Interesting video against naturalism

[bippy123]

This is from a theists c evolutionist

https://youtu.be/vpQ1-AGPysM

[hughfarey]

What fun, and not without reason. It only stumbles once, but that stumble rather invalidates the video's claim to be "against" naturalism. Having established that naturalism is a philosophy evolved within the human brain as an aid to 'survival', the video claims firstly that this does not make naturalism necessarily true, which is fine, but then, at 5:53, says that this is the same as saying that naturalism is false. And that's not logical at all. This is what it says:

"If naturalism is true, knowledge and beliefs are for surviving, so the belief in naturalism is not true but for surviving."

And that's nonsense. A naturalistic view of the world could be both true and for surviving.

[Kurieuo]

What fun, and not without reason. It only stumbles once, but that stumble rather invalidates the video's claim to be "against" naturalism. Having established that naturalism is a philosophy evolved within the human brain as an aid to 'survival', the video claims firstly that this does not make naturalism necessarily true, which is fine, but then, at 5:53, says that this is the same as saying that naturalism is false. And that's not logical at all. This is what it says:

"If naturalism is true, knowledge and beliefs are for surviving, so the belief in naturalism is not true but for surviving."

And that's nonsense. A naturalistic view of the world could be both true and for surviving.

It pays to listen through to the conclusion, 10 mins in:

• "It obviously doesn't demonstrate that naturalism is false, nor does it prove theism. What it does show, is if an individual starts with the belief that naturalism is true, then they also have to accept their beliefs came around by natural processes, which are aimed at creating useful models for surviving. Therefore the belief in naturalism is just a useful model as well. And thus the belief in naturalism defeats itself.
  
  Truth is unattainable, in fact, meaningless to speak of. If reason is not grounded in reason, but physical blind processes, then reason itself is lost. And the very process of reasoning to naturalism, or materialism, is just as meaningless and defeats itself, since this would be to assume that reasoning to truth works."

[hughfarey]

The belief in naturalism is just a useful model as well. And thus the belief in naturalism defeats itself.

You don't have to wait until the end to read this conclusion, or the circular diagram which accompanies it. However the word "thus" is wholly unjustified. Certainly human conclusions and beliefs derive from nature, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong. The phrase "defeats itself" is merely glib. The whole video has a clever idea which unfortunately it drives too far. Certainly all our ideas and beliefs are derived from our environment, and may be (indeed, almost certainly are) useful in the furtherance of our species. It is also true that we cannot be sure that our experiences, and the conclusions we derive from them, are accurate representations of reality. However that doesn't mean that they are not accurate representations of reality, just that we can't be sure whether they are or not.

Truth is unattainable, in fact, meaningless to speak of.

This is merely glib. Without a very clear definition of truth, the statement could mean anything. A working model of the universe may or may not represent "truth". I think it 'true' that the sky is blue, even though I know 'blueness' is a construct of my brain, and even that it may be different from the construct of your brain that you call 'blueness'.

If reason is not grounded in reason, but physical blind processes, then reason itself is lost.

This doesn't mean anything at all.

And the very process of reasoning to naturalism, or materialism, is just as meaningless and defeats itself, since this would be to assume that reasoning to truth works.

Sounds good, but it's just words. Reasoning to naturalism defeats itself? How? In what way am I "defeated"?

The unspoken theme behind the whole video is, of course, that if our minds have been affected by something superior and beyond naturalism, then our view of the universe is 'really true' as opposed to being 'only reasonably true'. However, no evidence for this is presented at all, nor is it obvious what the difference to us would be. Perhaps there is a follow-up video.