It's pretty simple. There have always been optimists, and cynicism has always been popular.

>There mat be so little it may well be 0.

I’m sorry, but that’s a fundamentally unserious view.

With some of the greatest wealth disparity the world has ever seen, with more people enslaved than ever and we're a minute and a half from doomsday, sounds like you make a compelling argument there.

Agree utterly and hope you fathom the weight of your words. Positivity is the trap of the maniacal.

How fast are those going to make it to production? How cost prohibitive is it going to be? Is it going to cure the cancers caused by the ever increasing plastic/heavy metal/pfos content in our food chain? Like, yay, I hope there continues to be advances medically, as it's our only hope to ride out the hellscape, but our national lifespan continues to plummet downwards.

[deleted]

But is it usually unhealthy to use too much pepper as opposed to salt?

Pessimism and optimism are both just a more specific way to describe delusion or fallible predictions. Neither are a virtue, and once one becomes aware they are exhibiting either the only rational action is to course correct towards a more accurate model of reality.

That doesn't sound like pessimism, rather than the fruits of skepticism/criticism.

>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.

Where are the conservation efforts? There are so little it may as well be 0. As far as what optimism means, it kind of is denial:

op·ti·mism /ˈäptəˌmiz(ə)m/ noun 1. hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something.

PHILOSOPHY the doctrine, especially as set forth by Leibniz, that this world is the best of all possible worlds.

If we stopped all unnecessary consumption today and all efforts went to remediation of the damage already done, it still won't be enough to fix the world. We have finite resources and there isn't a global will to do anything differently. We've blown past every warning light and marker with thoughts and prayers.

[removed]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I know several Iraq vets already, I should be fine sweetie.

Carbon capture and free energy won’t save us, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be invested in. It’s a fine line in that they’re both essential and deserve heavy investment, but shouldn’t be used as an excuse to neglect conservation efforts.

Optimism doesn’t mean being in denial about the challenges we face.

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

[deleted]

Martin Luther, I’d argue. The article argues that pessimism is often caricatured, but in reality it represents the ability to face the negative things in life.

Luther held a very bleak view of the Catholic Church. He challenged common opinions and brought the Church’s intentions and behaviors to light.

This was on my mind last night. Thank you so much for sharing. I'll give it a read and then share my thoughts.

Bro of all the times to post this, maybe not while we are curing a new type cancer almost weekly.

Optimists have ground to stand on, considering this is most peaceful, progressive time in human history.

"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.

The article does a bad job of define terms before using ones that no average reader would use. The article isn’t unhelpful but it’s a bad jumping off point.

Lol. It's easier to con a man than to convince him he's been conned. Sounds like you've latched on to the weird ideology as you want to trust Amazon. It takes being a weird fanatic to bring change, keep being an experienced consumer tho. That's dope.