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

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.

[removed]

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

Thanks.

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.

More precisely, the “illusory “ clause is false.

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.

"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.

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!

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.

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

Your opinion does not contribute to a rational argument.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

> 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.

>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..

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.

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.

>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.

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."