of naturalism), or we should make the opposing belief correct (in the case of cancer, I can invest my life savings into drug research and maybe discover a cure).

My problem is then with P3 and P4, which misuse the concept of infinity. I thought that you were talking about the effects belief has on the existence and/or nature of one's afterlife, since an afterlife is the only remotely possible means by which an infinite difference can be made to someone's well-being.

I wonder how you define well-being, what you think an infinite amount of well-being would be like, if not well-being with finite positive magnitude and infinite duration (hence the notion of an afterlife), and why you think that the naturalist is probably infinitely worse off than the non-naturalist. I know naturalist people who appear just as happy as non-naturalist ones, and while I would say that the saddest naturalist is much worse off than the happiest non-naturalist, I wouldn't call them infinitely worse off.

My own view is that since naturalists and non-naturalists share the same fate after death, the only difference to their well-being happens during their lifetimes on Earth. I also think that this difference isn't infinite, and in fact isn't appreciably different on average. At best your argument (rephrased accordingly) would be persuasive to those with serious existential worries, which could be treated with therapy or consulting the vast philosophical literature written by naturalists about said worries.

[removed]

You seem intent on using a sense of despair to evangelize and based on your choice of words I'd guess you're generally indifferent to (or in denial of) most modern problems, "burying your head in the sand in the face of a massive tsunami" as it were. But that's not the point.

The point is your claim that "people typically want to make positive political changes in the world before they die, leave the world a better place for their children, invent something that will make a mark on history, etc." doesn't account for the willfull ignorance people have for the impersonal and distant. And your claim that "positive utility gained now must be measured against the looming reality of infinite meaninglessness and nothingness that the future promises" isn't an argument to abandon Naturalism, it's just a statement of fact, and one with little weight because that future isn't personal or immediate.

I got one paragraph in and was immediately like “yep, Pascal’s wager”

> You know, you're right, we're probably going to die

Yes, sure.

> Naturalism is a belief that entails infinite negative utility for the adherent.

How?

> death is an infinite loss

First, it's strange to assign inifnite loss to non-existence.

Second, belief in Naturalism doesn't entail you will die; Naturalism (as believed in its current form) entail you will die. You have to differentiate between what is entailed from adopting a belief, and what is entailed from the content of the belief being true. You can believe in Naturalism, but may be theists are right! May be the naturalist won't die but happily suffer in hell for all eternity! Or perhaps there is a weird god who only allows Naturalism in heaven and make all theists suffer! and so on so forth. So even belief in Naturalism can only potentially lead to "infinite loss" or "infinte gain". Which makes believing in Naturalism again on par with believing in Theism.

It doesn't matter that it has nothing to offer. It's just what is. You can believe a higher power gives you the ability to bring a rotting corpse back to life, but it's not going to, and the belief in a higher power hasn't helped you bring that corpse back to life, it's just given you the delusion that it's possible to.

Theism is no less of an escape than intoxication.

Les paris stupides

Un certain Blaise Pascal - etc...

By Jacques Prévert

I see a big issue.

​

>𝐏𝟯 Naturalism is a belief that entails infinite negative utility for the adherent.
>
>𝐏𝟰 Theism is an example of a belief that can potentially entail infinite positive utility for the adherent.

The issue is: why?

To me, Naturalism would have the potential for infinite positive utility/motivation for attempting to extend it as much as possible, even in the face of low-chance-of-success.

And Theism would have have infinite negative utility because why would they want to live longer? Living longer only provides more chances for them to screw up and be sent to where they don't want to be... therefore they would want to have a shorter life and have better chances of moving onto "the good place." Or if there's only one place to move onto... they would want to hasten it's approach as it's supposed to be "better," no?

Take it back to your analogy:

>On this basis, would you say "You know, you're right, we're probably going to die" and sit down waiting for death? Or would you continue searching for a way to survive, despite the apparent futility?

A Naturalist would see the slim chance of living as their only chance of prolonging their life, and strive to do whatever they could to manipulate that chance into reality.

A Theist would look at the odds, see that their time is near and be happy that they're about to move along into "the next, better life" and therefore be fine with giving up.

I just want to interject and say I admire your patience. I feel like every point you make is refuted with just a rewording of the previous response.

[deleted]

so you are a theist only because you think you will be rewarded?

Your aim is for people to accept a comfortable lie instead of an uncomfortable fact.

It's precisely because you did not read further that you thought it was pascal's wager. I address this in the latter half of the post.

Can you give me an example of where you think I am rewording his responses?

"We weren't talking about "objective purpose," we were talking about finding meaning. And I'd argue you're not finding purpose, you're just outsourcing the job of finding purpose to god."

Sure, that's why I included meaning in the statement. Purpose is related, but not the point. I don't think there's anything objectionable about God being the ground of meaning and purpose if he's the one created things with intended purposes and imbuing reality with intentional meaning. Whether I think this or whether you agree is not entirely relevant though.

"That was not a matter of if I could I would, it was stated more so that if it had better explanatory power, I would be compelled to look into it."

Again, are you certain that there categorically are no non-naturalist views that satisfy the above? To claim "yes" to that statement would be like an admission of being omniscient.

In my own experience, every atheist convert to Christianity I met has expressed to me the certainty with which they held their beliefs only to feel ashamed of that certainty upon interacting more deeply with the intellectual tradition of the faith and changing their mind. This is also, at times, true in the reverse, and bolsters the point that we shouldn't rest too happily on certainty, especially when there's nothing to be happy about on naturalism.

"I'm still not going to choose fantasy over reality just because it sounds nice."

No one is asking you to choose something you have no justification to believe in. I'm saying you have every motivation to investigate it in light of the fact that naturalism has nothing to offer that won't be taken away. There's just no good reason to cling to naturalism; it's like being the man on the boat that just decides to sit down and die- is that your preferred option in that scenario?

>A problem for naturalists, some of whom had said as much to me personally.

Ah yes, the famous appeal to vague, uncounted and unspecified, yet unquestionable persons. Famous among populists and grade schoolers. Again, you are the one making the claim that such an idea is both problematic and also single-handedly capable of subjecting an entire belief system to “infinite negative utility,” something you continue to poorly define and justify.

You continue to prescribe some kind of divine purpose as inherent to meaning. Whether you attach objective before that word is redundant; meaning inherently is a subjective conception and not something you can arbitrarily revoke from others.

>If you’ve got a problem with a specific premise…

I have a problem with practically all your premises and their foundation on unwritten yet unavoidable preconceptions. That you somehow have managed to read through multiple paragraphs without acknowledging this is astonishing.

>This is how arguments are tested.

Your replies to others as well as to me have constantly dodged the substance of their criticisms while continuing to assert the same dubious premises. You seem less inclined to test your claims rather than defend them as unquestionably true. I speculate publicly on your motivations because you display them nakedly through your replies.

As one raised in the church myself, your argument makes a mockery of both philosophical theology and general logical debate.

[removed]

The top comment thought the same thing about it being a rerun of pascals wager and later retracted that thought. I would recommend you to that thread, since I address in my post that this is a distinct argument.

Is it logically possible that the prime minister is a prime number? Yes. Is it metaphysically possible (i.e. is it broadly logically possible?) No. Does it match reality? No. Logical possibility doesn't mean you're correct. Naturalism leaves no space for objective meaning and purpose and your reluctance to give a good argument for it is telling.

"People often do commit to all sorts of deeply meaningful things with an expectation that it will "make a difference," "leave their mark," etc. -- but that doesn't mean they do so with the expectation or under the condition that the results are eternal or permanent."

People can also just be unaware of things like the heat death of the universe or the futility of their actions. This doesn't mean their actions aren't inherently so. To be aware of what naturalism entails is to be aware of the nihilistic implications it carries.

"And that doesn't mean people cannot believe temporary or transitory actions can't be deeply meaningful or won't "make a difference" either."

Who will these temporary things matter to when the universe is dead and empty?

Sure, if my eyes were damaged, I would not only fail to apprehend the objective reality of things being colored red, but I would fail to apprehend my subjective experience of seeing red- of which the color itself is an objective feature of reality.

"By this reasoning similar emotional states should produce similar apprehensions of meaning, but they don't."

Not really. People with working eyes commonly have different subjective experiences of their objective surrounding realities. This doesn't make those surroundings unreal.

[deleted]

"You are specifically framing naturalism as pessimistic nihilism when it isn’t."

I haven't said any such thing, and I haven't said anything about the objectivity of values.

"your story is just as valid as mine despite them coming to opposite conclusions [...] I don’t think you can seriously say in good faith (pun intended) that praying is more pragmatic than taking actionable steps to survive.

