Yes. In the very least, it sets out to build a useful model of reality. If that model is shown to be consistent with reality, I would say it does expose a “truth” of reality.
2) Are you a philosophical materialist or a philosophical naturalist? Do you think these viewpoints are rational?
You are really hung up on -isms. Especially philosophical viewpoints. The moment you start talking about them I can see you eagerly writhing your hands to set up a strawman. You’re probably going to claim I believe in some part of the -ism I’m not aware of so you can claim I believe in that. But anyway…
From what I know about those isms (I’m no philosophy doc), I’d say both and yes.
(We’re going down the road of “particles are thoughts” again, aren’t we?)
Nah, we are going down the road of what philosophical naturalism and materialism entails… no free will, no first-person agent or self, consciousness is an illusion constructed by the memes, you can not take consciousness seriously, ultimate responsibility does not exist etc. But hey, you think it is rational… to each his own.
Just read what you wrote again and try and figure out how it fits in with the “psychological hedge” employed by philosophical naturalists and materialists.
It's re-assuring yourself the irrational is compatible with the rational in a form of cognitive dissonance, so that you don't have to face the fact that one is true, and the other is not. Even if they are, in theory, if you specify the irrational idea as not quite being what you were taught, compatible. Or at least morphing the irrational idea until it's compatible. I'm not talking about a logical entailment that helps the outcome, just a level of comfort one seeks wrt to the irrational idea. And telling yourself it's compatible with science is a very handy thing to do in your mind to stop you from questioning it too much.
You have not specified which idea(s) you think are irrational. Uncomfortable to deal with maybe (I might not actually have free will), and hence I don’t see that they comfort as much as trying to expose truths.
I’m not about precluding an idea just because I don’t like it’s entailments. But you seem fine with it.
I can probably live if someone tells me it is the truth that I don’t have free will, of course then I could choose not to believe him… :P. Of course free will is not the only issue, why are you stuck on just free will?
Ah, now I know why you asked that silly question, you must think no free will, no first-person agent or self, consciousness is an illusion constructed by the memes, you can not take consciousness seriously, ultimate responsibility does not exist etc. are somehow rational and then couldn’t figure out why I think PN and PM are obviously irrational. If that is not the case and you read and comprehended what I said, why did you ask that silly question? Don’t tell me I am evading questions if you can’t read or comprehend what I am saying ::).