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.

>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..?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

> 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.

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.

>>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..

>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.

>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.

"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.

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.

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

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?

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'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.

[removed]

>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.

> 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.

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.

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

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.