But they don't have opposite conclusions, as I already explained: the naturalist wouldn't be searching for a life jacket because the naturalist already doesn't believe there is such thing as a life jacket (life beyond death or something). And oh, I very much do believe praying for your life would be a better option that doing nothing. Doing nothing results in death. Meanwhile, if there remains even the tiniest honest uncertainty about naturalism, praying might possibly result in salvation from your circumstance.

"I am very glad that countries didn’t wait for their god to finally declare slavery to be immoral after thousands of years."

This seems like a debate you want to have, but its not one that's relevant to the post. Perhaps another time.

Honestly remembering back. That wasn't Even the worst part of your argument. Just the one that stand out the most.

And from what I recall from that specific tread You were not making a good point. I wonder if the other poster just raised their arms in exahustion.

You can speculate on his motivation all day, but its just a flat misunderstanding of either my argument or pascals wager to say they're the same. If you think otherwise, please explain how they're the same argument.

Both misuse infinite. Both positive and negate

They claimed that the "god" position have infinite value.

And the "not god" position have Zero or minus infinite value.

Both use the same appeal to consecuences fallacy to coerse certain answer.

The only diference as far as I could read was that Yours "only" wanted to "reasses" the bias of naturalism or something like that???? Wich again. Is just Pascal's wager with more steps.

"Ah yes, the famous appeal to vague, uncounted and unspecified, yet unquestionable persons."

I'm just relating my experience. Why you feel so sensitive as to interpret what I said here as an argument is beyond me.

"Again, you are the one making the claim that such an idea is both problematic and also single-handedly capable of subjecting an entire belief system to “infinite negative utility,” something you continue to poorly define and justify."

Actually I have a whole post explaining my reasoning. If you're still confused, feel free to ask for clarification like an honest commenter in good faith discussion would.

"You continue to prescribe some kind of divine purpose as inherent to meaning."

I literally said that nowhere. And my argument doesn't rely at all on my theism.

"Whether you attach objective before that word is redundant"

Wrong word and wrong statement. The word is "existentially." Naturalism is an existentially dead-end worldview.

"meaning inherently is a subjective conception and not something you can arbitrarily revoke from others."

I don't believe that's true, but it's not really relevant since I am trying to make the same point: on naturalism, meaning is not objective.

"I have a problem with practically all your premises and their foundation on unwritten yet unavoidable preconceptions."

That's the definition of a vague and unspecified rebuttal if I've ever heard one, folks.

"I speculate publicly on your motivations because you display them nakedly through your replies"

This is almost humorous at this point, since I made my motivations quite clear already: I am a Christian who is here to attack naturalism and see how the philosophy community on reddit responds to an argument I like to use. So far, I have found the experience invigorating and confirming of some thoughts of mine.

"As one raised in the church myself, your argument makes a mockery of both philosophical theology and general logical debate."

Ok, feel free to get specific and discuss something of substance whenever you'd like.

Wow that just makes it all the more clear. Lesson time:

Pascal's Wager more or less says one should believe in God because doing so entails infinite gain if correct and only finite loss if wrong. Meanwhile the atheist position entails only finite gain if correct and infinite loss if wrong (hell). So the rational person should believe in God/Christianity.

My argument makes no such conclusion. In short, it says naturalism (if correct) entails infinite loss. This is less preferable than worldviews that don't entails infinite loss, so it should motivate one to seek to disprove naturalism, and only discontentedly accept it.

So its like I said: the arguments are not the same. The conclusions are not the same. It is only similar insofar as it is a pragmatic approach to the issue of infinite gain/loss around beliefs and such.

It's the same. Wording differently but the same results.

>infinite loss if wrong (hell).

>naturalism (if correct) entails infinite loss

You would only are changing the rows.

Also si wrong. Because naturalism doesn't entails infinite lose. But that is one of the other mistakes that You Made.

Not the same premises or conclusion, but you still think they're the same argument. Haha ok. I'll just refer you over to the other more interesting comment thread I had on this.

I'm more interesting in knowing if You realise that You never talk about Theism here???.

Have someone told You that???

This argument only posits theism as an example of a potential alternative and really doesn't care about the truth or falsity of theism. Like I said, I'll just refer you elsewhere in this thread because you just don't seem to understand:

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/100zfxn/atheistic_naturalism_does_not_offer_any_longterm/j2lln47/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

But You based your definition of naturalism by using this (false) definition of theism. The minus infinite stuff and all that jazz.

> People can also just be unaware of things like the heat death of the universe or the futility of their actions. This doesn't mean their actions aren't inherently so. To be aware of what naturalism entails is to be aware of the nihilistic implications it carries.

People have a way of getting caught up in moments, being carried away by their emotions, and running with new ideas. They don't usually adopt a permanent attitude or behaviour based on the absurdly distant future.

> Who will these temporary things matter to when the universe is dead and empty?

2000 years ago in the city of Pompeii a parent had love for their child, a man gave a beggar bread, and two lovers shared an embrace. And absolutely none of it matters to you or me, or anyone alive today, but it mattered to them and that was enough for them.

> Sure, if my eyes were damaged, I would not only fail to apprehend the objective reality of things being colored red, but I would fail to apprehend my subjective experience of seeing red- of which the color itself is an objective feature of reality.

> Not really. People with working eyes commonly have different subjective experiences of their objective surrounding realities. This doesn't make those surroundings unreal.

What colour is the dress? Was that a rabbit or a duck? Do you see Rubin's vase or two opposing faces?

If meaning were universal, if it were objective, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There would be no arguments about what it means to love or the meaning of a cigar.

"People have a way of getting caught up in moments, being carried away by their emotions, and running with new ideas. They don't usually adopt a permanent attitude or behaviour based on the absurdly distant future."

I mean, I think they should since it has implications for every action they take now e.g. their actions are null and void in the face of heat death, among other things- that matters now. But I don't think this is all that important to discuss, because it's another thing altogether to talk about what is the case. People think they're leaving their mark, making a difference, etc. but are in fact only constructing what is to be destroyed. Adding time in between doesn't change that and only adds the illusion of lasting effect. I wonder, for example, how many people would bother writing a lengthy autobiography if the manuscript were to be immediately thrown away upon finishing it and the person's memory were to be wiped of its contents.

"2000 years ago in the city of Pompeii a parent had love for their child, a man gave a beggar bread, and two lovers shared an embrace. And absolutely none of it matters to you or me, or anyone alive today, but it mattered to them and that was enough for them."

This example only matters at all to anyone because we're here to be aware of it. This example is less touching than it is depressing, which is more or less my point.

"What colour is the dress? Was that a rabbit or a duck? Do you see Rubin's vase or two opposing faces? If meaning were universal, if it were objective, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There would be no arguments about what it means to love or the meaning of a cigar."

Frankly, apples and oranges. People do find similarities and come to similar conclusions about meaning all the time. A more analogous set of questions would be: "Is that duck forwards or broadside?" or "How red is that dress to you?" which involves the subjective element of the observer superimposed on the objective reality. To your second point, that's plainly false, as people come to different conclusions about objective matters all the time. The students in a calculus class have different answers to the same math question, but that doesn't mean there isn't an objectively correct answer. Misperception of an objective thing doesn't make it not objective.

Sidenote: This last part of the discussion on meaning is interesting and all, but it's really not relevant to the main discussion, since I agree that on naturalism, there is no reason why meaning would be objective.

[removed]

[removed]

> Who will these temporary things matter to when the universe is dead and empty?

> > 2000 years ago in the city of Pompeii a parent had love for their child, a man gave a beggar bread, and two lovers shared an embrace. And absolutely none of it matters to you or me, or anyone alive today, but it mattered to them and that was enough for them.

> > > This example only matters at all to anyone because we're here to be aware of it.

I pity you.

I’m not sure what he means by any of it.

Ok, feel free to pity me, but I think you're missing the point: I am happily a theist. I don't believe the world is meaningless, purposeless, etc personally. It is the naturalist that is pitiful, because when he is led to the conclusions of his worldview, he is left without hope, meaning, or purpose, except that which he can delude himself into having subjectively.

This isn't a compelling monologue. All that you've convinced me of is that family, love, music, and everything else in your life is meaningless and hollow without the promise of permanence and righteousness. Honestly, you've turned me away from theism even more.

>Does it match reality?

A supernatural God for which we have absolutely no evidence (and for which by the way you also show yourself reluctant to give a good argument for) would be a much worse predictor of purpose existing in the universe compared to (if there is something like an objective purpose) the idea of it being baked into nature, through genes or determinism or you know, objective stuff in reality we have good evidence for.

Nature gives us stuff, like it gave me brown eyes. Is there any evidence of the supernatural ever giving anyone anything or that it matches reality?

