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."

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.

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 someone who didn’t love Under the Net - The Sea, The Sea and A Severed Head are some of my favorite books of all time. I would recommend giving her another go.

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?

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..

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.

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

> 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.

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."

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.

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?

>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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

The Black Prince is my favorite. But I like the rest of them as well.

> 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.

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.

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.

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..

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.