Yes.

Most ideas can eventuate into something dangerous, we only really continue to learn if these ideas are not absolute and flexible to change. Basic scientific method stuff, reminds me of high school...

> Does misinterpreting it actually do anything? I don't think so.

Interesting question and it makes me wonder if I answered your first question. Probably not? Nihilism has a best case of everything is meaningless, so let's party. Assuming this is even ideal, surely there's many other ideas that lead there convincingly?

Is nihilism pragmatic to you? As in, does this make you happier? If not, flexibility might.

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.

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.

Two questions.

Is pay walled content allowed here?

Also, is it fair to accept a philosophical idea would have absolutely zero relevance or persuasiveness* for portions of the population? Say it's an idea likely catalysed by a biological urge which is then interpreted at, say, a figure who is then philosophised about?

If so, for this idea to work you would need to be biologically similar (half the population, plus or minus 4 to 15%), but also you would need to have those similar figures in your life. With fewer and fewer of these factors, the idea catalysed by these life experiences would have less effect.

Finally, could an idea become better* if it weren't so clearly personal?

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.

"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.

What do we call a facility where these 'hurricanes' can be sequestered? 'Hurricane sequestration facility' seems a mouthful. Is there a shorter word we can use? Something about six letters long, perhaps?

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.

They're young and they broke the law, i.e. are offenders. What else should they be called?

I love how this subreddit of 'philosophers' gets offended by innocuous and reasonable questions and just silently downvotes instead of offering any serious answer.

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.

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 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.

So fear then that's why you're okay with it. How many mass murdering teenagers do you think are locked up? You demand personal growth from these kids and then give them no chance at it by locking them up. Purely because you fear that they will commit more crime and have decided to write their entire life off as a failure because of it. You won't even give them the chance at rehabilitation since you admit that prison is not where you find it.

[deleted]

"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.

Depends if the philosophy is self protecting, like it proves itself true and any other thought false

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.

None. But refer back to my “protecting society“ comment… if a 15 year old has demonstrated antisocial behavior that is clearly dangerous to others, along with an abject refusal to learn anything different, there has to be a point at which that 15 year old, at least in the present moment, has to be locked up to protect society. Dunno about you, but I’m not willing to sacrifice multiple lives in the slim hope of rehabbing that one life.

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.

[removed]

>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.

"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?

Are there any real dangers from the common misconceptions of philosophies? If we continue to learn, won't it simply correct or turn into a different idea. Example: nihilism. Does misinterpreting it actually do anything? I don't think so.

[removed]

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