>Naturalism leaves no space for objective meaning

It does, we just established that and your attempts at refuting it have failed so far.

I'm pretty agnostic on whether there is such a thing as objective purpose so I also don't feel very strongly about showing that it exists. In the end it's kind of irrelevant because whether meaning is objective or subjective as long as people find a good purpose which isn't based on (theistic or not) harmful delusion the result is going to be the same, as many others here already have pointed out.

Your cognitive dissonance on how you think that the absence of intent is a good argument for not believing there could be purpose in nature on the one hand, while at the same time believing in a God who was never intentionally created is also not for me to solve. That's your problem (lest you just want to keep arguing from preference rather than from anything substantial). I'm not obliged to take a stance on anything.

But then you can look at the paper I posted in this thread or the Stoics (Marcus Aurelius Meditations chapter 5 iirc) or the Daoists (Wu Wei) etc. if you're looking for good arguments of objective purpose existing in nature, or on how to live with one's own inner Nature/Purpose/Will (and I find their arguments still a lot more convincing than your supernatural woo. If this was pascal's wager that's where I would put my bet.) But in the end your claim that naturalism requires the view that objective purpose doesn't exist is still false, and that's all I wanted to show.

For one, it's not a monologue, as we've been having an exchange of words. Personally, my life is rich in meaning because it is rooted in the One who imbues meaning and creates with purpose. And I think the fact that you so clearly believe there is meaning to be had even when your worldview denies the objective reality of such things is a sign of naturalism's weakness. Your decision to turn away from or towards theism is entirely your own.

lol How childish do you have to be to take offense to the very idea of personal meaning, to need your meaning to be universal?

To your point: "A supernatural God for which we have absolutely no evidence (and for which by the way you also show yourself reluctant to give a good argument for) would be a much worse predictor of purpose existing in the universe compared to (if there is something like an objective purpose) the idea of it being baked into nature, through genes or determinism or you know, objective stuff in reality we have good evidence for."

This, again, is just not important to the argument. Even if I granted that nature was a better foundation for objective purpose than God (I don't), it wouldn't change the argument that naturalism doesn't itself provide a good foundation for objective purpose. I think there are plenty of good arguments for God's existence (e.g. arguments from natural theology like the Kalam), but it's just not relevant.

"It does, we just established that and your attempts at refuting it have failed so far."

We most certainly did not establish that. In fact, I just finished pointing out how you are conflating logical possibility and metaphysical possibility.

"I'm pretty agnostic on whether there is such a thing as objective purpose so I also don't feel very strongly about showing that it exists."

You've been arguing with me for a fair chunk of time about this very issue. It's odd to me that you say this now.

"it's kind of irrelevant because whether meaning is objective or subjective as long as people find a good purpose which isn't based on (theistic or not) harmful delusion the result is going to be the same"

The result is not the same at all. If meaning/purpose is objective (i.e. human-independent), then this brings up all sorts of questions related to the source- who or what assigns meaning to us? Is there a telos for the universe, value in one's actions or inactions, etc? and so forth. Not to mention it would give us reason to think naturalism is false, since it seems to be incompatible on a worldview where we are just biological accidents of natural forces.

"You can look at the paper I posted in this thread or the Stoics (Marcus Aurelius Meditations chapter 5 iirc) or the Daoists (Wu Wei) etc. if you're looking for good arguments of objective purpose existing in nature"

I can always appreciate a good reference. Count me interested.

"But in the end your claim that naturalism requires the view that objective purpose doesn't exist is still false, and that's all I wanted to show."

While you've referred me to some arguments elsewhere, you haven't shown anything in particular. I still very much think that naturalism precludes objective purpose/meaning, since things existing is just a brute fact on naturalism- it doesn't seem there's any rhyme or reason why they exist.

>it wouldn't change the argument that naturalism doesn't itself provide a good foundation for objective purpose.

As I've shown it would provide a better foundation as we have good evidence for nature existing, but yet you opt for (as far as we know) made up stuff.

>In fact, I just finished pointing out how you are conflating logical possibility and metaphysical possibility.

You did not, as monism is a thing. If something is logically possible it's logically possible, again. This is not something you can argue around.

>If meaning/purpose is objective (i.e. human-independent), then this brings up all sorts of questions related to the source- who or what assigns meaning to us?

It makes no difference to the result is what I said. None of what you said makes any difference to the result of our actions, in this world.

>Not to mention it would give us reason to think naturalism is false, since it seems to be incompatible on a worldview where we are just biological accidents of natural forces.

Not really because nature would still be the most likely candidate.

>it doesn't seem there's any rhyme or reason why they exist.

Just like your God again but yet you believe in him. In the end what you have here is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

"As I've shown it would provide a better foundation as we have good evidence for nature existing, but yet you opt for (as far as we know) made up stuff."

Why do you keep saying you've "shown" something? You've only asserted your point and called it logically possible, which is just to say it does not contradict itself. That's not an argument much less a demonstration of anything. "Nature existing" certainly doesn't make an obvious connection to objectivity of purpose/meaning. I appreciate that you've added references to other people's arguments, but again this is a far cry from showing something to be true.

"You did not, as monism is a thing."

Surely you're not using monism as a justification to conflate logical possibility and metaphysical possibility...

"If something is logically possible it's logically possible, again. This is not something you can argue around."

Haha I'm not trying to get around it! I don't think that objective purpose on naturalism is logically impossible- I'm saying there's no good reason given to think it's actual. If you want to put a period on the discussion with links for me to go follow up on, that's all good and well. Otherwise, this is just going to require some arguments to be developed and discussed.

"It makes no difference to the result is what I said. None of what you said makes any difference to the result of our actions, in this world."

Whether the result of our actions are the same or not is trivial to me. If human life has objective purpose, then that has numerous profound implications for humanity that would make the difference between a listless, meaningless life and one that is isn't.

"Just like your God again but yet you believe in him."

This isn't the thread for your beef with God. The fact that you keep attacking what I have repeatedly noted is irrelevant gives me the impression that you're intentionally trying to divert the discussion- now why would someone do that? 🤔

>Why do you keep saying you've "shown" something?

Because that's what I did. The fact that you fail to understand such a simple argument just shows how hard you cling to your religious views how this causes you to refuse or make you unable to adopt a different point of view, even as a hypothetical, as well as how closed minded you show yourself to be.

Someone stating, a personal creator God exists and has given us an objective purpose.

Is there anything contradictory in that statement which could cause it not to be true? If not (and I personally think there's not) then it's possibly true. If it's possibly true then theism allows for objective meaning.

Someone stating: The main activity of lions is hunting so it seems like their objective purpose is to hunt, and maybe nature has imbued them with this purpose to balance itself or the ecosystem.

Anything contradictory there? Nope, so it could be true. Very similar statements. In the first statement it does not matter whether God truly exists, or why God exists, or why he has given us objective meaning, or how God has given us objective meaning. As long as it's not contradictory it could be true. Same for the other statement. It does not matter why purpose would exist in nature or why it has the property of balancing itself or why this person is born with an urge to become an artist or how nature gives the birds and the bees a purpose. It does not even matter if such an objective purpose truly exists (at least for as long as it's not falsified and shown to be contradicting with some novel discovery). All of that is irrelevant. If it's not logically contradictory it could be true. If it can be true then naturalism does not reject objective purpose, and a naturalist can include it if they think they have a good reason to (and I already pointed to naturalistic or close to naturalistic philosophies which do).

Whether you have a reason to believe it is also irrelevant. Your ignorance or refusal or inability to imagine how it could work is not a good counter-argument either, just as "you haven't shown me how God could give people objective meaning" would fail as an argument for theism being antithetical toward objective meaning. All which matters is if it possibly could be true, and anything else is just distraction.

The argument is as simple as the theist's argument for God giving us purpose or, no, it's even simpler as my argument doesn't require an extra added supernatural entity we have no evidence of. But yet you fail to understand, which means you're either extremely obtuse or not very honest with yourself.

>that's not an argument much less a demonstration of anything.

It is, it shows naturalism indeed does not contradict a believe in objective purpose. If it doesn't contradict logic it could be true.

>certainly doesn't make an obvious connection to objectivity of purpose/meaning.

That's irrelevant. I don't care if you believe it or not or think there's an obvious connection. Your idea that it's somehow impossible is false and that's all I wanted to show.

>this is a far cry from showing something to be true.

I don't care if it's true. I'm not here to show that it's true, again. Your claim was there's no foundation, even though there's objective physical stuff to point to while all you have to bring to the table is philosophical speculations like Kalam which has been debunked a million times apparently. Regardless of whether purpose exists in nature or not there is an objective physical foundation for the idea, where you have only speculative hot air to offer.

