What worries me though is that what happens in the afterlife is (I presume) a binary situation, so for me at least it IS all about the destination rather than the journey, especially since that destination will apply for eternity.
Well first off I'm a Catholic so I believe in purgatory as well. So that takes a little bit of pressure off the binary, though if you're talking with more Protestant Christians you'll definitely see the binary choice.
Personally, I think it's more about searching for truth and finding God, in whatever form He may be. Maybe He's the God of Christianity, maybe He's Allah, maybe he's several polytheistic gods, maybe he's pantheistic, maybe you don't find God per se
, but you find His peace and love through a well-formed conscience and turn towards Him without even knowing it.
Though I'm not asking you to agree with me, and if I'm wrong then I'm probably fucked. It's ultimately up to you to figure out how much emphasis you're going to place on divine dice vs. just trying to live the best life you can and hoping for the best.
What also concerns me is that to find that god, I need to establish how I will know him when I see him - and not unluckily or unhappily accept a false god, or demon.
As an agnostic theist, I can't give you too much help here. I think there are many ways to see God and that you know Him by the fruits He bears, but as far as drawing a sketch for you, you'll have to find someone else.
I'm agreeing with you that naturalism may not be right, may not in fact produce correct results. It does however produce consistent and predictable results, and (like I said) I am therefore happy to use it until a more reliable or useful system is revealed to me.
I'd argue that it's not so much naturalism as it is scientific empiricism that produces what appear to be consistent and predictable results. You can transplant science into a philosophy that accepts the observable reality (natural) and also allows for the existence of an unobservable reality (supernatural). Such a philosophy would still produce the consistent results of science, but would not be naturalism.
Somehow naturalists seem to make the leap from a tool's existence to a tool's supremacy: they go from "science can investigate the natural" to "the natural is all that exists" without any real justification. There's a big difference between, "At least the natural exists" and "The natural is all that exists," yet at least the naturalists here seem to be conflating the two.
Again, it's fine if you want to accept naturalism for yourself, but I was asked why I personally found naturalism "unpalatable." It's just not for me. You're perfectly within your rights to continue to be a naturalist, but I'm also within my rights to not be convinced, especially if I can identify no real justification to adopt naturalism.
Naturalism is the basic concept that things happen, based on observation, without the need for supernatural entities there is no evidence for.
And its foundation is the kind of observation that starts with the foundation at levels of "if you drop something it falls" I.e. the level of observation that even the lowest of animals operate on, is the basic foundation.
The problem is that the reliability of "if you drop something it falls" is not so self-evident as to be beyond question. You may think that it is, but were it actually self-evident it would not have been a central question of philosophy for the past 2,500 years. If it were self-evident, we would not have philosophers such as Pyrrho, Al-Ghazali, Descartes, Hume, Nietzsche, Heidegger, or the founders of Jainism. If it were self-evident, then several problems relating to the validity of observation would not be listed on Wiki's list of unsolved problems in philosophy.Wiki
Thus, the validity of observation is clearly not beyond question.
You provide a method of using observation which cannot be the foundation for naturalism in order to defeat the idea that observation is the foundation for naturalism. In your mind, this makes naturalism self defeating. This is false however as the scientific method of using observation is actually the foundation for naturalism.
I believe I addressed the scientific method as having the same problem in a prior post. How does having a method of observation validate observation?
Ironically, if you were actually able to prove that naturalism is self defeating, you would prove that everything is, including our own thoughts and any philosophy (including your own gestalt conclusions).
No, this is not accurate.
Is it possible to think without ever knowing the experience of observation?
The answer is no.
This was Decartes' claim, that one could use the observation of a thought as the foundation of reality (cogito ergo sum
.) Cogito ergo sum
does not establish naturalism, which is several layers above. It does not establish the validity of external observation, or repeated observation, or anything else. All it establishes is that there is at least one valid observation out there. It certainly doesn't validate the scientific method. Basically, the only coherent philosophy that can be synthesized from cogito ergo sum
without invoking anything else is solipsism.
This is assuming you intend to observe the thought exists, of course. Someone who starts with thought a priori may reject the question of whether that thought is validly observed as irrelevant or unworthy of consideration.
So you're saying that something is not reliable, valid, or its reliability/validity are inscrutable under our current framework can be consistent, verifiable, falsifiable and true (in the sense that it is true until it is not true)?
No, I'm simply saying that observation may not be reliable or valid.
I need proof that an observation which is consistent, verifiable, falsifiable and true (in the sense that it is true until it is not true) is also simultaneously not reliable, valid, or its reliability/validity are inscrutable under our current framework.
The existence of the bold is what's in question.
We have proof to show that it is valid.
The onus is on you to provide proof of your claim that naturalism is self defeating. Since you’ve already admitted that there is “absolutely none”, your claim fails.
I did not say this.
I apologize, my second question “Thought?” was not properly expressed. I meant to ask if thought was a foundation. Which we agree that it is used as a foundation. I however don’t believe that any variation of the human mind/reason or thought can be a foundation without observation. Please see my earlier question “Is it possible to think without ever knowing the experience of observation?”.
All three of the philosophies you mentioned have different views on the subject. Solipsists observe their own minds but nothing else; observation in general is not known to be valid, but a specific observation is taken as true. Rationalists don't consider observation as necessary, so I'd imagine whether observation is valid is inconsequential to them. Idealism is a broad area encompassing multiple different views, but in general idealists tend to accept observations but not that the observations map to any external reality.
Your question implies they're doing something that's externally verifiable as observation, which all three groups would probably reject. Each appears to have at least some notion of observation, but all in different ways and none in a way that forms any sort of foundation for naturalism.
The evidence is showing the correct method of observation and how it is valid or true.
Ok. I think you have done a good job of showing what you consider the correct method of observation, but I have yet to identify the how it is valid or true.
Is something valid until it is no longer valid? Is something true until it is no longer true? If the answer to the previous two questions is yes then how is the statement they made not accurate? If something is valid or true, then it is valid or true until it is not valid or not true. Therefore the statement is accurate.
Are you asking whether things are valid when they are valid and true when they are true? If so, then I agree.
If you would like to show how observation is not true, be my guest. This is how scientific method works.
You have not established that the scientific method is a method I should adopt.
The claim that observation is valid was presented to me by members wishing me to accept it. The burden of proof is on the persons making that claim to establish it. If they do not, I am justified in not accepting that claim. That is how discussion works.
The only reason observation is true is because no one has been able to show that it is not true.
That is a textbook example of appeal to ignorance.
What assumption am I making?
That something which is valid is simultaneously invalid or is invalid without any proof.
That is not an assumption that I am making.