Naturalism Is Implausible

[kerrin]

Simple argument using 'rational inference':

Barack Obama is a homosapien
All homosapiens are mortal
(rational inference is needed to reach the conclusion)
Therefore, given P1 and P2 are true, Obama is mortal


Argument using 'rational inference' to show Naturalism is implausible:


If Naturalism is plausible, then logical laws either do not exist or are irrelevant to the formation of beliefs
Logical laws are relevant to the formation of beliefs. (Implied by the existence of 'rational inference')
Therefore, Naturalism is implausible


Naturalism must account for 'rational inference' to disprove this argument, but it cannot. The law of 'rational inference' is used to form the belief of Naturalism.

[John Scott]

If Naturalism is plausible, then logical laws either do not exist or are irrelevant to the formation of beliefs

I fail to see the specific implied relationship between logic and naturalism... I don't follow.

[kerrin]

If the laws of logic can be explained by natural or physical means, then there is no real 'rational inference' (aka "claim of inference").
The so-called “claim of inference” would only be mechanistic and non-purposive if explained by physical means. Therefore the claim of inference is not possible in a naturalistic/physicalist world. Naturalism uses the claim of inference to make its argument.

Does that make sense?