>Surely you're not using monism as a justification to conflate logical possibility and metaphysical possibility...

Your claim was that it was (metaphysically) impossible for the prime minister to be a prime number. But yet the Pythagoreans as well as the Neo-Platonists, Kabbalists and other philosophies or mystical strands derived from or related to monism prove you wrong. They could be correct and the basic foundation of reality and everything which exists could be numbers.

(also, the way you used "metaphysical possibility" is just meaningless word-babble in the context of this discussion. If anything you've just shown that you don't understand metaphysics or what it means for something to be metaphysically possible)

>I don't think that objective purpose on naturalism is logically impossible

Well, good, because it is logically possible. And it means that naturalism does not preclude objective meaning.

>I'm saying there's no good reason given to think it's actual.

It does not matter to me if it's actual. You claimed naturalism precludes objective meaning. It does not.

>Whether the result of our actions are the same or not is trivial to me.

That just makes your whole boat hypothetical meaningless then, because the only ones who are not going for the life jacket are the depressed nihilists who see no meaning or the delusional theists who think some supernatural force is going to save them. Everyone else will be going for the life jacket and the result will be the same, regardless of the existence of or their belief in objective meaning or not.

But I agree. Pascal's boat did sound like trivial drivel, at least the way you put it.

>This isn't the thread for your beef with God.

That was just me pointing out that you're using an argument from ignorance fallacy, reaching conclusions based merely on preference, and keep ignoring your cognitive dissonance while you keep using bad arguments which hold as much weight against the existence of your God as they do against objective purpose in nature. In other words you want to have your cake and eat it too. There's nothing there which indicates I have a beef with your God.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Sorry if I worded that poorly. I meant that I feel you were rewording your own responses. The whole chain essentially boiled down to "yeah but without an eternal afterlife what's the point in doing anything," which you just repeated using different vocabulary.

Not that that isn't a valid philosophical stance, of course. Just makes for a very exhausting conversation

I'm sorry it appears that way, since I've been trying to respond with intention to each of the points in the conversation. I would invite you to reassess the thread as the post winds down to see the development of these points.

You seem to be repeatedly misunderstanding logical and metaphysical possibility, even at one point saying,

"also, the way you used "metaphysical possibility" is just meaningless word-babble in the context of this discussion. If anything you've just shown that you don't understand metaphysics or what it means for something to be metaphysically possible"

Your own words apply to you far more than they do to me. Let's review the meaning of these terms, since it seems like you need it:

X is strictly logically possible if, and only if, X is consistent with the laws of logic.

X is broadly logically possible (i.e. metaphysically possible) if, and only if, X is true in at least one possible world.

Now let's look at the statements you made below:

"Someone stating, a personal creator God exists and has given us an objective purpose. Is there anything contradictory in that statement which could cause it not to be true? If not (and I personally think there's not) then it's possibly true. If it's possibly true then theism allows for objective meaning."

The statement is strictly logically possible, because it doesn't appear to contradict itself. But it is not shown to be metaphysically possible, since there is no reason given here to think it's actually possible in a given world and compatible with reality. That would take some development to show (which theists would have no problem doing) and is not just a given. Now lets look at the other statement:

"Someone stating: The main activity of lions is hunting so it seems like their objective purpose is to hunt, and maybe nature has imbued them with this purpose to balance itself or the ecosystem. Anything contradictory there? Nope, so it could be true."

I agree they are similar, which is why I would say the exact same thing: while not self-contradictory on its face, you yourself have not developed any reason to think this is true in any possible world. You seem to take it that it's a foregone conclusion and compatible with reality, while I've expressed there seems to be good reasons to think that's not clear. To show that, you would need to do that which you earlier said you are a self-declared agnostic about and say you don't care to do, which is to go about proving the claim.

"(and I already pointed to naturalistic or close to naturalistic philosophies which do)"

Yes, this is why I said you've pointed to others who endeavor to show this, but you yourself have not shown this, nor do you say you care to.

"just as "you haven't shown me how God could give people objective meaning" would fail as an argument for theism being antithetical toward objective meaning."

While it wouldn't be an argument proper, it would be a completely reasonable request to ask the theist to defend the metaphysical possibility of his statement. Can the statement "God is a the foundation for objective purpose and meaning" be a true description of reality in at least one possible world? Let the theist develop and defend that! It's certainly not a given and neither is your statement.

"But yet you fail to understand, which means you're either extremely obtuse or not very honest with yourself."

Option C: you don't understand fully what you're talking about.

"Your claim was there's no foundation, even though there's objective physical stuff to point to while all you have to bring to the table is philosophical speculations like Kalam which has been debunked a million times apparently."

The existence of trees, bees, and rocks does little to develop or prove your point. Meanwhile your New Atheist vibes here about the Kalam being "debunked a million times!" just serves to display your ignorance of matters in philosophy of religion. Feel free to think what you want about the Kalam (irrelevant to the post), but at least the theist is developing an argument.

"Your claim was that it was (metaphysically) impossible for the prime minister to be a prime number. But yet the Pythagoreans as well as the Neo-Platonists, Kabbalists and other philosophies or mystical strands derived from or related to monism prove you wrong. They could be correct and the basic foundation of reality and everything which exists could be numbers."

If you want to say, as monism implies, that cats and hats, good and evil, or prime ministers and prime numbers are indistinguishable, then by all means feel free to take up a defense for it. It will especially be interesting, since your last statement is completely incompatible with naturalism, as naturalism doesn't allow for the actual independent existence of non-physical abstract objects like numbers. I see no reason to think "they could be correct."

"That just makes your whole boat hypothetical meaningless then, because the only ones who are not going for the life jacket are the depressed nihilists who see no meaning or the delusional theists who think some supernatural force is going to save them. Everyone else will be going for the life jacket and the result will be the same, regardless of the existence of or their belief in objective meaning or not."

This just misunderstands the boat analogy on multiple levels. For one, theists are analogical to the ones looking for a life jacket (i.e. survival past death), not sitting stagnant like the naturalist. Second, I said evaluating the outcomes of people's actions in light of the objectivity of purpose is trivial to whether purpose is actually objective or not. That is, what people do has no bearing on whether purpose is objective or not. I didn't the say the outcomes are the same, that naturalism is actually the case, or that the results of people's actions overall are trivial. The problem is that you're conflating the boat discussion with the objective purpose discussion- they are distinct.

"But I agree. Pascal's boat did sound like trivial drivel, at least the way you put it."

That's because it's clear that you misunderstand a lot in this conversation, despite all your condescension.

"There's nothing there which indicates I have a beef with your God."

Except that you are insistent on attacking the veracity of theism (which isn't on the table, as I have said a number of times) and your comments ooze contempt for theism. You should stick to the topic and focus on making a defense for your own claims.

"based on your choice of words I'd guess you're generally indifferent to (or in denial of) most modern problems, "burying your head in the sand in the face of a massive tsunami" as it were."

You assume wrong. I am neither indifferent to nor in denial of such things.

"The point is your claim that "people typically want to make positive political changes in the world before they die, leave the world a better place for their children, invent something that will make a mark on history, etc." doesn't account for the willfull ignorance people have for the impersonal and distant."

I agree that naturalists are often ignorant of the implications of their worldview. Again, that's why I'm making this argument- I think naturalists should follow their worldview to its conclusions and take a long hard look at whether that's something they want to sit on or perhaps instead endeavor to disprove.

"And your claim that "positive utility gained now must be measured against the looming reality of infinite meaninglessness and nothingness that the future promises" isn't an argument to abandon Naturalism, it's just a statement of fact"

I agree it's a statement of fact, on naturalism (i.e. if that worldview is held to be true). And this conclusion should compel people to be dissatisfied with naturalism, not cling to it proudly.

I think it will be helpful to try and clarify a few things; perhaps I was misunderstanding you or was otherwise not clear. I am saying naturalism entails a number of conclusions that are infinitely bad if the worldview is in fact true. Someone who believes naturalism will thus be tethered to a worldview that should appropriately cause someone existential dread and dissatisfaction. This should motivate them to try and disprove naturalism. I don't think naturalism is infinitely psychologically harmful, to be clear.

"I wonder how you define well-being"

Just in the ordinary sense of "happy, content, healthy, etc."

"what you think an infinite amount of well-being would be like, if not well-being with finite positive magnitude and infinite duration (hence the notion of an afterlife)"

While I do think a theistic worldview is most appropriate, there are other non-theistic worldviews that could conceivably allow for infinite well-being e.g. some forms of spiritualism or reincarnation.

"At best your argument (rephrased accordingly) would be persuasive to those with serious existential worries, which could be treated with therapy or consulting the vast philosophical literature written by naturalists about said worries."

Right, I suppose you could say I am trying to inspire serious existential worries for the naturalist, since their worldview appears to entail serious consequences when taken to its conclusions.

Sidenote: thanks for interacting with the content of the post and being pleasant.

>I am saying naturalism entails a number of conclusions that are infinitely bad if the worldview is in fact true. Someone who believes naturalism will thus be tethered to a worldview that should appropriately cause someone existential dread and dissatisfaction. This should motivate them to try and disprove naturalism. I don't think naturalism is infinitely psychologically harmful, to be clear.

I think we've finally worked our way towards the actual ideas you wanted to say in your argument, which with your exact wording were communicated poorly and ended up being lost.

The most important point I've been making is that a state of the word (ex. naturalism being true) is a very different thing from a belief in that state (ex. belief in naturalism), with different impacts on one's well-being. In light of this, the wording of P3 and P4 need to be changed, if you ever wish to present this argument again.

If you want to focus on the things that affect well-being by an infinite amount, your premises would be:

P3: Naturalism being true entails losing out on infinite utility.

P4: Non-naturalism being true maybe entails having infinite utility.

The problem with these is that P5 becomes a complete non-sequitur. Whether or not naturalism is true, hence whether or not I might get infinite utility, is independent of what I believe. So what reason do I have to disprove or abandon my belief?

If you want to keep the premises related to one's beliefs, as I think you should, then they would be:

P3: Belief in naturalism causes a large loss in utility.

P4: Belief in non-naturalism maybe causes a large gain in utility.

The problem with these is that they may not both be true for someone. In fact, I'm quite sure they're false for someone familiar with the relevant philosophy on how to live a virtuous and happy life under naturalism.

And if there are other ways to render P3 and P4 false other than disproving or abandoning naturalism, then P5 is a non-sequitur in this case too. Why should your recommended course of action be the one I take? Why wouldn't it be better to take up therapy or philosophy instead, and keep holding my belief?

In the end, I don't agree with the argument, but I am sympathetic to people who suffer from existential dread and take to non-naturalism to help address it. Anyways, it's been fun talking with you.

I see the problem finally. You think that bc naturalists don’t believe in a supernatural afterlife, they must have absolutely no desire to fight for their own life and don’t even believe in the value of a literal life jacket. You won’t engage in my contrasting story bc it doesn’t affirm your rigid strawman. I can’t tell if your arguing in good faith

To be clear, dying in the boat analogy is not just death, but perma-death. Naturalists believe this is what will happen to them- why would they be looking for a life jacket (e.g. some way to survive perma-death) unless they're taking my advice and seeking to disprove what naturalism entails? I think that's what they should do, but it's not what many naturalists who are content with their naturalism actually do. Instead, they cling to their naturalism.

As for your contrast story, I don't see the contrast, and I already engaged it in my last comment. Is there something there that you think I haven't yet engaged with?

My bad, perhaps I’ve just continually misinterpreted you if you only discussing the purely metaphorical permadeath bc I kept thinking you were arguing both the metaphor and the literal. I got lost in the metaphor in that case

But this is just Pascal, again. “If there is permadeath and I don’t pray, I die. If there is permadeath and I do pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I don’t pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I do pray, I live. Therefore, I should pray bc I lose nothing but possibly gain everything”

I don’t know how many naturalists would deny others of the comfort of a metaphorical life jacket to permadeath, but if someone is frantically searching and finding nothing, then it seems reasonable for a naturalist to help them come to terms with the situation instead of living in eternal panic

Addressing the first set of premises you suggest:

"The problem with these is that P5 becomes a complete non-sequitur. Whether or not naturalism is true, hence whether or not I might get infinite utility, is independent of what I believe. So what reason do I have to disprove or abandon my belief?"

This gets back to P2: a worldview that entails infinite positive utility is preferable to a worldview that entails losing out on that (reworded for clarity and to entertain the changes you suggested). If it made little difference, the motivation would be weak, but given the magnitude of loss on naturalism, it seems like that would be a good reason to hope it's not true and therefore good reason to seek to disprove it. That is, if you desire to be well and live (a fair assumption for most people).

In light of the boat analogy: even if you are convinced you are likely going to die, fighting to live is preferable to doing nothing because the possibility of living (despite being small) is preferable to dying. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts in terms of this analogy, since this is where my intuition for this idea started.

To the second set of premises you suggest:

"The problem with these is that they may not both be true for someone. In fact, I'm quite sure they're false for someone familiar with the relevant philosophy on how to live a virtuous and happy life under naturalism."

I know many naturalists think this way on the basis of philosophical reasoning, but (no offense) to me it seems like a sort of coping mechanism in the face of an execution date, the very thing naturalists often accuse theists of (especially the suggestion of therapy). This is why I've tried to argue throughout the comment section that naturalism offers only a objectively purposeless, meaningless, and altogether hopeless outlook i.e. I reject that there is a way to live happily on naturalism when it's taken to it's full conclusions (except by self-delusion or something).

But I did step into your story. I said the naturalist ought to join his religious friend in prayer. If what you mean is that I'm not agreeing with the way you've reimagined the boat analogy, then yeah- it's faulty, because it misinterprets what naturalism entails (no life jacket).

"It is completely unreasonable to assume that by believing there isn’t an afterlife, naturalists must therefore have no desire to preserve their own life."

I wasn't making that point at all. In fact, I'm saying the opposite: the naturalist's life preserving instinct should motivate him to seek to disprove naturalism, since that worldview entails perma-death. You seem to be confusing my statement that naturalism entails perma-death (no life jacket) with an assumption that naturalists wouldn't try to survive perma-death. As I said, I very much think they should try and survive perma-death! But this would be a rejection of naturalism, since naturalism leaves no room for such things when the universe is destined to perma-death itself (heat death) and leaves no room for things like afterlives.

"Your strawman is a fallacy, your story is absurd, and you can talk with any naturalist to realize this yourself if you want to do more than speculate."

I mean, I've been discussing this with literally just about everyone on this comment section (mostly naturalists), and I don't find your assessment accurate. In fact, this whole post has been heartening to me, since this hostile comment section (reddit being what it is) has had little to say that I haven't already discussed or thought of with colleagues and theological minded friends of mine. I think if I were on that boat, an effort to survive would be a clear choice.

I apologize, I edited my comment entirely once I realized what you were saying and I didn’t get it done before you saw and responded. I’ll repost here

My bad, perhaps I’ve just continually misinterpreted you if you only discussing the purely metaphorical permadeath bc I kept thinking you were arguing both the metaphor and the literal. I got lost in the metaphor in that case

But this is just Pascal, again. “If there is permadeath and I don’t pray, I die. If there is permadeath and I do pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I don’t pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I do pray, I live. Therefore, I should pray bc I lose nothing but possibly gain everything”

I don’t know how many naturalists would deny others of the comfort of a metaphorical life jacket to permadeath, but if someone is frantically searching and finding nothing, then it seems reasonable for a naturalist to help them come to terms with the situation instead of living in eternal panic

No problem! Sorry if I wasn't clear.

"But this is just Pascal, again. “If there is permadeath and I don’t pray, I die. If there is permadeath and I do pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I don’t pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I do pray, I live. Therefore, I should pray bc I lose nothing but possibly gain everything”

It's similar, but only insofar as it is a pragmatic approach to the issue of infinite gain/loss around beliefs and such. To compare:

Pascal's Wager more or less says one should believe in God because doing so entails infinite gain if correct and only finite loss if wrong. Meanwhile the atheist position entails only finite gain if correct and infinite loss if wrong (hell). So the rational person should believe in God and/or Christianity.

My argument has a different conclusion. In short, it says naturalism (if correct) entails infinite loss. This is less preferable than worldviews that don't entail such loss, so it should motivate one to seek to disprove naturalism.

"I don’t know how many naturalists would deny others of the comfort of a metaphorical life jacket to permadeath, but if someone is frantically searching and finding nothing, then it seems reasonable for a naturalist to help them come to terms with the situation instead of living in eternal panic."

I can see why that would be a course of action in non life or death circumstances, but when perma-death is around the corner, there's nothing to be gained by coming to terms. Panic, despair, frantic searching, and even crying out to a God all make sense to me! If there's even an infinitesimal chance that naturalism is incorrect, it would worth investigating for the naturalist.

Naturalism only has infinite loss if you are starting with the axiom that there is an afterlife. It doesn’t matter if your argument isn’t literally the exact framing of Pascal, it is rooted in the exact same logic

I mean, on naturalism we will lose the universe to heat death. That's about as bad as it gets. In light of that, do you see why I would think it's prudent for the naturalist to try and disprove his/her naturalism?

A naturalist is in all likelihood a supporter of science, and science is not based on answers we find comfortable. Not liking a fact in front of us and deciding to believe something else solely bc it is more comfortable is not a persuasive argument. There isn’t anything prudent about it, it feels more immature than anything

Besides, no human being will be around for the heat death of the universe. The sun will go supernova in 5 billion years, a time frame 1 million times longer than human civilization has existed

If science is used to better our world away from the interference of political ideology or reliance on miracles, and a consequence of that is knowing of the end to the universe being so far away that the human mind cannot even comprehend a time scale that large, where any life is long long gone, I and many people are perfectly okay with that

To be clear, I'm definitely not saying you should believe something you have no justification to believe. That would be foolish- agreed. I'm saying the implications of naturalism should spark motivation to seek out holes in naturalism, to seek to disprove it, even if you remain convinced for the time being.

"Besides, no human being will be around for the heat death of the universe. The sun will go supernova in 5 billion years"

Funny enough, I agree! I'm not even sure we'll make it that far. Some naturalists I've spoken to have been rather...optimistic about our future as a species, which is why I point out the big kaput (heat death).

The motivation to seek out holes in naturalism based on the discomfort of facts of reality sounds exactly like going into denial bc facts of life and society are uncomfortable. Not every answer in life is comfortable, regardless of if someone believes in the supernatural or not. It is how life is, it isn’t perfect, it isn’t always happy. To me, that motivation is antithetical to humans maturing from childhood and adolescence

But it's not denial, since I'm not saying anyone should deny naturalism on this basis. If they find it to be most rational, they're rational to hold that view. But I think there's no reason to be satisfied with it, however. There's good reason to hope it's not true and no reason to hope it is. If "maturity" is sitting on the boat waiting for death, then I'll take fighting to live every time. I don't see naturalism as a certainty, and therefore I see life as a possibility.

1.) Do you agree there's good reason to hope it's not true?

2.) Do you want to live? If so, isn't fighting to live worth it?

If you want to operate off that hope, okay, but I take issue with you saying that others should operate off your blind hope and pursuit of comfort over life. Is there a good reason to hope that no one will ever murder ever again? To hope that an abusive relative will stop hurting me if I just love them even harder? I’m not saying acceptance of naturalism is a mark of maturity, I am saying that arguing based entirely on hope and comfort is antithetical to children learning about life and maturing

It’s not that anyone is hoping there isn’t an afterlife in any form whatsoever, it is that is completely pointless to hope for something that will not happen. Blind hope based on nothing but comfort keeps people from moving on with their lives. It can waste emotional energy, it can encourage unhealthy passivity, and it can be directly harmful to life. Hoping for years that an ex partner will take me back will prevent me from moving on and finding the relationship I am meant to be in. Hoping that every driver will swerve away as I’m walking into traffic blind will not be conducive to a goal of long life. The whole point of maturing is learning that life and existence do not operate on hope, no matter how much any of us want it to be

Your use of the analogy to say that it is either inaction or action is flawed by you are assuming that there must be a stage for action, a place of loss and gain. That isn’t a good argument for hope bc you are already supposing too much and has the exact same flaws as Pascal’s Wager

If the circumstance were less dire, there might be conceivable temporary tradeoffs to accepting less favorable beliefs e.g. self preservation with the murder example. But given the life-or-death stakes of perma-death and the permanency of perma-death, avoiding the loss of literally everything seems like as good a reason as any to motivate the naturalist to try and disprove naturalism.

"It’s not that anyone is hoping there isn’t an afterlife in any form whatsoever, it is that is completely pointless to hope for something that will not happen."

You say this as if you are certain. Do you really think it's a certainty that naturalism is true? That there's not even an infinitesimal chance it's false? I don't think most naturalists I've interacted with would defend that.

"Blind hope based on subjective comfort keeps people from moving on with their lives and can be directly harmful to life."

On naturalism, why would moving on with life matter? You will die and lose everything. And temporary living doesn't seem to satisfy- I wonder, for example, how many people would bother writing a lengthy autobiography if the manuscript were to be immediately thrown away upon finishing it and the person's memory were to be wipes of its contents.

"Hoping that an ex partner will take me back will prevent me from moving on and finding the relationship I am meant to be in. Hoping that I will be fine by walking into traffic blind will not make me live longer."

Such examples don't match up, since these are not matters of life and death, and serve some benefit (albeit temporary) to believe as mentioned above.

I'm still left wondering:

1.) Do you agree there's good reason to hope it's not true?

2.) Do you want to live? If so, isn't fighting to live worth it?

No, I don’t believe that naturalism must be true. My argument is about hope based on comfort alone and how it’s ridiculous to push that onto naturalists as if you know better when you don’t understand what they believe. This argument has shifted in so many directions from the basis of the OP. I’ll be bold and say it seems clear that you aren’t arguing to find a truth or to understand others

“Why would moving on with life matter when you will die and lose everything?” I already addressed this. If you think it’s a waste, then you are once again operating on blind hope and comfort and ignoring what others find value and beauty in

“These are not life or death” I take strong issue with someone hoping for years despite all contrary evidence that an ex will take them back, that an abuser will stop abusing, that a job will magically appear when I need it. That is all needless pain or passivity all in the service of hope. Tell this to the guys who still hope an ex will come back even after they’ve married someone else. You do not argue temporary coping, you argue for a perpetual mechanism to go through life and for everyone else to take it into consideration

If you still wonder those questions, then I don’t think you understand my point, so I’ll spell it out. Do I want an afterlife? Yes. Do I want to never again feel physical or emotional pain in my entire life? Yes. Do I want to end all suffering in the world? Yes. Do I want the ability to time travel and change things in my life? Yes. Were there many things I wanted for myself and for others as a kid that I later learned could not happen bc life doesn’t work that way? Yes. What do any of those wants get me? Nothing. We operate in reality, not fantasy. We grow up from being naive children because maturity is an admirable trait. This is the world, regardless of what we hope for in our heads, regardless of what we find comfortable

If you want to ask a direct answer to understand my view, go ahead. If we are just going to keep arguing Pascal and returning to points already addressed, then I’m gonna bid farewell. It’s been a pleasure

>while not self-contradictory on its face, you yourself have not developed any reason to think this is true in any possible world.

Some more grasping at straws and more evidence that you're being far more generous if it comes to how you hold on tight to your own views to such an extent that it makes you unable to adopt the views of others, be it even just as a hypothetical.

>It's certainly not a given and neither is your statement.

Doesn't have to be a given it just has to be hypothetically possible and if it hasn't been falsified or if it is unfalsifiable or contradictory it's logically possible. Anything else again is purely distraction.

>since there is no reason given here to think it's actually possible in a given world and compatible with reality.

It doesn't have to be actually possible. I think your God in actuality is (at least very close to if not completely) impossible but theism still allows for objective meaning based on their statement that a personal God exists and gives people objective meaning. Logical possibility is all that matters for this to hold truth value. (which I already explained when I said "In the first statement it does not matter whether God truly exists, or why God exists, or why he has given us objective meaning, or how God has given us objective meaning." but which you ignored.

and as such:

>You seem to take it that it's a foregone conclusion and compatible with reality, while I've expressed there seems to be good reasons to think that's not clear.

No, this is a strawman fallacy and this is not about what we think is compatible with reality or not. This is about whether naturalism can include objective meaning or not, not about whether you (or I for that matter) accept objective meaning under naturalism. Your beliefs on the possibility of such an objective meaning being able to exist under naturalism in any way are irrelevant, again.

I could potentially reject objective meaning under naturalism in the same manner that I reject your God belief and the supernatural but this does not change that naturalism is not antithetical toward objective meaning (as long as it's natural) just as it doesn't change that theism isn't antithetical toward (God given) objective meaning.

"Harry Potter fought a dragon using magic and won"

Is Harry Potter real? Probably not we know he's fictional and therefore doesn't exist beyond the imaginary. Can he then in actuality have fought a dragon and won? Probably not as again he's imaginary. Is there any logical contradiction in the statement that Harry Potter fought a dragon and won? No! Then the Harry Potter Universe allows for wizards to fight dragons and win. Doesn't matter if the Harry Potter Universe exists or can in actuality exist, or if Harry Potter exists, or if dragons are real, or if magic is real, or how whether you can or if you are willing to explain how magic works or how it can defeat a dragon. As long as you can't falsify that statement the Harry Potter Universe allows for it, just as naturalism allows for objective purpose (as long as it's natural and unfalsified).

You already admitted that there's no logical contradiction so even if it was complete fictional hogwash and impossible in any world apart from the imaginary world inside our heads (which it could be) that still wouldn't save you (as long as you can't falsify it). Again, the logical consistency is not something you can get around.

But you keep straw-manning and desperately keep trying to force me into a position I do not necessarily hold, as you know very well that if I would take that position some of your arguments would be valid. That's not my argument however and metaphysical possibility holds no relevance here.

​

>since your last statement is completely incompatible with naturalism, as naturalism doesn't allow for the actual independent existence of non-physical abstract objects like numbers.

lol. If anything illustrates the whole point of the matter it's this. I'm not locked into naturalism so I can look at other people's views and see whether they are contradictory. Locked into your self-imposed theistic prison you can do nothing but accept (even as hypothetical) only the views which align with theism.

>but at least the theist is developing an argument.

So did I, I gave and alluded to several even. You ignoring it because it's not convenient to your existing beliefs or because it doesn't go in the direction you want it to go doesn't make it not an argument.

>The problem is that you're conflating the boat discussion with the objective purpose discussion- they are distinct.

lol sure if this acrobatic jugglery you performed here wasn't merely mental you'd be all wrapped up in a knot right now.

>Except that you are insistent on attacking the veracity of theism

No, YOU are attacking the veracity of your own theism if you're using arguments against naturalistic propositions which would be just as relevant if it comes to your own God belief. It could be so easy to just stop and think for a second before you utter your critiques and see if it doesn't also apply to something you already believe in (or even more so apply lol). But then luckily for you those arguments are pretty bad and don't falsify anything but it still makes way for a strong case of cognitive dissonance.

As you've repeatedly shown yourself to be unable to show honesty to yourself, your own views as well as showing honesty to others further debate seems futile. I unfortunately don't possess enough faith to believe you're not purposefully being obtuse at this point. Good luck to you and hopefully you'll make it out of your prison some day.

"No, I don’t believe that naturalism must be true. [...] Do I want an afterlife? Yes."

That means you believe there is a chance that perma-death might not be the end of everything you love and that you'd prefer it. Why not take hold of that and investigate it with every second you have left to spend? There is nothing you will gain by clinging to (or turning a blind eye to) naturalism that you won't lose eventually.

"If you think it’s a waste, then you are once again operating on blind hope and comfort"

I think it's a waste in the same way the trashed manuscript would be a waste. I wonder what you think about that analogy I gave?

"I take strong issue with someone hoping for years despite all contrary evidence that an ex will take them back, that an abuser will stop abusing, that a job will magically appear when I need it. That is all needless pain or passivity all in the service of hope."

I don't think that's what they should believe and I didn't say they should. You spent a lot of time talking about accepting hard truths, and I agree that this usually makes sense. In fact, I said believing that things won't get better at times provides a beneficial (but temporary) tradeoff. However, this is not the case with naturalism and perma-death, since there's nothing you will gain by believing it that won't be lost forever when you die. Again, this is like sitting down and waiting to die on the boat- any sense of virtue gained by doing so will matter little when the boat sinks and no one is left to care.

"I’m gonna bid farewell. It’s been a pleasure"

Despite our hearty disagreement, I've enjoyed having your input.

You seem to ask me about this personally, so I’ll answer personally. I am agnostic. I can be wrong, but I have already investigated claims of theism and life after death, and found no reason to believe and no reason to think there is a way to definitively say one way or the other. Occam’s Razor is that reality is the way it appears to be unless there is definitive proof, and I do not consider hundreds of religions and sects with contradictory end games as proof. Why would I waste more time on that instead of living my life as best as I can? I do not need a god to tell me to help those around me and to do good

As for the reality of loss via naturalism, that is just how life is. Life has loss and I find it immature to think it’s bad to accept that life has gifts and losses. I won’t live in a fantasy just bc it more comfortable than real life

Yes to trash a manuscript is a waste. That has nothing to do with believing in an afterlife though. Your example is a deliberate trashing that reveals your presumption, not the inevitable degradation of paper over hundreds of years or the unfortunate reality that there are destructive people or accidents that happen that destroy things dear to us. We are not meant to be naive children anymore

It is not waiting to die, it is about living my life without wasting time speculating about something that seems impossible to prove. Nihilism and blind faith are waiting to die, and I am neither. If an after life exists, then I will learn that when I get there. If I live as good of a life as I can for myself, my friends, my family, my community, my world including the people and cultures I haven’t met, and that still isn’t enough for me to not be sent to hell, then I am comfortable calling the god that made it that way evil bc then the afterlife is no longer for the virtuous, it is merely a nepotistic vip club

>This gets back to P2: a worldview that entails infinite positive utility is preferable to a worldview that entails losing out on that

The distinction is still muddled. Worldviews are beliefs, and mere beliefs can't have an infinite impact on utility. Actual states of the world can. Pick one of these two:

P2a: An actual state of the world that entails having infinite utility is preferable to an actual state of the world that entails not having it.

P2b: A worldview that commits us to the belief that we will have infinite utility is preferable to a worldview that commits us to the belief that we will not have it.

P2a works with the first set of premises I proposed, since all are about actual states of the world, and P2b works with the second, since all are about beliefs.

The issue with the first set still stands; P2a taken with P3 and P4 don't support P5 since one's beliefs have no relation to whether or not they get infinite utility.

You want to insist that one's beliefs do impact the finite utility they get on Earth. Therefore you should adopt the second version of the argument and stop combining it with the first. You're running together two different lines of thought, and this makes the logic of your argument unsound.

>I would be very interested to hear your thoughts in terms of this analogy

In the case of the boat, the best outcome (survival) requires both that there really exists a means of escape and that a person is motivated to search for that means. In the case of the naturalism debate, the best outcome (infinite utility) only depends on the state of the world, and not on what we are motivated to do or believe.

For the situation to really be analogous, assume that whether or not the passengers can be saved is independent of whether they're motivated to search for an escape. In that case, the similarity you might draw between the boat and naturalism is that in both cases, believing that one will enjoy the best outcome gives finitely higher utility than not believing.

Then the naturalist would give the same response to the boat case as to the case of naturalism. They could possibly deny any of your premises.

>to me it seems like a sort of coping mechanism

To call it this would presuppose that there actually existed an issue that was scary or depressing enough to be coped about, and this is exactly the presupposition that naturalists challenge.

In any case, the important thing to focus on is not why naturalists are giving the arguments they do, but whether these arguments are logically sound. Most acclaimed arguments for objective morality and for meaning in life make no appeal to any non-natural entities. You can make a post on r/askphilosophy if you want some pointers to them. I frequent that sub and see that you've already started a discussion there, so check out the sources that were given to you.

>the very thing naturalists often accuse theists of

What I've seen theists being accused of is having a set of views that are false; whether they are using those views to "cope" is besides the point. According to some naturalists, theists perceive a problem that isn't actually there (ex. that lack of meaning in life, or having only subjective meaning, is somehow terrible), propose a solution that actually isn't necessary (or isn't sufficient) for solving said issue even if the issue existed (ex. seeking objective meaning from god), and bundle with it a bunch of adjacent positions that are implausible (ex. divine command theory).

Finally, I'll say that on the question of whether a naturalist world makes life empty, most people defer heavily to their intuitions. But intuitions aren't infallible, and they aren't all the tools we have for reasoning.

To your point: "I have already investigated claims of theism and life after death [...] Why would I waste more time on that instead of living my life as best as I can?"

Because so long as it's possible that naturalism is false, then it is possible that such investigation may have eternally beneficial consequences. Compared to the infinite loss naturalism offers, the journey of seeking to disprove naturalism is worth the potential gain.

"As for the reality of loss via naturalism, that is just how life is."

Unless naturalism is false, which you admit is possible. As I keep saying, that's worth investigating due to it's eternal benefit.

"I won’t live in a fantasy just bc it more comfortable than real life"

As I said before, no one is asking you to live in a fantasy or believe what you don't have reason to believe. I'm saying you should have strong motivation to investigate and disprove your naturalism.

"Yes to trash a manuscript is a waste."

Then, analogously, everything we endeavor to accomplish on naturalism is a waste. Like the manuscript, our lives will be thrown away, destroyed, and no memory will eventually remain of our actions.

"It is not waiting to die, it is about living my life without wasting time speculating about something that seems impossible to prove."

If you think the manuscript being thrown away is a waste, then so is your time "living your life" on naturalism anyway. And it's not so impossible to prove. At least on the Christian side of things, for example, there exists 2000 years worth of an intellectual tradition answering and discussing such things. Now you may not find it convincing currently, but there's probably a great deal there you aren't fully aware of and many great people have found such arguments of natural theology convincing. All an example just to say that it's not as impossible and opaque as you make it sound. Philosophy allows us to consider such things and make convincing cases. Given that you want there to be an afterlife, that you think it's possible, and that your thinking on the manuscript reveals our lives will be a waste on naturalism, I see no reason not to dig into it. Or anything besides naturalism for that matter.

"If an after life exists, then I will learn that when I get there. If I live as good of a life as I can for myself, my friends, my family, my community, my world including the people and cultures I haven’t met, and that still isn’t enough for me to not be sent to hell, then I am comfortable calling the god that made it that way evil"

For one, if naturalism is true, there is no such thing as objective evil. Evil is simply whatever humans designate distasteful, unacceptable, or not-liked (i.e. it becomes subjective, human-dependent). So I don't know why you make such strong moral condemnation when you have no objective moral foundation to stand on and call anything evil. It's just your opinion at best.

Secondly, if God exists, then pragmatically speaking, all bets are off. At that time, all that matters is that it would have been better to have sought understanding of God and understood the situation you are in instead of having clinged to naturalism, since God is going to have the say on what happens thereafter.

I am not explaining my beliefs further to you. Your inability to listen to my experiences out of your constant need to proselytize, going as far as to bring up the completely irrelevant topic of objective evil as every proselytizer does, is offensive. You aren’t listening to me at all. You completely disregard my view at how there is beauty even in something that isn’t eternal. You completely disregard how I am more than comfortable living as I am, having wasted years on that search anyway when you think I should spend my whole life doing it. How arrogant of you to think I didn’t do enough research, that I should dedicate the rest of my life to finding your faith instead of being a good person in the world. If I live a virtuous life doing good to the people around me, and you believe I will go to hell simply bc I did not pray to your God in your specific way instead of some other one, then I will reiterate:

I am interested in being a good virtuous person, not in joining your nepotistic vip club

The fact that agnosticism and science are open to possibilities does not give credence to your unfalsifiable belief. This is not us having doubts about whether or not to have faith, it is a feature that lets us investigate if we're wrong, unlike you

You do not need to convince me to live a fulfilling worthwhile wasteless life through theism bc I already do with my agnosticism. You waste your breath the more you repeat that point

My only loss is if I am going to hell despite being a good person in which I am thankful for not falling prey to an evil god who is more interested in worship than in humankind being good

If you think me living a good life isn’t good enough for your God, then go proselytize somewhere else. I have no desire to hear you talk at me about what you think I should feel instead of listening to what I say

So many words and yet you still have not developed any reason to think your claim is true in any possible world.

"Some more grasping at straws and more evidence that you're being far more generous if it comes to how you hold on tight to your own views to such an extent that it makes you unable to adopt the views of others, be it even just as a hypothetical."

A hypothetical can be conceived of, evaluated, and still judged as false.

"Doesn't have to be a given it just has to be hypothetically possible and if it hasn't been falsified or if it is unfalsifiable it's logically possible. Anything else again is purely distraction."

We already went over this. Logical possibility does not imply something is metaphysically possible. You have to understand the basics before you dive into something you don't understand and look foolish.

"It doesn't have to be actually possible."

If it's not metaphysically possible, then there is no possible world where objective purpose exists on naturalism.

"I think your God in actuality is (at least very close to if not completely) impossible but theism still allows for objective meaning based on their statement that a personal God exists and gives people objective meaning. Logical possibility is all that matters for this to hold truth hold truth value."

I was already explicit about this too. Theists don't defend the idea that because God allowing for objective meaning is logically possible, it's possible in some world. They would go on to defend why it's possible in some world and give an account on how that works. If an atheist were to refute this defense, we would be left with no reason to think what is logically possible is actual. That's how this works.

"I could potentially reject objective meaning under naturalism in the same manner that I reject your God belief and the supernatural but this does not change that naturalism is not antithetical toward objective meaning (as long as it's natural)"

If you reject it, then you supposedly have a reason why you reject it (i.e. you find it to be untenable). This would mean you find it to be incompatible with reality and therefore at least not metaphysically possible. Since you're a self-proclaimed agnostic about objective purpose on naturalism, you don't reject it, but you neither accept it. I am not agnostic about the matter- I do reject it for reasons I have expressed. An argument in defense of objective purpose existing on naturalism not forthcoming, I have no reason to believe it's metaphysically possible.

This next example is where your thinking really exposes itself:

"Is Harry Potter real?"

If by real, we mean actually attains in this world, then no, agreed.

"Can he then in actuality have fought a dragon and won? Probably not as again he's imaginary."

He in actuality does not exist, so again, I agree- no.

"Is there any logical contradiction in the statement that Harry Potter fought a dragon and won? No!"

So far so good.

"Then the Harry Potter Universe allows for wizards to fight dragons and win."

No, not on that basis at all! This is where you go wrong every time. While there's nothing inherent to the statement that is self-contradictory, there's no defense given for why we should think such a thing is a coherent description of a possible world. For example, is magic in contradiction with the natural laws of that world? Are such things in the HP universe in contradiction to one another? Now- maybe it is a metaphysically possible world and a description of that world wouldn't contradict itself (I think it's likely the case), but that can't just be assumed. It must be explained and developed why we should think so, because it's not obvious.

"You already admitted that there's no logical contradiction so even if it was complete fictional hogwash and impossible in any world apart from the imaginary world inside our heads (which it could be) that still wouldn't save you (as long as you can't falsify it)."

You're displaying your lack of understanding in full fledge. If it's not possible in any world, then there's no description of any world where that statement is true, including this world. That just is what it means to refute the possibility of objective purpose on naturalism to be real or actual.

"I'm not locked into naturalism so I can look at other people's views and see whether they are contradictory."

Yes, like you'd be able to look at the monism you appealed to and see that it is contradictory to naturalism. Not very helpful to your argument.

"Locked into your self-imposed theistic prison you can do nothing but accept (even as hypothetical) only the views which align with theism."

I can't imagine why you think that, since the whole point of my post is to evaluate naturalism (something I don't believe, yet regard as metaphysically possible) and then make considerations about the implications of that worldview. You're just making yourself look silly at this point flinging about accusations.

"So did I, I gave and alluded to several even."

Linking other people's arguments is not making an argument nor is it showing anything. I already said I'd be interested to read such things, but I deny that you've made, shown, or defended any claim of value in this conversation regarding objective purpose on naturalism. You've only given me reason to think you are an amateur at this. Especially given your reaction to my comments; only people who are knocked off-balance get mad like you are now.

"No, YOU are attacking the veracity of your own theism if you're using arguments against naturalistic propositions which would be just as relevant if it comes to your own God belief."

Oh look, a "no u!" in the wild lol. Anyway, the theist actually defends their worldview by attempting to develop arguments, which you have still failed to do. It's probably for the better at this rate too. Leave it to the people you linked instead.

You say: "I am not explaining my beliefs further to you" yet you clearly can't let go of this conversation.

"You completely disregard my view at how there is beauty even in something that isn’t eternal."

Yes, because (as you agree with the manuscript example) temporary things are lost forever on naturalism.

"You completely disregard how I am more than comfortable living as I am, having wasted years on that search anyway when you think I should spend my whole life doing it."

Yes, because I am intentionally here to spur people who have chosen to die away from that choice. I do think life is worth spending every moment searching for.

"How arrogant of you to think I didn’t do enough research, that I should dedicate the rest of my life to finding your faith instead of being a good person in the world."

Unless you are omniscient, there is always more to learn. I doubt you know everything there is to know about every non-naturalistic view. I never said you should dedicate the rest of your life to finding my faith (Christianity) though you're very welcome to. And I never said you shouldn't be a good person- be a good person. Though that will be difficult on naturalism because there is no such thing as objective moral good on naturalism any more than there is such thing as objective evil.

"You do not need to convince me to live a fulfilling worthwhile wasteless life through theism bc I already do with my agnosticism."

There is no such thing as an objective purpose on naturalism, therefore there is no way to fulfill anything in your life in any real meaningful way as there never was any real point to it. There is no such thing as a wasteless life on naturalism, since it will all be destroyed. On naturalism, we are simply the byproducts of biology, accidents of natural forces, and orphans in the universe. There really is nothing more to it, and nothing noble about what you describe.

"My only loss is if I am going to hell despite being a good person in which I am thankful for not falling prey to an evil god who is more interested in worship than in humankind being good"

Again, there is no such thing as a good person or evil God on your worldview in any objective sense. All you're saying is something like "I'm glad I did what was enjoyable in my own eyes; I don't like God!" This post has revealed what is only confirmatory of my suspicions: naturalists are more in love with their own throne, their own temporary power over this life than Life itself. People like you choose eternal death.

[removed]

[removed]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.